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

CMS Cancels Medicare Part B Demonstration Project

From the College  |  December 16, 2016

When the controversial Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model final rule was not released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as expected before Nov. 21, it signaled an increasing likelihood of defeat for the proposed rule—a signal proved true on Dec. 15.

A spokesperson for the CMS said, “After considering comments, CMS will not finalize the Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model during this administration. The proposal was intended to test whether alternative drug payment structures would improve the quality of patient care and the value of Medicare drug spending. While there was a great deal of support from some, a number of stakeholders expressed strong concerns about the model. While CMS was working to address these concerns, the complexity of the issues and the limited time available led to the decision not to finalize the rule at this time.”

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

From the time it was released in March 2016, the ACR  voiced strong opposition to the proposal. The ACR submitted detailed comments to the CMS in response to the proposed rule, and our members and patients sent more than 4,800 emails to Congressional offices, educating legislators about the negative impact this proposal would have on rheumatology patients who rely on physician-administered biologic therapies.

We want to extend a special thank you to the ACR/ARHP members and patient advocates who came to Washington, D.C., to meet with members of Congress and underscore the disproportionate impact the Part B payment model would have on rheumatology providers and patients. Working with our partners, our collective outreach to Congress resulted in 389 lawmakers writing to the CMS to express concern about the proposed rule.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

In addition to Congressional outreach, ACR members and patients published more than 50 opinion pieces and letters to the editor in leading publications throughout the country, including The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, MedPage Today and The Hill. The ACR also ran print and social media ads warning about the negative effect the rule would have on patient care.

The coordinated opposition from rheumatologists, patients and partnering organizations elevated this issue to the forefront of healthcare policy and led Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to formally request that the CMS not finalize the Part B Drug Payment Model. Nov. 21 marked the end of the 60-day hold period that would have allowed the rule to be released and implemented before the new administration takes control.

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:From the CollegeLegislation & AdvocacyProfessional Topics Tagged with:Congressional outreachMedicare Part B Drug Payment Model final rulepatient advocacy

Related Articles

    2024 Proposed Rule for the Quality Payment Program Released

    August 17, 2023

    See key changes for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for the 2024 performance year as outlined in the proposed rule.

    2022 PFS Final Rule for the Quality Payment Program Published

    December 2, 2021

    The ACR highlights essential information for providers for 2022 MIPS reporting in the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule, published Nov. 2.

    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…

    How to Survive MACRA

    April 19, 2017

    The year 2015 brought the end of the much-maligned Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), sometimes known as the “doc fix.” The SGR established limits on Medicare reimbursement for physicians, and each year, physicians and those lobbying on their behalf were forced to stave off drastic cuts to their payments. “The SGR was Congress’s attempt to control…

  • 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