Category Archives: Healthcare Reform

Connecting the Moonshot to Patients

By Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, welcomes conference attendees.

ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, welcomes conference attendees.

The Cancer Moonshot framed Thursday’s  sessions at the ACCC 33rd National Oncology Conference in St. Louis. “I’ve been privileged to be part of the conversations around the Moonshot,” ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, told attendees in her opening remarks. On Monday Dr. Crews participated in panel discussion at the White House as part of the Moonshot Task Force Report unveiling. With a goal of making a decade’s worth of progress in cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care in five years—it’s an “audacious” initiative that will bring challenges and significant opportunities to community oncology, she said.

In a heartfelt video message to conference attendees, Vice President Joe Biden, called community cancer centers the “bridge” between the Moonshot and cancer patients. “For the overwhelming majority of those patients who are diagnosed [with cancer], the next step leads to you,” he said. “Community oncologists treat as much as 85 percent of cancer patients . . . .Not only do your patients need you, your country needs you.”

It was a message reiterated at the end of the day by Anabella Aspiras, Director for Patient Engagement, Cancer Moonshot Task Force, in a session exploring how the Cancer Moonshot will affect providers in the community setting. “You truly connect the work of the Cancer Moonshot to cancer patients,” she told attendees. Ms. Aspiras highlighted the three Moonshot reports announced on Monday:

The Vice President’s Executive Report, a summary of work accomplished to date and challenges that must be addressed, which was presented to President Obama on Monday. The report outlines five strategic imperatives:

  • Realign incentives in the research system
  • Enhance prevention efforts
  • Engage patients as partners in research
  • Expand access to care
  • Convene a national conversation about cost.

The Task Force Report, covers the implementation plans for accelerating progress and includes Moonshot efforts underway over the past year.

The Blue Ribbon Panel Report, which integrates feedback into the panels 10 recommendations.

Anabella Aspiras and Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, at the ACCC National Oncology Conference.

Anabella Aspiras  with ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, at the Cancer Moonshot Report unveiling earlier this week.

In her remarks, Ms. Aspiras called attention to existing ACCC initiatives that support the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations, including the Institute for Clinical Immuno-Oncology (ICLIO) and ACCC’s educational work related to integrating biomarker testing in the community setting.

In her role at the Moonshot Task Force, Ms. Aspiras’ primary responsibility is to represent the voice of the patient in four areas: addressing cancer inequities, enhancing community cancer care, improving clinical trial participation (accrual and retention) in particular in terms of under-represented populations; and survivorship. Research must benefit all segments of society, Aspiras said. “We must ensure advances in treatment are distributed equally.”

In closing, Ms. Aspiras thanked ACCC members for the work they do. “You bridge the gap between our efforts on the Cancer Moonshot and the patients we aspire to reach,” she said. “Every day you change the face of cancer as we know it.”

Stay tuned for more from the ACCC 33rd National Oncology Conference. Follow the conferences highlights on Twitter #ACCCNOC.


With Final MACRA Rule, CMS Increases Flexibility

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Healthcare costsOn Friday, October 14, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule on the MACRA Quality Payment Program (QPP).  ACCC is conducting an in-depth analysis of the rule; however, an initial look reveals that CMS has heard the stakeholders’ message  loud and clear: Make the transition to MACRA as simple and flexible as possible. Here are some top-level highlights from the final rule:

  • Low-volume threshold exemption: the agency broadened the low-volume threshold exemption from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), exempting practices with less than $30,000 in Medicare charges or fewer than 100 unique Medicare patients per year. This will exclude about one-third of physicians from having to report under the Quality Payment Program (QPP).
  • Pick your pace: CMS is allowing physicians to “pick their pace” in 2017, enabling physicians to avoid negative penalties in 2019 by reporting on some data (i.e., one quality measure) for some period of time. The takeaway: even minimal performance reporting will exempt physicians from any penalties, and opportunities for a shorter, 90-day reporting period will make providers eligible for positive adjustments. (Providers must start collecting data between January 1, 2017, and October  2, 2017, and report no later than March 31, 2018.)
  • Resource use category weighted zero in first year: MIPS has four components, and originally the resource use (cost) category was going to account for 10% of your score starting in 2017. CMS has now said this category will hold zero percent weight toward your MIPS score in the first year [in 2017, the percentages will be: 60% quality measures, 25% advancing care information (EHR use), and 15% clinical improvement activities].
  • Expanding opportunities to participate in APMs: CMS has also said it plans to expand opportunities to participate in models that qualify as “advanced alternative payment models” (APMs) in 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) also informed Oncology Care Model (OCM) practices on Friday, October 14, that CMS is amending the program to allow OCM practices to take two-sided risk as early as January 2017 to qualify as an advanced APM (two years earlier than the model originally allowed).

In our comments on the proposed rule, ACCC asked for increased flexibility for practices who are still building the infrastructure to meet these requirements, and a streamlining of reporting requirements as our members increasingly engage in new delivery models and navigate the path to value-based care. ACCC’s major concerns were around timeline and administrative burden – in the final rule, CMS was responsive in many ways, but ACCC will continue to work with the agency to reduce regulatory burden and make this a workable payment system for our members.

For more information, CMS launched a website for physicians that explains the program and allows you to explore and identify different measures that are most meaningful to your practice. Find a summary of the rule here. The AMA and ASCO also have great checklists on how to prepare for participation in the QPP.


ICLIO Conference: Top-Level Takeaways

By Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

ICLIO Conf-Dr. Schwartzberg-for web

ICLIO Advisory Committee Chair Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD, FACP

The Institute for Clinical Immuno-Oncology (ICLIO) National Conference on September 30 in Philadelphia provided a window into the real-world immuno-oncology (I-O) issues facing providers, patients, and payers.

Across conference sessions some overarching themes emerged. One prevailing message:  there is an on-going need for practical, real-world education on immunotherapy, immune-related side effects, and response patterns—not just for the multidisciplinary cancer care team and allied specialties, but also for Emergency Department (ED) staff, hospitalists, and all others who connect with patients, including front desk staff.

To reduce barriers to accessing I-O, a message reiterated throughout the day was:  make immunotherapy clinical trials more widely available in the community.  Citing the Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendation #2, which calls for a clinical trials network for immunotherapy, ICLIO Advisory Committee Chair Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD, FACP, said, “It would be a shame to limit this to [just] a few institutions. The entire community needs to be engaged,” including populations that are currently not well-represented in clinical trials, such as the elderly and underserved patient populations.

Implementing I-O: Real-World Challenges

ICLIO Conf panel-for web

Providing Community and Academic Perspectives on I-O Implementation, Panelists (L to R) Jose Lutzky, MD, FACP; Tara Gangadhar, MD; Lee S. Schwartzberg, MD, FACP

In a panel discussion on Community and Academic Perspectives on Implementing immunotherapy, Dr. Schwartzberg noted that I-O has moved out into the community “very quickly.” His own clinic’s experience tells the story.  In 2014, his clinic treated two patients with immunotherapy. To date in 2016, that number has climbed to 306 patients treated with immunotherapy.

What issues are top of mind in clinic every day? Response rate and patterns, pseudo-progression, and immune-related adverse events, said Dr. Schwartzberg.

Panelist Tara Gandahar, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, emphasized that “patients on immunotherapy need 24/7 access to providers who can assess issues and make a plan,” and that night coverage is of critical importance.  Patients who experience toxicity require increased monitoring both by phone and with in-person visits, she said. At the same time, it’s important to reassure patients that discontinuing therapy for toxicity does not mean they won’t see a therapeutic response.

Delivery of immunotherapy requires the involvement of multiple specialties, in particular gastroenterology and endocrinology, added panelist Jose Lutzky, MD, FACP, Mount Sinai Medical Center Comprehensive Cancer Center. Education on immunotherapy is needed for primary care providers, ED staff, ICU staff, surgeons, as well as house staff, he said.  Bringing immunotherapy to patients requires a collaborative team effort—with physicians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, financial advocates, and others.

Building an I-O Dream Team

During a panel focused on the ideal team for successful implementation of I-O in the community, Gary Cohen, MD, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, urged that in preparing the general community for handling these agents, providers not become “complacent” in giving I-O drugs. “They must be ready for the rare side effects,” he said.

Dr. Cohen outlined the I-O dream team as including oncologists (medical, radiation, surgical), family and caregivers, nurses (especially important in terms of side effects education and monitoring), pharmacy, financial counselors/advisors, business managers, plus other medical specialists as needed such as endocrinology, GI, pulmonology, neurology, and radiology.

