COA Submits Formal Comments on Medicare International Pricing Proposal
* * *
- Opposes IPI as Proposed Because of Serious Concerns About Patient Impact and Legality but Working on Alternatives
- Releases Research Analysis on Myth of Physician Incentives in Part B System
* * *
* Read COA's full formal IPI Model comment letter to CMS (https://www.communityoncology.org/coa-formal-comments-on-international-pricing-index-model-for-medicare-part-b-drugs/).
COA's letter to CMS details problems and concerns with the mandatory, national, and radical IPI Model as proposed alongside a number of solutions to high drug costs and the total cost of cancer care that COA is developing as alternatives to the model. COA hopes to be able to continue working with CMS on constructing a patient-centric, value-driven, voluntary demonstration project with appropriate patient safeguards. Such projects would be enthusiastically supported and COA would help drive large-scale participation by community oncology practices across the country.
"The IPI Model as proposed is an experiment on cancer patients in the context of a mandatory, national model that COA is against for a host of reasons elaborated on in our comment letter to CMS," said
Seeking solutions, COA has been leading practices in oncology payment reform that makes cancer care more affordable, including a deep commitment and involvement in the Oncology Care Model (OCM); the ongoing development of the OCM 2.0, a next-generation, more universal oncology payment model; numerous summits and meetings with payers, employers, stakeholders, and providers; and the involvement of community practices in an incredible number of private insurance payment models and programs.
As part of the letter, COA also released a research analysis examining the myth of physician incentives in the Medicare Part B drug reimbursement system. It thoroughly debunks the false narrative that oncologists' decision-making is driven by financial factors, much of which is based on extremely outdated and/or fundamentally flawed research. In fact, a number of studies on physician prescribing under the Part B reimbursement system have been published in recent years, all of which reach dramatically differing conclusions on physician prescribing patterns.
* Read COA's research analysis "The Myth of Perverse Physician Incentives: Examining Research and Accusations in the Medicare Part B ASP Reimbursement System for Oncology" (https://www.communityoncology.org/the-myth-of-perverse-physician-incentives/).
"There is a flawed, often repeated notion that we oncologists choose treatments based on financial considerations, rather than clinical ones. This is both false and incredibly offensive to us as the front-line providers of cancer care," said
Read COA's full IPI comment letter to CMS at https://www.communityoncology.org/coa-formal-comments-on-international-pricing-index-model-for-medicare-part-b-drugs/. Read the COA research analysis on Part B prescribing at https://www.communityoncology.org/the-myth-of-perverse-physician-incentives/.
Legislation being sought to tax long-term leaseholders at Fort Monroe
Dinsmore Promotes 15 Attorneys to Partner, Partner of Counsel
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News