Category Archives: In and Around Washington, DC

ACCC Expresses Serious Concern Over the AHCA

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

U.S. CapitolOn May 4, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a bill that would repeal and replace key portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces significant concerns over the projected decrease in coverage and increase in cost, and will likely undergo a substantial re-write.

While the bill faces uncertainty, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) remains very concerned about the impact the AHCA, as currently written, would have on cancer patients’ ability to access comprehensive, affordable health insurance coverage. The bill violates a number of ACCC’s health reform principles, which were central to our recent advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill.

Previous Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports estimate that 24 million more Americans will be left without coverage under the AHCA, while disproportionately increasing out-of-pocket costs for elderly, low-income Americans in the individual and non-group markets. Recent amendments to the bill also weaken protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, like cancer, and the requirement that insurers cover defined Essential Health Benefits, such as cancer screenings. The current legislation also effectively rolls back the Medicaid expansion and proposes to fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program, inevitably shifting costs to the states and squeezing Medicaid benefits for low-income cancer patients across the country.

ACCC will continue to work with Congress to advocate for meaningful health reform policies that protect patient access to appropriate, affordable health insurance coverage and decrease costs for the patient and the healthcare system.

ACCC urges its membership to contact their Senators opposing the bill as currently written.

Going the Distance: What We Heard at the OCM Workshop

By Leah Ralph, DIrector of Health Policy, ACCC

ACCC-OCM-CollaborativeWe are now 10 months into the groundbreaking Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Oncology Care Model (OCM). Just a few weeks ago during the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, a number of OCM practices came together to share updates, pain points and successes, and to collaborate on innovative approaches to meeting OCM requirements during ACCC’s OCM Workshop.

Shaping Up
Participation in the OCM has been likened to “training for a marathon,” requiring cancer programs to do an honest self-assessment of their financial and operational capabilities, and double down on their investment in workflows, staffing, and data collection—all while trying to reduce costs and meet a number of beneficiary-level reporting requirements. EHRs (electronic health records) play a critical role in these efforts, and practices are finding that much of the quality and clinical data CMS is asking for is not readily accessible, requiring time-consuming chart abstraction and manual reporting. In addition to data analytics, other major challenges include:

  • increased staffing needs,
  • investment in IT systems, and
  • clinician education and engagement.

Some practices have hired full-time patient care coordinators—similar to research coordinators for clinical trials—to manage OCM requirements, including identifying and tracking patients, coordinating episodes and required measures, and billing the Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services (MEOS) payments.

While there is agreement that the OCM’s policy goals—improving care quality and reducing costs—are the right ones, operationalizing the program has proven to be far more complex than originally anticipated. Even by CMS. And, like all major payment reform initiatives, course corrections will be needed along the way.

Some Pain, Some Gain
Despite challenges, ACCC OCM Workshop participants are also finding that the OCM’s  “practice transformation” requirements are strengthening their programs. Many have taken a “good, hard look” at palliative care and pain documentation, care coordination, and end-of-life conversations. Others have implemented social work and dietitian services that they were not previously able to make available to patients. While many cancer programs were engaged in these activities in some form before the OCM, participation in CMMI’s demonstration program has made these components robust and consistent, improving patient care. One practice called it an “awesome byproduct” of the program.

Another byproduct? Practices are also finding that the OCM is creating an imperative for the C-suite to make certain investments and providing leverage with EHR vendors; requests that were previously considered optimization items are now considered “must haves” to meet OCM requirements.

Dealing with Data
Last month OCM practices faced their first big data reporting deadline and they also received their first feedback reports following the first episode of care, breaking out cost per episode and comparing performance to other OCM practices. These data came in a format that was not easy to interpret, and required several practices to outsource the data analysis and interpretation. With the feedback reports practices are seeing their spending on OCM patients, and getting a sense of how they may fare with performance-based payments down the road, but practices won’t see reconciliations against target prices until early 2018.

Watchful Waiting
Where OCM practices succeed and struggle carry important implications for all cancer programs and the transition to value-based care. As one practice put it, the OCM is “the pebble in the pond for us.” We should all be watching the ripples closely. And taking notes.

To learn more about the ACCC OCM Collaborative, visit  accc-cancer.org/OCM. All OCM participating programs are invited to join our online community at ocmcollaborative.org to hear what else your colleagues are saying.

 

Drug Pricing in the Crosshairs

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

Drug pricing reform is in the news again this week as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) voted unanimously April 6 in support of the Commission’s multi-part Part B recommendations that include a Drug Value Program (DVP) with elements that align with President Trump’s interest in requiring drug companies to bid for government business.

ACCC17-Cancerscape“Despite Trump’s outreach to industry leaders and declaration of support for reducing drug prices, any attempt at price reform will be hard fought,” Jessica Turgon, MBA, ECG Management Consultants, told attendees last week at the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE. The “how” of executing drug pricing reform will be “impressive,” Turgon said. She outlined five possible reform scenarios for lowering U.S. drug costs. The unknown: which reforms will the Administration stick to the most?

  1. Importing cheaper drugs from other countries in an effort to reduce average domestic drug prices. Pro: This might force drug companies to lower prices domestically. Con: It could result in higher drug prices worldwide.
  1. Increasing availability of generic drugs by requiring the FDA to speed up the approval process for generic versions of drugs. There is a similar option being put forward to hamper or make illegal the practice of “pay to delay,” which slows generic drug advancement. In fact, one study found that “pay to delay” has cost U.S. consumers $14 billion by keeping brand name drugs as the sole source product when cheaper, generic versions were available.
  1. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices using its leverage as the largest healthcare payer to achieve lower drug prices. This would require legislation or possibly execution through the regulatory process. However, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated this option would not have that great of an impact on federal spending, Turgon said.
  1. Increasing the use of value-based drug purchasing, i.e., paying for drugs based on the outcomes they achieved (i.e., treatment effectiveness) and not on a flat fee or other standard pricing approach. If this were integrated into protocols or pathways, it’s not clear how the financial results would be quantified, Turgon noted. However, as last year’s proposed Medicare Part B experiment showed, the impact would be very hard on providers.
  1. Scaling back the scope of the 340B Drug Pricing Program, for example, by revising the definition of a covered entity. The program remains in MedPAC’s crosshairs, Turgon warned. In FY 2013, covered entities saved $3.8 billion on outpatient drugs through the program; the number of 340B covered entity sites grew to 16,500 in 2013, a rise of nearly 8,000 sites from 2008. Turgon’s take-home message for cancer programs: Ask yourselves, “If I had to operate without my 340B program what would my cancer program, hospital, or health system look like?” Would it would likely have a significant impact on your health system overall? Is 340B funding “everything else” [e.g., services that are currently not-reimbursed, such as patient navigation] at your hospital right now?

Add to the mix, MedPAC’s recommendations for reducing spending in Medicare Part B. (Spending has gone up 9% every year since 2009, Turgon noted, which is not sustainable.) Briefly put, MedPAC’s recommendations fall into two track recommendations:

Track 1: Improve the average sales price (ASP) system.

  • Require drug makers to report ASP data and increase penalties for non-compliance.
  • Reduce WAC (wholesale acquisition cost), cut the add-on payment from 6 percent to 3 percent.
  • Require drug makers to give Medicare a rebate when the ASP price for a product exceeds an inflation benchmark.
  • Require the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to implement a common billing code for a reference biologic and its biosimilars.

Track 2: Establish a Drug Value Program

For this voluntary program, Medicare would contract with private vendors to negotiate prices for Part B drugs using tools like a formulary. The Drug Value Program vendor would negotiate directly with drug manufacturers. Providers would purchase all DVP products at the price negotiated by their DVP vendor. Medicare would reimburse providers for the DVP-negotiated price AND reimburse DVPs an administrative fee with a shared savings opportunity.

