National Oncology Conference—Keep the Conversation Going

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Education, Healthcare Reform by ACCCBuzz on October 26, 2015
dr. peter bach

Featured speaker Peter Bach, MD, MAPP, delivers the opening presentation of the ACCC National Oncology Conference.

By Amanda Patton, ACCC, Communications

From the opening presentation by featured speaker Peter Bach, MD, MAPP, to the final sessions focused on cancer survivors and the workplace and providing survivorship services on a shoestring budget—last week’s ACCC National Oncology Conference covered challenges large and small facing cancer programs and practices across the country.

Macro challenges—occurring at the health system and population health level—are well known to the oncology community. Among these are the high cost of cancer drugs and new therapies, the transformative shift in payment from volume to value, workforce shortages, reimbursement constraints, and the many issues tied to ever-increasing demands for data collection and reporting.

Micro challenges—occurring at the service line and individual provider and patient level—range from adapting delivery infrastructures to meet the evolving treatment landscape, to determining  metrics to track and how to best to communicate these to leadership, to ensuring patient access to supportive care services that remain unreimbursed, to fostering a holistic, patient-centric culture of care.

Common themes across conference sessions and conversations: Collaboration, integration, evidence-based medicine, and value.  Five key takeaways from the conference:

Cancer programs and providers must collaborate outside the box and across the care continuum.
Attendees heard first-hand from programs that are already making this work—from implementing virtual tumor boards, to engaging primary care physicians in survivorship care, to collaborating across disciplines to provide cancer prehabilitation services, and more.

There are formal & informal operational pathways to create integrated delivery networks with stakeholders for quality patient care.
Panelists in the Advancing Quality Care session agreed: to achieve a truly integrated delivery network transparency and trust between all partners is needed.

Oncology programs are increasingly turning to dynamic dashboards to demonstrate value to payers and patients.
Solutions and tools may exist outside the oncology service line. Reach out to the data analytics team or business intelligence team within your organization. Take advantage of or adapt existing resources and tools.

From personalized medicine to immuno-oncology, cancer treatment is undergoing a transformative shift.
For both providers and the patients they serve, the value proposition presented by genomic medicine is that it allows clinicians to make better therapeutic decisions.

Patients are key stakeholders in healthcare integration efforts.
“Successful integration will depend on aligned patient-centered care, patient-focused care, and patient engagement,” said ACCC President Elect Jennie Crews, MD, in the panel discussion on Advancing Quality Care.  Panelists touched on the findings included in a new ACCC white paper released at the National Oncology Conference that outlines forward-looking essential steps to ensure quality patient care in the increasingly integrated healthcare environment.

ACCC encourages members to keep the conversation going by sharing your key conference takeaways in our members-only online community ACCCExchange.

Save the date and join us in Washington, D.C., March 2-4 for the ACCC Annual Meeting: CancerScape 2016.

National Oncology Conference: Framing Issues & Finding Answers

Posted in ACCC News, Cancer Care, Education, Healthcare Reform by ACCCBuzz on October 23, 2015
ACCC President Steven D'Amato, BSPharm, BCOP, welcomes attendees to National Oncology Conference

ACCC President Steven D’Amato, BSPharm, BCOP, welcomes attendees to National Oncology Conference

by Amanda Patton, ACCC, Communications

Featured speaker Peter Bach, MD, MAPP, addressed a packed room in the opening session of the ACCC National Oncology Conference on Oct. 22, in Portland, Oregon.  Dr. Bach is Director, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Dr. Bach’s remarks centered on four prime issues challenging oncology today: the cost of cancer drugs, the need for oncology to do a better job on comparative outcomes research, the 340B drug pricing program, and the importance of incorporating end-of-life care into cancer program services.

Finding a rational way to address drug costs matters on both the macro level [in terms of the impact of healthcare costs nationally] and on the micro level at point of care when “drugs are being left at the pharmacy counter because patients can’t afford the copay,” he said.


