Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

ACR Leads Coalition Response to HHS Proposed Drug Pricing Threats

Carina Stanton  |  April 20, 2018

Potential federal drug pricing proposals could shuffle Part B drug coverage into the Part D program and restructure reimbursements for new drugs, moves that would jeopardize patient access to care, explains Kent “Kwas” Huston, MD, a rheumatologist in Kansas City, Mo., and a member of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee (GAC).

“We believe Part D benefits should not limit patients’ access to the medical therapy judged by the treating physician to be the most effective choice,” Dr. Huston says.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

“We also reiterate that allowing the most appropriate and efficacious therapy as judged by the treating physician can result in long-term cost savings.”

The 4 Primary Concerns
The ACR is leading a coalition response to these potential policy proposals that were included in the 2019 President’s Budget and the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report. In a March 14 coalition letter drafted by the ACR and sent to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar, concerns shared by multiple physician societies were outlined.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Here’s a snapshot of the coalition’s four primary concerns with the proposed changes:

  1. Coverage would be limited or reduced as a result of reducing formulary coverage requirements of Medicare Part D plans.

A proposed change to Part D plan formulary standards would require a minimum of just one drug per category or class, rather than two, which could restrict patient access to high-cost biologic medications.

  1. Access to medications could be limited if Part B drug coverage is shuffled under the Part D program.

A proposed change would give the HHS Secretary authority to consolidate certain drugs currently covered under the Medicare Part B program into the Part D program, a drastic change that could delay and restrict patient access to certain medications through prior authorization and step therapy measures, and force patients to access these high-cost medications at higher cost care sites, which would lead to high out-of-pocket costs for patients, especially for biologics.

  1. Medicare Part B physician reimbursement could be drastically limited from 6% to 3% over the wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for new drugs, and 3% over the average sales price (ASP) for established drugs, affecting physician ability to provide necessary therapies to patients.

With the existing Part B payment structure and sequestration in place, the costs of obtaining and providing the complex therapies in the Part B program in the outpatient setting are inadequately covered. This proposed change to restructure Medicare Part B physician reimbursement to pay physicians 3% over the ASP for Part B drugs would exacerbate this less-than-adequate reimbursement, particularly for many small and rural practices that can’t negotiate bulk discounts in their drug purchases and may have already been forced to stop administering biologic therapies to Medicare patients.

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Legislation & Advocacy Tagged with:coalition responseHHSKent “Kwas” HustonPart B drug coverageproposed drug pricing threatsrestructure reimbursements

Related Articles

    ACR Leads Fight Against Proposed Reimbursement Cuts to E/M Services

    August 7, 2018

    On July 12, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its proposed plan for changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2019.1 Citing the need to reduce paperwork and improve patient care, the CMS detailed a number of changes to payments physicians receive from Medicare that could have a significant impact on…

    Medicare D-lemmas

    January 1, 2007

    Rheumatologists and patients report mixed experiences with the new prescription drug benefit

    Advocacy Team Celebrates Healthcare Fixes, Prepares to Face New Threats

    March 1, 2018

    Greetings, Advocates! Great news for the rheumatology community came on Feb. 9, when the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was enacted. It contains several critical healthcare fixes pertinent to rheumatology. First, after hundreds of emails, meetings, letters to the editor, an op-ed, and a forceful 109-member coalition (led by the ACR and including many state…

    Advocating for CMMI Reform, Looking Ahead to Alternative Payment Models

    May 17, 2017

    The work of health policy reform is a marathon, not a sprint. The ACR is encouraged by the forward progress being made in collaboration with the American Medical Association and other physician-led organizations within the Healthcare Leaders for Accountable Innovation in Medicare and Medicaid coalition (known as the AIM coalition) to advocate for physicians’ ability…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences