Yesterday, community oncology leaders flooded the Hill to meet with Congress and the administration to warn them of the impact the Medicare sequester’s increased cuts and extension will have on cancer care nationwide.
Yesterday, community oncology leaders flooded the Hill to meet with Congress and the administration to warn them of the impact the Medicare sequester’s increased cuts and extension will have on cancer care nationwide.
The emergency Community Oncology Alliance (COA) fly-in was prompted by the momentum of the tax bill in both the US House and Senate. The bill proposes to raise the current sequester from 2% to 4%, as well as extend cuts at the end of the 10-year budget window.
In 2013, CMS enacted a 2% sequester payment cut to Medicare. The cut was originally intended to be an incentive to design an alternative budget savings package. The cut, signed into law in August 2011, set up the US cancer care system for consolidation and increased costs to seniors, Medicare, and taxpayers, says COA.
Since the sequester was enacted, the effect on the cancer care community has been felt across the nation. According to COA’s 2016 Practice Impact Report:
“We had over a dozen oncology leaders on the Hill yesterday talking about the devastating impact that this would have…not only would it be devastating, but it would be irresponsible of Congress,” Ted Okon, MBA, COA’s executive director, told The Center for Biosimilars® in an interview. “Regardless of whether this tax bill passes, we’ve been arguing all year that CMS in the prior administration should not have applied the sequester to Part B Medicare drugs. We’re at the point now that we’ve been working with Congress and talking to the current administration, and it remains to be seen what we’ll do next if they don’t either legislatively fix this, or if they don’t stop it from a regulatory standpoint.”
Jeff Vacirca, MD, president of COA and CEO of New York Cancer Specialists, also had a strong message for lawmakers. “Our elected officials need to understand that this sequester may seem like funny money to them but it is a slow bleed closing cancer clinics and forcing them into the waiting arms of more expensive hospital systems—especially those profiting off 340B. Congress needs to understand that their doubling down on the sequester and constantly extending it will result in community oncology practices being forced to shut their doors, which will cause access issues for patients and increase treatment costs as cancer care shifts to expensive hospitals,” said Vacirca in a statement.
Panelists Call for Consistent Education, Support to Improve Patient Comfort With Biosimilars
May 15th 2024At the Festival of Biologics USA, panelists stressed the need for patient-centered communication and education to boost comfort with biosimilars, emphasizing consistent support from health care providers despite restrictive payer policies.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.