Conference sessions throughout the day focused on challenges and innovative solutions that can have powerful micro- and macro-level impacts on cancer programs and providers, and the patients they serve: From “how to” sessions on benchmarking salaries, applying lean principles for staffing, establishing a virtual tumor board, distress screening, and preparing for alternative payment models, and more, to a big picture session on Advancing Quality—from Oncology Medical Homes to Integrated Delivery.  One cross-cutting takeaway message: work across disciplines and siloes—think about how to collaborate outside the box and across the care continuum.

Stay tuned for more conference highlights. Follow conference on Twitter at #ACCCNOC.

Key Takeaways from NCCN Summit on Value, Access, & Cost of Cancer Care

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Education, Healthcare Reform by ACCCBuzz on September 23, 2015

By Maureen Leddy, JD, Manager, Policy and Strategic Alliances, ACCC

Java PrintingOn September 11, 2015, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened healthcare experts for a policy summit on “Value, Access, and Cost of Cancer Care.” ACCC policy staff was in attendance, along with a host of provider and patient organizations. The summit explored methods to achieve optimum cancer patient care while considering rising care costs, and NCCN’s work groups on Value, Access and Cost also reported their findings. Some key takeaways follow.

Views on Value

The discussion on value centered on appropriate measures for value from the patient, provider, and payer perspectives. Panelists generally agreed that a broader view of healthcare is necessary to assess value. This includes consideration of the continuum of care, rather than just a specific episode of care. The full cost burden of cancer care on patients must also be addressed, and may include employment, caregiver, and housing and transportation issues.

Access Issues

Panelists explored access issues, focusing on the growing demand for cancer care services and its impact on access. Health exchange plans were identified as a source of disparate care, in that enrollees choose plans based on cost and then, upon cancer diagnosis, are faced with inadequate provider networks and prescription drug coverage. The discussion also touched on recent legislation driving providers to value-based reimbursement, and projected impacts on patient access to academic cancer centers. For the employer-insured population, one panelist commented on a shift to contracts with specific hospitals for second opinion and potential treatment of specific malignancies.

Cost Control

Among potential methods for curbing costs, panelists cited caution in use of high-cost diagnostics, treatments and therapies; avoidance of hospitalizations and emergency room use; and increased emphasis on palliative and end-of-life care. The panel noted that savings in provider care costs are possible, particularly through increased care planning and patient navigator uptake.

In discussing the cost of anti-cancer therapies, panelists pointed out that oncology is unique in that there is currently maximum use of generics with little opportunity for shifting to lower-cost prescription drugs until the further introduction of biosimilars. While drug costs make up just 15% of cancer care costs, they represent the fastest rising cost in cancer care. The panel acknowledged the challenges to containing prescription drug costs, and noted that some pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are looking to employ an indication-based formula for drug pricing, reimbursing for drugs by value and differentiating claims by condition. In the context of biologics, greater approval and high usage rates of biosimilars will be important to cost containment in the coming years.

The policy team at ACCC will continue to engage in this discussion of rising cancer costs and challenges in patient access to care.

Continue the Conversation

Join ACCC in Portland, Oregon, Oct. 21-23, at the 32nd National Oncology Conference and continue the conversation in sessions that will explore issues of value, cost, and patient access to care including:

Patient Access and the Cost of Cancer Care Across Specialties
Peter B. Bach, MD, MAPP, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes,
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

What Will It Take? Must-Haves for Alternative Payment Models
Erich Mounce, MSHA, The West Clinic, PC

Palliative Care Models: Solutions for Programs of All Sizes
Moderator: Michael Kolodziej, MD, FACP, Aetna; Amy J. Berman, BS, RN, The John A. Hartford Foundation;
Sibel Blau, MD, Northwest Medical Specialties; and Brad Smith, Aspire Health

The full conference agenda and registration information is available here.


ACCC Responds to CMS on Proposed 2016 PFS Rule

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Healthcare Reform, In and Around Washington, DC by ACCCBuzz on September 16, 2015

By Leah Ralph, Manager, Provider Economics and Public Policy, ACCC

Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services_logoOn September 8th, ACCC submitted comments on CMS’ proposed 2016 Physician Fee Schedule rule. This year, the proposed PFS was released later than usual and contained a number of provisions that ACCC will be watching closely in the coming months.