For smaller hospitals contemplating integrating I-O in the community setting, panelist Carole Miller, MD, St. Agnes Hospital, suggested the following six essential I-O program building blocks:

  • Multidisciplinary care
  • Shared decision-making
  • Expertise, especially regarding side effects of immunotherapy treatment
  • Patient education and support
  • Clinical trials
  • Administration buy-in and understanding of the importance of I-O.

Her cancer program has created an Immuno-Oncology Center, a separate space just outside the infusion center with I-O resources and a dedicated nursing staff.

Sigrun Hallmeyer, MD

Sigrun Hallmeyer, MD

As immunotherapy for cancer has grown, so has the size of the I-O dream team, said Sigrun Hallmeyer, MD, Cancer Specialists, SC.  Still, the “backbone” of her I-O program remains her nursing staff.  A theme throughout the conference was the critical role nurses play in educating patients on I-O side effects, monitoring and following up with patients on symptoms and side effects. Dr. Hallmeyer’s practice uses an educational sheet that nurses go through with patients when they start on immunotherapy. The practice pharmacist will not release the I-O drug unless the patient sheet on side effects is signed off on by the nurse and entered into the electronic medical record (EMR). Early detection of toxicity is the team’s goal.

Looking at the Value-Based Environment Ahead

As the healthcare system transitions to value-based reimbursement models, providers, patients, and manufacturers all confront the question of how these new payment models will impact I-O and innovation. During a panel discussion on alternative payment models (APMs) and immunotherapy, numerous concerns were raised, including the following:

  • Pathways and/or bundles: If these are mandated, how will they affect clinical advances and innovation?
  • Will the value-based environment constrain innovation?
  • How will CMMI’s Oncology Care Model (OCM) impact oncology and I-O? How might use of immunotherapy agents impact performance under the OCM? If CMS deems the model successful, it’s likely to spread rapidly to private payers, noted panelist Michael Seiden, MD, PhD.
  • How will APMs incentivize innovation? To get buy-in, APMs must reward innovation, otherwise incentives will be driven in the wrong direction, cautioned panelist Jennifer Hinkel, MSc, McGivney Global Advisors.

Pharmacy Operations & Issues

Reimbursement challenges were a central issue during a pharmacy-focused panel discussion. Whether in the academic or community setting, “immunotherapy agents are creating a lot of work in terms of getting reimbursed. It’s resource and time intensive,” said panelist Niesha Griffith, MS, RPh, FASHP, University of West Virginia Health Center.  She shared three practical steps to improve I-O reimbursement:

  1. Get approval for everything and enroll all patients in patient assistance programs.
  2. Add dedicated reimbursement staff. Patient financial advocate/support positions pay for themselves ten times over, she said.
  3. Get a seat at the table. Meet with your payers on a quarterly basis and include your pharmacy reimbursement staff in the meeting.
ICLIO Conf Edward Li-for web

Ed Li, PharmD, MPH, BCOP

Clinical issues are merging with administrative issues which is impacting the care delivery infrastructure, commented Edward Li, PharmD, MPH, BCOP, University of New England.  Looking to the future, “as we start to replace standard of care chemotherapy and move to trying to cure our patients, as we incorporate genetics and molecular testing, how will these fit into pathways?”

Panelist Nicky Dozier, PharmD, Virginia Oncology Associates, cited the growth in the number of pathways as a burden for providers. “Oncology pathways need to do more than just restrict decision making,” she said. Greater transparency is needed in terms of who has participated in the creation of the pathway, for example, were oncologists involved?

Take a deeper dive into the ICLIO National Conference by viewing the speaker slide presentations.  Visit the ICLIO website for practical resources to help the multidisciplinary team with real-world issues in implementing immunotherapy for cancer.

CMS Eases MACRA Quality Payment Program Timeline

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services_logoIn response to considerable pressure from industry stakeholders, medical groups and policymakers, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced last week that it would provide increased flexibility for practices to report out and comply with new data and performance requirements under the Quality Payment Program (QPP), created by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) passed last year.