What Cancer Programs Can Do Now

What seems certain is President’s Trump continued interest in drug pricing reform. How (or if) reform is executed remains to be seen. MedPAC serves in an advisory role to Congress on Medicare issues—and whether Congress will consider MedPAC’s recommended changes to Part B is also uncertain. In the face of the many uncertainties surrounding drug pricing reform, cancer programs can still take proactive steps to address the rising cost of drugs, Turgon said. To do so, she suggested that cancer programs:

  • Develop and adhere to clinical pathways and protocols.
  • Determine the availability of evidence-based alternatives that are cheaper and comparable to high-priced drugs, and remove the higher-priced drugs from your formulary or tighten guidelines around use.
  • Deploy clinical pharmacists to educate prescribers about high drug prices.
  • Hold cost-of-care conversations with patients.
  • Reduce waste associated with high-cost drugs.
  • Keep negotiating with GPOs and wholesalers.
  • Identify signs of increases in drug prices as close to real-time as possible to avoid delays in taking action to minimize financial impact.
  • Keep the lowest possible inventory of high-cost drugs.
  • Keep communication lines open with senior administrators so they stay informed of the impact on the drug budget.

Final takeway: “Run your hospital-based cancer program as a private practice and know where your costs are,” Turgon advised.

Next Steps for Value Frameworks?

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

ACCC17-Value Framework Panel (2)The mantra of “moving from volume to value” is ubiquitous in healthcare today.  So what do cancer programs need to know about evolving value frameworks in oncology? Attendees at the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE, in Washington, D.C., heard real-time updates on two of the leading frameworks—ASCO’s work-in-progress Value Framework  and NCCN’s Evidence Blocks™.

Both value frameworks aim to be tools used in support of patient―physician shared decision-making according to panelists Stephen Grubbs, MD, FASCO, Vice President of Clinical Affairs, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Robert Carlson, MD, CEO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

ASCO’s Value Framework was not built on drug pricing, but to have a discussion with a patient on potential financial toxicity and the benefit of the treatment in the context of how much the treatment will cost the patient, explained Dr. Grubbs. ASCO’s framework uses three primary parameters to calculate value: clinical benefit, toxicities of treatment, and cost. “Our goal at ASCO is to develop a tool that could be customized with information for each individual patient,” said Dr. Grubbs.

After receiving more than 400 comments on its original Value Framework draft, ASCO published a revised version in May 2016.  Grubbs made clear, however, that ASCO’s framework is still a work in progress. “It’s not yet ready for use,” he stressed.

In 2017 ASCO is working on improving the framework methodology, Dr. Grubbs explained, noting that a current weakness is that the framework is set up to compare a randomized clinical trial between two different treatments.  “If I have a treatment where I use drug A versus drug B, and than I have a trial that compares drug B to drug C—how do I compare drug A to drug C?” Work is underway at ASCO to address cross-trial comparisons and also to “anchor the net health benefit score in some meaningful way,” Grubbs shared. Finally, ASCO will continue work with patient advocates and patients to identify endpoints that are meaningful for patients.

On the other hand, NCCN’s Evidence Blocks are operationalized. NCCN’s goal was to create a “flexible value system that could be used to develop each patient’s equation for what is valuable,” said Robert Carlson, MD, CEO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Evidence Blocks are built on five metrics:

  • Effectiveness (efficacy)
  • Safety (adverse events, toxicities)
  • Data quality
  • Data consistency
  • Affordability

The Evidence Blocks are presented in a graphic format so that a user can look for “30 different options in about 4 or 5 seconds and come up with regimens that would be optimal for a specific circumstance,” Dr. Carlson said.

Like ASCO, NCCN intends the Evidence Blocks to support a patient-centered approach to integrating a value discussion into everyday practice. “We look at Evidence Blocks as a conversation starter, not an answer,” Carlson said.  “We don’t tell the patient, because the Evidence Block looks like this, this is what you should do. It’s a question of what’s most important to them.”

Currently, 33 of the NCCN guidelines have Evidence Blocks associated with them. By the end of 2018 all of the NCCN guidelines that have systemic therapies should have Evidence Blocks, according to Carlson. NCCN also intends to expand the Evidence Blocks into other treatment modalities. “We are now starting to look at other modalities, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, and diagnostics . . . in terms of the same sort of scales,” he said.