Read on for a quick roundup of major provisions and ACCC recommendations to CMS:

Radiation Oncology Cuts

CMS proposes several significant changes to payment for radiation oncology procedures that would collectively result in drastic cuts for radiation oncology providers – an estimated 3% for radiation oncology and 9% for freestanding radiation therapy centers. CMS is proposing payment rates for new CPT codes that would effectively reduce Medicare reimbursement for IMRT and other radiation treatment delivery services. The agency also proposes to remove several essential direct practice expense inputs from the new radiation treatment delivery codes, including the on-boarding imaging equipment that is essential to providing safe and accurate radiation treatment. Finally, CMS proposes to adjust the equipment utilization rate assumption for the linear accelerator used in image guidance from 50% of available time to 70% of available time over two years, reducing reimbursement for services that make use of that equipment.

In our comments, ACCC expressed significant concern to CMS that these deep, simultaneous cuts in radiation oncology reimbursement will have the effect of forcing some cancer care providers, particularly those operating in rural and underserved areas, to close their doors. ACCC urges CMS to take the necessary steps to mitigate this threat, for example, by not implementing the proposed increase in the equipment utilization rate. ACCC will be monitoring this closely and stands ready to work with CMS to find ways to implement any appropriate changes over a period sufficient to allow providers to absorb the changes while not compromising access to critical radiation oncology services.

 Biosimilar Reimbursement

CMS proposes a payment methodology for biosimilar products in which all biosimilars with the same reference product would be assigned a single HCPCS code and reimbursed based on the volume-weighted average sales price (ASP) for all products under the code plus 6% of the reference product’s ASP.

ACCC asks CMS not to finalize this proposal. We expressed concern that assigning multiple biosimilar products a single HCPCS code would create new and unnecessary administrative burdens for physicians and other providers when treating patients with biosimilar products, as they would not only need to enter the HCPCS code into the medical record, as they do now, but also the specific biosimilar therapy used for the patient. Additionally, this approach could significantly impede effective tracking of safety information and other information about the patient experience with specific biosimilar products—after these enter the market. We urge CMS to promote effective tracing of safety information and to minimize administrative burdens on providers who prescribe biosimilars.

 Advance Care Planning

CMS proposes to establish payment rates for the two CPT codes adopted by the AMA CPT Editorial Panel to describe advance care planning services. ACCC strongly supports this proposal and asks that the payment rates for these services adequately reflect the cost to physicians of providing advance care planning.

As ACCC believes advance care planning services are equally important in the hospital outpatient setting, where they also take substantial time and resources and contribute significantly to the quality of patient care. In our comments to the proposed 2016 Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule, we urged CMS to pay separately for these two CPT codes in the outpatient setting as well.

Chronic Care Management

CMS recognizes that Medicare’s payment rates for the CPT codes for transitional care management (TCM) and chronic care management (CCM) do not fully account for the cognitive work that primary care physicians and other practitioners perform in managing and delivering care, particularly to chronically ill beneficiaries. CMS identifies add-on codes as one potential means of establishing payment rates that appropriately value the additional time and intensity of physicians’ cognitive work often involved in delivering care management services. ACCC encourages CMS to develop such codes, and to work with ACCC and other provider organizations to ensure that any new add-on codes are structured and valued appropriately.

ACCC also has concerns related to CMS’ proposal for chronic care management in the 2016 OPPS proposed rule. On the hospital outpatient side, CMS is proposing to permit only one hospital to bill for CCM services during a calendar month. ACCC points out to CMS that because cancer care is highly multidisciplinary, it can be difficult to agree upon who should be the designated CCM physician, and we are concerned that CMS’ rules for these services already make it very difficult for hospitals to seek payment for them. We urge CMS to continue to consult with hospitals and physicians on the best way to determine which entities should bill for these services.

“Incident To” Services

CMS proposes to require that the physician or other provider who bills for an “incident to” service must also be the physician or other provider who directly supervises the auxiliary personnel in providing that service. If CMS were to finalize this proposal, ACCC urges the agency to provide education to physicians and other providers on the revised requirement to ensure providers do not experience unwarranted disruption in billing for appropriate “incident to” services.