In a blog post titled “Plans for the Quality Payment Program in 2017: Pick Your Pace,” Acting CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt lays out four pathways to compliance with the new Quality Payment Program (in order of easiest to the hardest):

  • Report some data.  Providers can avoid a negative penalty by submitting some data as required by the Quality Payment Program, including data from after January 1, 2017. CMS states this option is “designed to ensure that your system is working and that you are prepared for broader participation in 2018 and 2019.” This option allows you to avoid a negative payment adjustment in 2019.
  • Participate for only part of the calendar year. Providers may submit data as required by the Quality Payment Program for a reduced number of days (not the whole year), and the performance period could begin after January 2017. Under this option, you could still qualify for a small positive payment adjustment in 2019.
  • If you’re ready to go in 2017, participate for the full calendar year. For practices that are ready to go and choose this option, their performance period will begin January 1, 2017, and they will submit data under the Quality Payment Program for a full year. These practices will qualify for a modest positive payment adjustment in 2019. CMS expects many practices will be able to do this.
  • Participate through an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).** While the three previous options would fall under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track, the fourth option allows providers who are receiving a certain percentage of Medicare payments or seeing a certain number of Medicare patients through a qualifying APM (the provider is taking two-sided or “more than nominal” risk) to participate through the Advanced APM track. These providers would qualify for a 5% incentive payment in 2019 in addition to any savings produced through the APM and would not be subject to MIPS requirements. (**Remember CMS lays out a very high bar to qualify for the APM track in the proposed rule: 90% of physicians are expected to choose MIPS).

Until 2019, physicians will see an annual 0.5% increase in payments, at which point payments will then be determined by performance in the Quality Payment Program either through MIPS or an advanced APM.

CMS has said the decision to provide leniency was in recognition of the “wide diversity of physician practices.” The agency has also said it is considering alternative start dates, shorter performance periods, increased flexibility for small or rural practices, and finding other ways for physicians to get more experience with the program requirements before being penalized.

CMS originally proposed that providers begin to report on measures outlined under the Quality Payment Program in January 2017 but that payments would not reflect that performance period until 2019. However with the new guidance from CMS, the easiest option essentially does not require real provider participation in 2017, but allows providers to test whether their systems are ready to fully participate in the future. While the details of the measures will remain unclear until a final rule is released, the Quality Payment Program will require practices to submit information on quality measures, how they use technology, and what improvement activities they are undertaking.

Through our comments to the agency in  June, ACCC advocated for increased flexibility and more time for physicians to prepare for undertaking the new requirements under the Quality Payment Program. We also asked the agency to restructure the APM requirements so that they are more achievable.

We commend CMS for releasing flexibility prior to a final rule on MACRA, which we expect to see later this fall, and ask for continued accommodations for practices that face myriad new requirements in the coming months and years.

Will Spending More on Healthcare Result in Better Cancer Outcomes?

by Chad Schaeffer, MS, FACHE

Healthcare costsA recent study published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network finds that spending more on healthcare does not always correlate to better outcomes.  The authors of the article, “Wealth, Health Expenditure, and Cancer: A National Perspective,” studied different areas of the U.S. and looked at the wealth, spending, and cancer outcomes for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and all cancers.1

The researchers, led by Dr. Jad Chahoud, point out that in 2013 the U.S. spent $2.9 trillion on healthcare—more than any other country—yet ranked 27 in life expectancy compared with the 34 countries that comprise the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  Their conclusion is that the U.S. healthcare system is flawed by an unequal resource allocation and socioeconomic disparities. This has long been the case when the U.S. is compared to many European countries, which have universal healthcare or a single-payer system and access to healthcare is often more consistently available to all citizens.

However, things get very interesting when the researchers compare different regions within the U.S. and find differences in cancer outcomes. When looking at colorectal cancer and all cancers, the common theme is that wealthier states, such as New York, Illinois, and California, tended to have better outcomes compared to the least wealthy states, such as Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama. The wealthier states spent more per capita, but not necessarily for healthcare. For instance, West Virginia spent more on healthcare per capita ($7,667.14) than Illinois ($6,756.36), but the outcomes for colorectal and all cancers are better in Illinois.




Mortality/Incidence Ratio (colorectal cancer) Mortality/Incidence Ratio
(all cancers)
Illinois 0.3652 0.3823
West Virginia 0.3936 0.4306

Yet for breast cancer, the researchers discovered that paying more did correlate with better outcomes.  They surmise that this could be the result of effective breast cancer screenings and an overall high level of breast cancer awareness.


As I read the article and the findings from the study, two or three points come to mind. The first point is that since the extra spending on healthcare was effective for breast cancer, and—if the authors are correct that screening was a major factor—this could be good news for colorectal cancer if we can continue to improve screening rates. The second point is that with the new emphasis from Medicare and other payers on paying for quality, perhaps there will be an improved value in our healthcare system, leading to better outcomes. The last thought is that with the Affordable Care Act in place for several years and more Americans now having health insurance, and with a greater emphasis on screenings, would this potentially change the outcomes?  It is too early to say for certain, but if screenings rates improve, this will likely make a difference in overall outcomes.  We will have to wait and see.

Chahoud J, Rieber AG, Semaan A. Wealth, health expenditure, and cancer: A national perspective. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14:972-978.

ACCCBuzz contributing blogger Chad Schaeffer, MS, FACHE, is Executive Director of the Edwards Comprehensive Cancer Center at Cabell Huntington Hospital. He serves on the ACCC Editorial Committee.

MACRA Update—Will CMS Delay the Start Date?

By Brittney Fairman, Policy Analyst, ACCC

Calendar pages and clockLast week Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), told the Senate Finance Committee that the agency was considering “alternative start dates,” for Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) after receiving more than 3,000 comments on its proposed rule implementing the Quality Payment Program. The final rule is expected in November, leaving only a few months before the proposed reporting start date of January 1, 2017. Slavitt also said the agency is taking a close look at how the proposed rule would impact rural and small providers, particularly the low volume threshold that would exempt small practices from certain reporting requirements.

In our June 27 comment letter on the MACRA proposed rule, ACCC urged CMS to:

  • Delay implementation for six months to one year, to give physicians the time needed to build infrastructure and implement the Quality Payment Program effectively
  • Ensure that the agency provides adequate accommodations and protections for small group practices and solo practitioners
  • Modify the “resource use” methodology to ensure that eligible clinicians are held responsible only for the costs they can control
  • Include all Oncology Care Model (OCM) quality measures in MIPS
  • Refine the APM requirements to offer a meaningful alternative to MIPS and adopt policies to promote the availability of a wide variety of APMs and Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs).

With this proposed rule, CMS aims to transition Medicare to a new physician payment program focused on quality, value, and accountability over volume. The MACRA legislation enacted by Congress outlines essentially two separate payment pathways for physicians under Medicare: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and the Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Both pathways are intended to drive the development of value-based payment. ACCC supports payment reform efforts; however, it is critical that CMS construct these pathways so that they are realistic, achievable avenues to Part B reimbursement.

ACCC will continue to keep members informed as MACRA implementation unfolds. For a deeper dive on new requirements under the Quality Payment Program, ACCC members can access the recent ACCC webinar, “MACRA CMS Proposed Rule: What You Need to Know” on demand (login required). The American Medical Association (AMA) has created a MACRA Checklist that outlines steps providers can take now to prepare, as we await the final rule.

Key Takeaways from Congressional Hearing on “Medicare Drug Experiment”

By Brittney Fairman, Policy Analyst, ACCC

Capitol BuildingOn Tuesday, May 17, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health held a hearing titled “The Obama Administration’s Medicare Drug Experiment: The Patient and Doctor Perspective,” which focused on CMS’ proposed Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model. The Subcommittee heard from witnesses representing the provider and patient communities, including:

  • Debra Patt, MD, MPH, MBA, Vice President of Texas Oncology and Medical Director of The US Oncology Network;
  • Marcia Boyle, President and Founder of the Immune Deficiency Foundation;
  • Michael Schweitz, MD, FACP, MACR, National Advocacy Chair of the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations;
  • Heather Block, a patient advocate; and
  • Joe Baker, President of the Medicare Rights Center.

Notably, the hearing echoed many of the concerns ACCC and fellow stakeholders have been voicing since CMS released the proposal in early March. Key takeaways include:

CMS is operating under a false premise that there are always less costly therapeutic equivalents available to treat patients. In the case of oncology, treatment situations where there are true clinical substitutes are “few and far between,” Dr. Patt pointed out. When a therapeutically equivalent drug does exist, those drugs are not always available to every clinician nor are they always most conducive to a patient’s specific treatment plan.

The proposed demonstration will create barriers to patient access and have a disproportionate impact on rural areas. With a lack of appropriate safeguards, healthcare providers fear the demonstration program would create additional financial pressures that would push rural or small physician practices out of business.  For patients in rural areas – or patients that require more expensive therapies – this may cause difficulty in accessing oncology care.

CMS’ proposal is akin to an involuntary clinical trial. Witnesses and Committee members pointed out that CMS’ experiment is not unlike a clinical trial, requiring participation of providers and their patients for the purposes of data collection. However, unlike a clinical trial, participation is involuntary and the proposal lacks critical patient safeguards – patients may never know if their provider is operating under a control or experimental arm of CMS’ demonstration. This randomized trial will, unknowingly and unwillingly, limit patient access to needed care.

Average Sales Price (ASP), by definition, is an average. Many community oncologists – often smaller practices – are not able to gain price advantages and are currently paying well above ASP for Part B drugs. Any further reductions to reimbursement will make it impossible for providers to cover the acquisition cost of many, if not most, cancer treatments.

Witnesses also addressed a series of “carve-outs” that have been discussed by policymakers, including for oncology providers, the Oncology Care Model (OCM) participating practices, or rural providers. Dr. Patt, however, pointed out that “there’s no right way to do the wrong thing.” Most witnesses called for a full withdraw of CMS’ proposal.

These points and more can be found in ACCC’s comments, submitted to CMS in early May. ACCC is continuing to monitor Congressional efforts on the CMS proposal.

ACCC Voices Part B Demo Concerns on Capitol Hill & at CMS

By Amanda Patton, ACCC, Communications

ACCC-PartB-Demo-Meeting-Capitol Hill-crop2With the Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model comment deadline fast approaching (Monday, May 9 at 5:00 pm EDT), ACCC continued its push to educate policymakers on the detrimental impact this ill-conceived proposal will have on community cancer care, providers, and patients.

This morning ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP;  ACCC Past President Ernest Anderson Jr., MS, RPh, FASHP; and Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC; together with representatives from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Finance Committee staff and discuss concerns about the Part B proposal’s impact on cancer care. During the meeting, ACCC shared information from a data analysis that reveals the significant financial impact the proposal would have on providers and patients.

In a meeting with CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) staff on Monday afternoon, ACCC leadership, along with representatives from HOPA, and ONS—reflected the voice of multidisciplinary cancer care providers.  ACCC shared results from the Part B proposal data analysis and reiterated ACCC’s strong concerns that are reflected in our comment letter to the agency.  Read our comment letter.

Stay tuned for advocacy updates from ACCC.


ACCC Supports H.R. 5122, Legislation to Prohibit Medicare Part B Drug Demo

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Capitol BuildingThe Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) thanks Representative Larry Bucshon (R-IN) for introducing H.R. 5122, legislation to prohibit further action on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule for the Medicare Part B Drug Demo. ACCC urges prompt passage of H.R. 5122 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

ACCC remains strongly opposed to the Part B Drug Demo and is deeply concerned about the potential impact of this misguided proposal on both providers and the patients they serve.

Our membership, comprising approximately 2,000 practices and hospitals across the country, is committed to implementing value-based reforms and to continuing to work with CMS on meaningful payment reform—our members will be participating in the CMMI Oncology Care Model and investing in the infrastructure needed to comply with MACRA. However, CMS’ Part B Drug Model proposal is a nearsighted approach to Medicare reform.

ACCC supports H.R. 5122, and a full withdraw of the program, to provide the oncology community and CMS time to fully understand the impact of this policy and to work with CMS on meaningful reform.

For more on ACCC advocacy efforts on this issue, visit

ACCC Asked: Congress Listened

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

time for actionToday 242 members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter to CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt urging the agency to withdraw its proposed Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model.  The effort was spearheaded by House Ways and Means Committee Member and Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, MD (R-GA), House Energy and Commerce Committee Member John Shimkus (R-IL), and House Ways and Means Committee Charles Boustany Jr., MD (R-LA).

You asked and Congress listened.  Last week, hundreds of ACCC members reached out to their legislators asking that they sign on to the Congressional letter to CMS.  ACCC thanks its membership from 2,000 cancer programs and practices across the country for speaking up and telling their legislators about the detrimental impact this proposed rule would have on their patients and providers.

But the question remains: Will CMS listen?

May 9 is the deadline for comments to CMS on this misguided proposal. ACCC will be submitting comments to the agency and urges its members to send comments as well.

Learn more about ACCC advocacy efforts on this issue here.