Dr. Schweitz agreed. “When you look at the goals of this plan, initially it appeared that it was to direct a way to save costs. But in meeting with [the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation], we were advised that this is budget neutral. … So the goal of the program is to collect information which makes it a study, a test. So if the goal is to collect information, and the patients are part of that process, they should be signing informed consent.”
Several physician organizations have called on CMS to withdraw the proposal.
“We are deeply concerned that because the new methodology will frequently not properly cover the cost of physician administration of infused drugs, they will be forced to stop offering patients the ability to receive infusion treatments,” the American College of Rheumatology wrote in comments submitted on the proposed rule. Likewise, CSRO “must oppose the Part B drug payment model as it suffers from serious procedural and substantive flaws that we believe render it unworkable – and it does nothing to actually address drug prices,” according its comments.
While the proposal has garnered backlash from several directions, rheumatologists are seeing it as particularly burdensome because of the high price of medications with very limited options to substitute for lower-cost alternatives.
“Although we certainly seek to control costs for patients and Medicare whenever possible, the proposed new methodology does not adequately consider the higher average cost many of our physicians have acquiring, handling, administering, and billing for drugs and biologics,” according to the comments submitted by the ACR.
Indeed, comments from CSRO point out that when factoring in budget sequestration, the actual reimbursement physicians are receiving is ASP plus 4.4%, and doctors are actually losing money on certain drug purchases.
Of additional concern is that the proposed rule does not address ASP itself.
“A far greater concern than the add-on percentage is the underlying ASP, and the steep, fast price increases that these medications show each quarter, according to comments from the CSRO.
From 2007 to 2016, first-quarter ASP for infliximab rose from $53.73 to $79.90; ASP for abatacept rose from $18.70 to $39.44, according to CSRO comments. “These ASP increases are unsustainable for both the Medicare program and its beneficiaries, and we would like to work with CMS to explore actual solutions to stem the increases in those underlying prices.”
In its comments, ACR proposed a number of potential paths forward, starting with certain practices that should be exempted from the proposed demonstration: physician groups with 25 or fewer physicians; physician-owned practices that are located in rural and medically underserved areas; reimbursement changes for drugs and biologics that do not have an alternative with more than a 20% ASP differential; and drugs and biologics where there are three or fewer members of the drug class or biologics.
ACR also proposed altering the add-on formula that takes into account the costs of storing and administering supplies.
“For example, CMS could use a formula for reimbursement of ASP plus 6% or $500 (whichever is lower),” ACR said in its comments. “This formula would allow CMS to effectively target spending on expensive drugs, while leaving in place reimbursement rates for cheaper drugs.”
Additionally, ACR called for CMS to delay the testing of more value-based tools until it understands the impact of the ASP changes that are to be tested under this proposal.
CSRO does not have any specific policy recommendations to replace or modify the proposed rule, but rather calls for CMS to bring together all stakeholders, including patients, providers, payers, and manufacturers to devise a system that would work to the benefit of all while ensuring the best outcomes for patients, Dr. Schweitz said in an interview.