CMS is expected to finalize the 2016 Physician Fee Schedule rule in late October. Stay tuned, as ACCC will keep members updated as CMS revises and finalizes these important proposals.

340B Mega Guidance: What Providers Need to Know

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Healthcare Reform by ACCCBuzz on September 1, 2015

iStock_000009397000LargeBy Maureen Leddy, JD, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

On August 27, 2015, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) released the much-anticipated mega-guidance for the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The 340B program provides discounted outpatient drug pricing for specified safety-net healthcare organizations, known as covered entities. The guidance was long-requested by covered entities and drug manufacturers, both of whom seek clarity in definitions and various elements of the program. HRSA considered proposing a regulation last year, but determined it did not have rulemaking authority. Consequentially, it has now proposed guidance, which while not legally binding, does inform 340B program participants on how HRSA believes the program should operate. From the perspective of a healthcare provider seeking to avoid audit under the 340B program, HRSA’s guidance should be given significant weight.

Providers should note HRSA’s definitions of both a 340B patient and a covered entity. The guidance appears to narrow the definition of a patient, allowing 340B drug eligibility on a drug-by-drug basis, specific to the medical issue for which the patient is being treated as an outpatient at the covered entity. Previously, a covered entity could provide a patient with any necessary drugs under 340B pricing, regardless of the scope of treatment.

The guidance also proposes a new standard that a child site of a covered entity hospital must provide services with associated Medicare outpatient costs and charges, in addition to the current standard that the child site be listed on a reimbursable line of the covered entity’s Medicare cost report. HRSA also makes clear that a covered entity’s inclusion in a larger organization such as an accountable care organization, does not qualify the larger organization for the 340B program.  Finally, HRSA requests feedback on ways to demonstrate eligibility of off-site facilities.

Also notable from the provider perspective is guidance related to audit processes.  HRSA proposes a notice and hearing process for 340B audits by the agency. Covered entities found not to be in compliance may be subject to corrective action plans, and loss of eligibility in the 340B program. HRSA also tightens standards for manufacturer audits of covered entities, requiring “reasonable cause,” while failing to impose any requirement that the agency act upon manufacturer audit results.

ACCC will continue to review this 340B mega guidance leading up to the October 28, 2015 comment deadline, and welcomes member input and questions.

King v. Burwell: Federal Health Insurance Subsidies Upheld for Patients

imagesBy Maureen Leddy, JD, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

On June 25, the Supreme Court issued their decision in the highly watched King v. Burwell case, ruling that the more than 6 million people currently purchasing insurance through a federal exchange can continue to access subsidies. At issue was the legality of federal subsidies for those in states that opted not to create a state health insurance exchange. Without these subsidies, the Court felt that the insurance markets would have essentially collapsed in the 34 states with federally run marketplaces, with the majority of those accessing subsidies unable to afford coverage when faced with full premium costs and, as a result, costs rising exponentially for those remaining in the market. Specifically, the court said: “[t]he combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral.”

A different decision in King would have likely created much disruption in the marketplace for both patients and providers. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 6 million Americans might have lost subsidies, and faced an average premium increase of 287%. RAND estimated the number of insured Americans would have declined by 9.6 million. The healthy insured may have elected to discontinue coverage, leaving high-cost patients to constitute the majority of the insurance pool. Cancer patients might have been faced with paying unsubsidized and substantially increased premiums, which for some may have been unattainable.

Overturning subsidies would have also placed providers in the precarious position of caring for patients that became uninsured. The financial and ethical implications of treating newly uninsured patients are great. While providers may have chosen not to terminate patients undergoing a course of treatment regardless of a change in insurance status out of ethical obligation, the financial result would have been challenging, particularly for those community-based practices that lacked programs for low-income patients. For hospital-based providers, the financial implications would also have been great, undermining provisions in the Affordable Care Act that reduced Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Medicare payments in exchange for a substantially reduced uninsured population. In short, without current federal subsidies in place, the mechanisms for providing and funding care for millions of Americans would have needed to be revisited. With a lack of agreement in Congress on the best approach to renewed healthcare reform, providers would have faced a great deal of uncertainty.

With a 6-3 decision, Justice Roberts’ Court concluded that “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Post updated 6/26/2015

Oncology Care Model: Updates from CMS

ThinkstockPhotos-469044147By Maureen Leddy, JD, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

As the clock ticks down to the May 7 deadline for CMMI Oncology Care Model (OCM) provider Letters of Intent (LOIs), some ACCC members may still be on the fence about submitting an LOI. CMS introduced the Oncology Care Model—the agency’s first specialty-specific alternative payment model—back in February. Those physician practices selected for OCM participation will begin receiving reimbursement for chemotherapy treatment episodes of care under the Oncology Care Model in spring 2016.

Since the introduction of the OCM, ACCC members have raised numerous questions as they weigh whether to apply for participation. In general, these questions have focused on three main issues: performance benchmarking methodology, payer collaboration, and the financial feasibility of achieving the practice transformation requirements. CMS has responded to some of these concerns, but we hope the agency will continue to provide clarity as the LOI submission period closes and our members prepare final applications for the June 18 deadline. Read on for a summary of CMS’s responses on these three key issues.

Performance Benchmarking Methodology

The initial Request for Applications (RFA) from CMS generated questions about the benchmarking methodology used to calculate a provider’s baseline or target price for specific episodes of care. Providers raised concerns about outliers with extremely high costs of care. CMS has responded that it will use Winsorization, resetting the outlying episode to a specific percentile within the provider’s total average care costs. Providers also raised concerns about how an already lean practice may benefit from OCM participation, where the benchmark for performance is based on the specific practice’s past performance. CMS has responded that the baseline period will likely be a three-year period beginning in 2012. The agency believes that this will help account for any very recent practice improvements. CMS has also indicated that the baseline for the entire five-year model will remain that same three-year period, ensuring practices that quickly adopt performance targets are not penalized in later years.

Payer Collaboration

In CMS’s applicant scoring methodology, participation with other payers (i.e., in addition to Medicare) will represent 30 points out of 100, a signal that the agency highly values the expansion of the OCM beyond Medicare. CMS has announced that 48 payers have submitted LOIs, and providers have raised concerns about whether to apply if no payer will be participating in their region. CMS has indicated that while it is an advantage for provider practices to partner with other payers, it is possible for a practice to be selected to participate in the OCM with only Medicare. There have also been indications that once the list of providers submitting LOIs is made public, there may be opportunity for payers to expand their participation regions.

Financial Feasibility

ACCC members have also raised concerns about whether the $160 per beneficiary per month fee is sufficient to achieve all of the practice transformations called for in the OCM. CMS has noted that other payers are expected to provide enhanced payments, which can also be used for the infrastructure changes called for in the OCM. For patients that do not fall within the OCM, practices may also continue to bill for chronic care management and transitional care management. CMS believes that this will provide sufficient revenue to support the required infrastructure changes. However, ACCC welcomes further feedback from members.

As we enter the post-SGR era, ACCC will be working to keep members informed on alternative payment model initiatives. We are pleased to hear that several members will apply to participate in the CMMI Oncology Care Model, and will continue to provide updates on this and other relevant alternative payment models as details become available.

Questions or comments on the OCM? Contact us at or visit our Oncology Care Model Resource Center.

SGR is Over: What Does it Mean for Providers?

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Healthcare Reform, In and Around Washington, DC by ACCCBuzz on April 16, 2015

By Maureen Leddy, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

U.S. Capitol On April 14, 2015, after years of uncertainty and 17 short-term “doc fix” patches to prevent severe annual cuts to physician payments, Congress approved H.R. 2, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). This bipartisan, bicameral compromise finally puts an end to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. MACRA provides physicians with the predictability in payments needed to continue to provide high-quality cancer care, while transitioning over a 10-year period to a new dual Medicare reimbursement system.

What’s in Store?

Under MACRA physicians must eventually participate in a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or an Alternative Payment Model System. Through June 2015, MACRA calls for Medicare physician reimbursement at the rate set by last year’s “doc fix” patch. Then, for five years, through 2019, annual 0.5% increases to payment rates are established.

