The American College of Rheumatology has issued a response to CMS’ 2018 Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule, which was issued earlier this month.
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has issued a response to CMS’ 2018 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) proposed rule, which was issued earlier this month.
The ACR, a professional membership organization that advocates for more than 9500 members that include rheumatology care providers and researchers, praised CMS for seeking stakeholder input on the ways in which the body can achieve transparency, flexibility, program simplification, and innovation with respect to its policies, including policies affecting payment for biosimilar products. ACR says that making improvements to Medicare will be essential to ensuring that rheumatology practices, especially practices that serve rural areas, can continue to provide quality care to patients.
The ACR voiced its support for a revision to the value modifier (VM), an adjustment made on a per-claim basis to Medicare payments for items and services based upon physicians’ performance on quality and cost criteria. The proposed rule would reduce the VM adjustment:
However, ACR calls on CMS to go further in easing the VM burden on practitioners by establishing a VM adjustment of 0% in 2018.
ACR also praised CMS for delaying the implementation of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for advanced diagnostic imaging services. AUC, introduced in the 2016 PFS Final Rule, are evidence-based criteria that CMS says will “assist professionals who order and furnish applicable imaging services to make the most appropriate treatment decisions for a specific clinical condition” once they are implemented. The ACR says that it supports a gradual phase-in of AUC, and that it supports exemptions to the program for physicians practicing in underserved areas.
ACR also called on CMS to address what it sees as shortcomings to the proposed rule:
ACR reports that its full response to the proposed rule will be made during the public comment period. CMS is receiving comments on the proposed rule through September 11, 2017.
Patient Perceptions of Switching From the Reference Adalimumab to Amjevita During Its Initial Launch
April 20th 2024In a survey of patients with autoimmune arthritis who had been switched from reference adalimumab (Humira) to biosimilar adalimumab-atto (Amjevita; Amgen), most reported preferring the biosimilar and had no concerns about switching.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Biosimilars Rheumatology Roundup for February 2024—Podcast Edition
March 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® revisited all the major rheumatology biosimilar news from February 2024, including the FDA approval of the 10th adalimumab biosimilar, the promise for an oral delivery system for ustekinumab, and the impact of adalimumab products on COVID-19 antibodies.
The 6 Key Policy Factors to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 16th 2024Magnus Bodin, senior director and head of international access and policy at Biogen, presented warning signs for unsustainable biosimilar markets as well as key factors needed to create effective policies and future-proof biosimilar markets globally.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.