Rounding out the discussion, panelist Ali McBride, PharmD, MS, BCPS, The University of Arizona Cancer Center added perspective on the cost/value discussion as it may unfold on the frontlines of care. “Many patients may not be able to afford the 20% copay cost for IV therapy, let alone the out of pocket cost for many oral therapies,” he said. “We have to spend a lot of time detailing out those costs for patients, and if they can’t afford it, we have to say, then what’s our next step in that guideline pathway?”

All three panelists noted the need for financial transparency for patients and providers as one component of the value discussion.

In closing, panel moderator Christian Downs, JD, MHA, Executive Director, ACCC, asked panelists to consider what the value framework discussion might look like 10 years down the road.

Acknowledging the difficulty of making any predictions about the future shape of the oncology value discussion, Dr. Carlson envisions technology playing a pivotal role. “My own expectation and hope is that within a decade we will have computer-based systems that patients are able to interact with directly and help define and discover their own value system,” he said. Such a system would enable patients to indicate if they were more concerned with neurotoxicity or cardiotoxicity, for example. Plus the system would also have the capacity to query payers so that patients could know the financial impact of their therapy.

Big data (if the promise is realized) may change the face of value frameworks, noted Dr. Grubbs.  The potential of extensive real-world databases will bring “much more information on what happens to patients outside the narrow clinical trial that has the best, the most robust patients. . . [and extend to] what happens in the real-world. . . . if we had a big data system that had all this information about what happened to everybody and you could really home in on what happens to a 75-year-old person who was not in the clinical trial and have the cost data, you might come up with a very different looking value [framework] from what we’re showing you here today.”

Finally, as value frameworks continue to evolve, community cancer programs and practices have an important role to play, panelists agreed.  “There’s a huge reservoir of expertise and experience in community oncology, and we’d love to tap that, to learn from that. [One of the] ways you can help us, is to continually give us feedback in terms of whether we have it right or wrong. . . . talk to us,” Dr. Carlson said.

Dr. Grubbs concurred, adding that community oncologists are key to making value frameworks functional. “When you see this come out, please make comments back to ASCO on how to make this better, because nobody is going to get this right…right from the beginning.”

CANCERSCAPE Kicks Off with Perspectives on Policy and Business

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

Last week’s events on Capitol Hill provided a dramatic backdrop for the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE, March 29-31, bringing together hundreds of oncology professionals from around the country for insights, strategies, and perspective in the midst of healthcare reform ambiguities.

Cancerscape 2017-keynote panelIn a keynote session Thursday morning, policy insiders Kavita Patel, MD, MS, of The Brookings Institution, and Dan Todd, JD, Todd Strategy, LLC, shared insights on possible next steps toward Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal or repair under the Trump Administration. ACCC Health Policy Director Leah Ralph moderated the point-counterpoint discussion covering what went wrong with the House Republicans’ American Health Care Act (AHCA) legislative effort at ACA repeal, mounting political pressures on Capitol Hill, legislative or administrative options to effect ACA repair, flaws in the design of the faltering individual insurance exchanges and what may (or may not) happen next, and whether the Administration will act on the hot button issue of drug pricing.

Cancerscape 2017 keynote panel 2Asked for one final takeaway that attendees should bring back to their programs to help their colleagues understand the policy landscape, Dr. Patel shared this perspective for frontline clinicians and administrators:

“No matter who is the party in power there’s always going to be this emphasis on cost. I don’t see the pressure to decrease costs going away. It may come in the form of programs like MIPS and commercial programs like ACOs and patient-centered medical homes, but as a physician who is in all of those programs, it’s all about having me [as a physician] understand where I’m over utilizing care . . . . If there’s one takeaway . . . it’s not to sit . . . and wait to see how things shake out.” Start looking for where you have unwarranted variation, where you can start implementing programs that actually matter to patients, Dr. Patel advised. “Take back some introspective ability to look at your variation, look at your costs, look at all the things that fall into P & L for administrators and how do you translate that to where clinical care is delivered.”

Dan Todd left attendees with one final advocacy takeaway: “It’s a new Administration with training wheels still on. . . they’ll ultimately get their balance. . . . If you have priorities, educate your congressional members on [them]. . . your voice is really, really important.”

For more, read OncLive’s coverage of the session here.

Conway-The Advisory BoardThe morning’s second session shifted the focus outside the Beltway to explore emerging cancer care delivery trends and potential impact on the business of providing cancer care. Lindsay Conway, MSEd, of The Advisory Board, briefed attendees on The State of Today’s Cancer Programs, highlighting five key trends shaping the delivery and business cancer care delivery:

  • Healthcare reimbursement and reform is at a pivotal point. Uncertainty continues around the future of the ACA and the insurance exchanges.
  • Increasing numbers of cancer patients with comorbidities requiring enhanced care coordination. From 2000 to 2010, the number of Medicare patients with multiple chronic conditions grew 22%. Proactive steps in care coordination for this population include regular distress screening to identify issues early and devising and implementing care maps for navigators.
  • Telehealth technology bringing care to patients where they are. These technologies and emerging patient-centered tools—ranging from real-time virtual visits, to phone apps, to patient portals, to remote patient monitoring—have tremendous capacity for expanding patient access to care
  • Growth of healthcare consumerism requiring cost and quality information. There are growing online resources for healthcare review, cost and quality information. To address consumerism in cancer care, it’s important for cancer programs to provide information to help patients select the right provider and the right services.
  • Genomic medicine is transforming cancer care. With the rapid pace of change in this area, cancer programs are challenged to invest carefully as they move forward to integrate precision medicine into practice.

More coverage on this session is available here.  To learn more about the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE,  visit us at accc-cancer.org.

A Strong Voice in Challenging Times

By Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

ACCC Capitol Hill Day 2017On Capitol Hill yesterday, in nearly 100 meetings with legislators and staff, ACCC advocates spoke out sharing the real-world impact of policy on cancer patients and cancer care delivery in communities across the country. Walking the halls of Congress were ACCC member physicians, nurses, administrators, pharmacists, social workers, financial advocates, and other members of the care team—from cancer programs and practices large and small—representing 23 states.ACCC Capitol Hill Day 2017

In conversations with legislators ACCC advocates urged that Congress:

  • Protect patient access to care, encompassing access to comprehensive affordable insurance coverage
  • Maintain meaningful access to clinical trials
  • Reject the NIH funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY 2018 budget and instead increase funding for NIH and the National Cancer Institute that is critical to our federal research infrastructure
  • Support federal oral parity legislation

Rep. Higgins-ACCC 2017 Hill DayDuring a lunch address, Congressman Brian Higgins (D-NY), who co-sponsors the Cancer Drug Parity Act of 2017 (H.R. 1409) told ACCC members, “Your constituents are our constituents,” and “your presence here [on Capitol Hill] is very important.”

In these challenging times, as Congress continues to deliberate reforms to our healthcare system, ACCC advocates spoke with a united, strong voice, encouraging their legislators to set aside politics and put patients first. Summing up the experience, Hill Day participant ACCC President Jennie R. Crews, MD, MMM, FACP, said, “Being on Capitol Hill today, it’s apparent that health reform is not dead and we need to remain vigilant that protections are there for our patients.”


ACCC Capitol Hill Day kicks off the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE. Follow the meeting conversation on Twitter using #CANCERSCAPE as we live-tweet top takeaways. Stay tuned for blog updates with meeting highlights.

Why I’m Going to Capitol Hill On March 29

By Virginia Vaitones, MSW, OSW-C

U.S. CapitolACCC Capitol Hill Day 2017 happens to coincide with national Social Work Month, which the National Association of Social Workers is marking with theme Social Workers Stand Up.  As an oncology social worker, this year I’m putting on my patient advocate’s hat, standing up, and going to Capitol Hill to share with legislators the stories of how my patients are being impacting by worry and uncertainty about how  changes to the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid program may affect their insurance coverage and access  to care.

My home state of Maine has the distinction of having the oldest population in the country per capita and Knox County, where I live and work, has the oldest population in the state.  Many of my patients who are on Medicare also have MaineCare (Maine’s Medicaid program) as their secondary insurance.  The current proposed changes to how the federal government supports states with Medicaid funding will have a tremendous impact on my patients.

Besides the elderly population that I need to advocate for, the proposed cuts and changes in payment will have an impact on my younger patients who become disabled with their cancer diagnosis and depend on Medicaid to cover the cost of their cancer treatments.  As a patient advocate, I will be standing up for these patients as well.

My advocacy skills also are needed to bring the stories of how cancer impacts parents, small business owners, and working adults with a cancer diagnosis, who for the first time were able to afford health insurance under the ACA and now face uncertainty about whether they will have coverage or be able to continue to afford the cost of coverage.

Last but not least, I work in a rural community hospital whose doors are always open and that will treat patients whether or not they have insurance coverage.  I need to advocate for my hospital so that we can keep our doors open.

Capitol Hill Day, March 29, will bring together ACCC members representing cancer programs from across the country.  Together we will be standing up for our patients, for access to quality care close to home, and for our cancer programs.


Virginia Vaitones, MSW, OSW-C, is oncology social worker at Pen Bay Medical Center in Rockport, Maine, and a past president of the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC). 

Speak Up Now!

by Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

U.S. CapitolFor this year’s ACCC Capitol Hill Day, Wednesday, March 29, ACCC advocates will descend on Washington, D.C., with newfound motivation. As Congress grapples with the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and debates the merits of protecting patients with pre-existing conditions vs. high-risk pools, refundable tax credits vs. subsidies, requirements for essential health benefits vs. more flexibility in benefit standards, oncology care providers see insurance coverage—and their patients’ access to cancer care—at stake.

Yes, It’s Complicated
The political messaging—not to mention policy minutiae—is difficult to sort through, even for the wonkiest of policy wonks in Washington. The ACA has been plagued with insurer drop outs and significant premium increases for the unsubsidized individual market, but the law has also provided critical patient protections, put an end to discriminatory practices by insurers, and covered 20 million new lives through Medicaid expansion and the health insurance exchanges. Having made ACA repeal their rallying cry for years, Republicans are now trying to find a path forward to make changes to the law. But maintaining those critical (and politically popular) patient protections, preserving essential benefits, and covering more people while also reducing costs for both the system and the patients is far from an easy task.

Preserve Patient Protections
More than ever before, this year on Capitol Hill Day, ACCC members have a critical story to tell about the unique needs of cancer patients and the costs of their treatment. Cancer, in many ways, demonstrates the precise need—and role—for insurance. Cancer diagnoses are inherently unpredictable. Cancer patients can’t plan when they are going to be sick or what kind of insurance they will need to cover their costs. In addition to the personal, emotional, and physical toll a cancer diagnosis takes on individuals and their families, cancer patients need good insurance to protect against the risk of catastrophic treatment costs.

The ACA created critical protections for consumers, including eliminating the ability of insurance companies to discriminate based on a pre-existing condition, like cancer, or to impose lifetime or annual dollar limits on policies. And by providing subsidies to those up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level to purchase insurance, the ACA made progress in closing the disparities gap in accessing cancer care.

Protect Patient Access to Care
In record numbers, ACCC members will set out on March 29 to educate Congress on what proposed changes to the ACA would mean for cancer patients and survivors and their ability to access high quality cancer care in the communities where they live and work. In the context of any ACA repeal and/or replace plan, ACCC members will ask legislators to:

  • Protect access to comprehensive, affordable insurance coverage. This is particularly critical for cancer patients facing high-cost treatments that often turn into chronic, long-term conditions.
  • Preserve critical patient protections, such as the ban on discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, no annual or lifetime limits, guaranteed issue, and allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26.
  • Preserve essential health benefits that require insurers to cover preventive services, like cancer screenings, at minimal or no cost-sharing.
  • Maintain meaningful access to clinical trials.
  • Strengthen patient access to adequate provider networks that include cancer specialists and the full range of services required to provide quality cancer care.
  • Meaningfully engage cancer patient and provider groups in any real effort to repeal and/or replace the ACA.

Beyond coverage and access, ACCC members will also reiterate their commitment to value-based care and any efforts to improve quality, affordability, and access in cancer care. ACCC has long been committed to working with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to achieve true high-value, cost-effective cancer care. ACCC members support the mission and goals of the ACA-created Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which has been the subject of recent scrutiny. More than half of the CMMI Oncology Care Model (OCM) participating practices are ACCC members. These forward-thinking practices are dedicating significant time and resources to making this pilot program work.

However, in the wake of last year’s CMMI ill-conceived proposed Part B Drug Payment Model, ACCC members will also strongly encourage Congress to place additional guardrails on CMMI’s authority, including limiting its scope to targeted, voluntary (rather than mandatory) demonstration programs.

ACCC members have a lot to communicate to busy Congressional representatives and staffers this year. But the stories we will share, from the communities in which ACCC members are working on the frontlines of cancer care, will bring home the impact of policy decisions in the clearest, most powerful terms. Now is a critical time to speak up and be heard—for our patients today and those who will become our patients tomorrow. Join us for ACCC Capitol Hill Day. Your story can make a difference.


The ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE, March 29-31, will provide a 360-degree look at the healthcare landscape from the Democrat and Republican perspectives with insights on what to expect for reimbursement, alternative payment models, drug pricing, quality reporting, and more. Learn more.

ACCC Goes to Washington

By Leah Ralph, ACCC Director of Health Policy

With the transition to a new administration just days away, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) this week joined with other leading cancer organizations to speak out for community cancer care providers and the patients they serve. On January 11, the Obama White House, in conjunction with Vice President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, hosted a morning-long event Making Health Care Better – Community Oncology.

ACCC-Delegation-at-the-White-House-sm

ACCC delegation at the White House

ACCC leadership—representing community providers from practices and cancer programs across the country—contributed to the conversation during moderated panel discussions, and provided real-world community perspectives on addressing disparities in access to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment; advancing clinical trials, new technologies, and innovative models of care; and providing support and survivorship services to patients with cancer. The event capped off a year’s worth of work between the Vice President’s office and oncology stakeholders across the country, including multiple meetings with ACCC members, to advance the priorities of Vice President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot Initiative and a commitment to achieving a decade’s worth of progress in cancer research in five years.  Don Graves, Counselor to the Vice President, thanked the cancer patients and providers in the room for their work to advance the goals of the Cancer Moonshot and, addressing the uncertainty around the future of the Vice President’s initiative, told the audience “the Cancer Moonshot will continue through you.” The Vice President recently announced he would start a nonprofit organization to continue to address the broad – and complex – issues around cancer research and funding. And late last year, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which provides $1.8 billion for Cancer Moonshot efforts at NIH.

ACCC-on-Capitol Hill-sm

ACCC Advocates Heading to Capitol Hill

In the afternoon, ACCC co-sponsored a Capitol Hill briefing on Innovation and Access in Quality Cancer Care. Addressing the uncertain political environment, Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) highlighted some of the achievements realized by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) and Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) described the bipartisan effort behind passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. Advocates were assured that funding provided under the Cures Act will be secure, regardless of the fate of the ACA. Co-sponsoring the briefing along with ACCC were the Cancer Support Community, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the Community Oncology Alliance, McKesson Specialty Health, Sarah Cannon, and The US Oncology Network.

As the U.S. healthcare system continues to grapple with transformative change, sharing the story of cancer care delivery in communities where patients live, work, and vote is critical to helping policymakers and legislators understand the impact of policies, regulations, and legislation. Join ACCC for Capitol Hill Day on March 29, in Washington, D.C., and share your story.  Learn more here.

Fasten Your Seat Belts. . .

By Leah Ralph, Director of Health Policy, ACCC

Overlapping roadways As we head into the New Year, 2016 is rapidly receding in the rear view mirror. Still, it was quite a year. We saw the Obama Administration finalize regulations for sweeping physician payment reform in Medicare, oncology practices nationwide navigate the first year of the Oncology Care Model (OCM), policymakers try – and fail – to push through drug pricing reform with a national mandatory demonstration program, the 21st Century Cures Act signed into law, and the drug pricing debate hit a fever pitch, fueled by public scrutiny of recent spikes in drug spending and prompting a range of policy proposals to reduce spending on pharmaceuticals, raising bigger questions about how to define value in cancer care.

And after nearly eight years of a healthcare system shifting to achieve the aims – and requirements – of President Obama’s signature health reform law, the surprise election of Donald Trump and transition to a Republican administration and Congress who have prioritized repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in early 2017 – combined with unprecedentedly thin policy prescriptions on the campaign trail – mark the beginning of an uncertain, tumultuous, perhaps even bumpy period for health policy. And fasten your seat belts because it may happen fast: the first 18 months of a new presidency and congress is the most active period of policymaking in the U.S.

ACA’s Uncertain Future

With respect to the ACA, while the health reform law encompasses far more than the insurance exchanges, the public debate to date has been focused on the coverage mandate and subsidies in the individual marketplace. It’s important to note that regardless of the election results, the health insurance exchanges are doing worse than expected. The exchange markets are facing sicker-than-expected risk pools and lower enrollment, causing high premium increases and insurer withdrawals. To survive, the exchanges would have needed stabilization under any administration – meaning a Trump Administration could simply leave the exchanges untouched and effectively allow them to wither on the vine, leaving 20 million uninsured.

But President-Elect Trump has signaled that he favors politically popular consumer protections in the ACA, such as banning insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents’ health plan until age 26. However the path to achieve this without a requirement that individuals either obtain coverage or pay a penalty remains unclear. And while there’s no agreed-upon replacement plan, Congressional Republicans have also supported allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, expanding the use of health savings accounts (HSAs), replacing the ACA’s health insurance subsidies with tax credits, and establishing high-risk pools. But none of these proposals would meaningfully restore access to insurance coverage for the more than 20 million people who have gained coverage under the ACA, creating a long road ahead to find ways to cover this newly expanded population in any replacement plan.

What will these changes mean for cancer patients and providers? While the scope and details remain unclear, generally, under the proposals put forward to date, cancer providers may see an increased number of patients who are under- or uninsured, and higher uncompensated care costs. For the exchange population, benefits and cost-sharing assistance will likely be less generous, which could pose significant access barriers to quality cancer care.  At the same time it’s important to note that the ACA overpromised and underperformed – while patients without access to subsidies are seeing out-of-pocket costs spike, concurrently providers’ expectations of gaining fully insured patients under the ACA have not necessarily been realized. Patients with exchange coverage have generally been sicker and more expensive to treat and, on top of that, some providers are starting to see their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments evaporate, as agreed to under the law. Fixes to the ACA – beyond what Republicans are proposing – are needed to shore up the long-term viability of our healthcare system for both patients and providers.

The Path Ahead

As the New Year rings in the changes in Washington, D.C., there will undoubtedly be significant impact on the direction of federal policy with respect to access and coverage in 2017. Still, we expect that key market trends such as value-based purchasing will continue. While the fate of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which was created by the ACA, remains uncertain, we suspect that Medicare’s push towards value-based payment is inherently non-partisan and the movement to test different ways to pay providers based on cost and quality is here to stay. In fact, many experts predict that 2017 will be the year value-based purchasing moves from concept to reality. CMMI has implemented more than 50 demonstration programs. Some of these are becoming mandatory, including bundled payments for cardiac care and joint replacement.  (At the same time, the Republican-controlled Congress may create some guardrails for CMMI, including limiting its ability to implement mandatory demonstrations.)  Just around the corner, Medicare physician payment is shifting from fee-for-service (FFS) to value-based purchasing as required under MACRA . Reporting on MACRA measures begins in 2017 and will determine provider Medicare reimbursement in 2019. And the pharmaceutical industry is also engaged in value-based purchasing, increasingly pursuing outcomes-based contracts with private plans.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

In 2017, ACCC members will need to consider how value-based payments will increasingly shift responsibility for managing cost and quality to providers, and how your cancer program is positioned to engage in a risk-based reimbursement structure. Providers should also prepare for a shift in coverage for patients, and anticipate how to respond to changes in access to care.

Now more than ever is the time for oncology care providers’ voices to be heard – join us in Washington, D.C., March 29-31 for ACCC’s annual policy meeting, Cancerscape, to understand how policy changes will impact your program and patients, engage in policy discussions with your colleagues, and help shape the future of healthcare policy in 2017 and beyond.  So buckle up, check out the Cancerscape agenda, and register today.