In 2020, a second five-year phase begins during which reimbursement rates remain flat. During this second phase, providers will need to transition to the Merit-Based or Alternative Payment Model Systems. Ultimately MACRA encourages providers to participate in Alternative Payment Model Systems through higher incentive payments; beginning in 2026, physicians will receive automatic payment updates of 0.75% if participating in an APM, and 0.25% if participating in MIPS, with an opportunity to receive additional bonus payments based on performance. Payments under the MIPS will be subject to positive or negative adjustments based on the following performance criteria:

  • quality of care
  • resource use
  • clinical practice improvement activities
  • use of electronic health records (EHR) technology.

During the second five-year phase through 2024, providers participating in an Alternative Payment Model will  be eligible for annual lump-sum bonuses equaling 5% of the prior year’s payments upon achieving specified targets in transitioning from fee-for-service payments.  Providers participating in MIPS will be eligible during this second five-year period for additional positive adjustments in rates for exceptional performance.

Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee

MACRA encourages the development of Alternative Payment Models applicable to specialties and small practices, as well as models that align private and state-based payers. The legislation calls for creation of a Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee that will recommend additional Alternative Payment Models to CMS. CMMI’s recently launched Oncology Care Model (OCM) already provides one venue for many cancer providers to participate in an Alternative Payment Model. Visit ACCC’s Oncology Care Model Resource Center for answers to providers’ questions on eligibility, reimbursement, and key considerations for participation in this new payment model, plus links to application forms and CMMI OCM materials.

Going forward, ACCC will be vigilantly monitoring the Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee recommendations for other Alternative Payment Models that may be relevant to oncology practices.

ACCC looks forward to working with our members to effectively implement the bill and transition towards a new future for physician reimbursement.

On Wednesday, April 22, ACCC is hosting a members-only conference call with presenter Dan Todd, former Senior Health Counsel, Senate Finance Committee, and a primary author of MACRA, that will provide an in-depth look at what MACRA means for oncology providers and the future of physician reimbursement. ACCC members can access call-in information here.

Stay tuned.

SGR Repeal: Are We There Yet?

Posted in ACCC News, Advocacy, Cancer Care, Healthcare Reform, In and Around Washington, DC by ACCCBuzz on April 1, 2015

U.S. Capitol By Leah Ralph, Manager, Provider Economics and Public Policy, ACCC

As ACCC members know, last week brought unprecedented momentum on an issue physicians and Congress have been struggling with for over a decade: repealing the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Just days before the current SGR “patch” expired, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, legislation that would permanently replace the SGR formula with stable Medicare payment updates and encourage physicians to increasingly participate in alternative payment models. The bill builds on last year’s bipartisan, bicameral compromise that ultimately hit roadblocks when legislators struggled to find a way to pay for it.

The Senate was expected to take up the House bill, but on March 27, the chamber recessed for two weeks, leaving a very small window to consider the bill when they return on April 13.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the bill should move “very quickly” when the chamber comes back into session, and there is “every reason” to believe the bill will pass.

Meanwhile, the current “patch” expired March 31, and CMS has indicated that it will hold claims for two weeks, or 10 business days, through April 14.

We’re in the homestretch; we’re closer to a permanent fix to the SGR than we have ever been before. But are we there yet? Not quite. Now is the time to contact your Senators, and urge them to support passage of H.R. 2, to ensure that physicians have the predictable, appropriate payments they need to continue to provide high-quality cancer care.

Stay tuned. And make your voice heard. Contact your Senators today.

Senate Postpones Decision on SGR

U.S. Capitol By Leah Ralph, Manager, Provider Economics and Public Policy, ACCC

On Thursday, March 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, legislation to permanently repeal and replace Medicare’s sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for physician reimbursement. Read a summary of the legislation here.

Unfortunately, the Senate announced late Thursday evening that they will not consider the SGR repeal bill until they return from recess on April 13, 2015.  CMS has indicated it will hold claims for two weeks, through April 14.

ACCC urges members to contact your Senators in the next two weeks and ask them to support a permanent repeal of the SGR.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers