The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a number of disruptions in our health care system, one of which is the ability for seniors to access their infused or injected Part B medicines normally administered in a physician office or hospital outpatient setting. Many seniors are confined to their home during the pandemic because either their age or their health condition makes it far too dangerous to travel to a doctor’s office, clinic or hospital. These seniors, suffering from complex diseases like multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, cancer, osteoporosis and immune disorders, among others, that require regular care, are among the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and must be protected from the risk of exposure.
PhRMA applauds the Administration for taking initial steps to address these concerns through the Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (IFC) Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency released by CMS on March 30, but there is far more that could and should be done to help this vulnerable population during this public health crisis. For example, the IFC relies on physician supervision via telemedicine, but there are limitations with telemedicine that are overlooked. As stated in PhRMA’s comments, “We are concerned that many physician practices will not be able to overcome the operational and financial barriers to implement the IFC’s telemedicine-based model. Additionally, we recognize that there may be potential limitations for patients to interface with telemedicine platforms at the point of care, including challenges in coordinating sessions.”
To address these concerns, PhRMA provided a number of alternative solutions for the Administration to consider to ensure Part B beneficiaries can access the medicines they need during this pandemic.
- The Administration should take steps to temporarily expand the list of providers eligible to buy, bill and administer Part B medicines. “To provide as much support as possible for physicians during the public health emergency, CMS should allow for physicians, when they deem it is safe and appropriate, to refer patients to new qualified entities: nurse practitioners, home health agency, a home infusion therapy supplier, a durable medical equipment supplier, any other individual/entity determined by Secretary through guidance, which could include entities such as Specialty Pharmacies that often employ qualified nurse practitioners. These entities should be allowed to bill Medicare directly for both the drug and the administration.”
- The Administration should clarify its temporary expansion of coverage of medicines administered through the durable medical equipment (DME) benefit under Part B. “In particular, the IFC does not explain whether CMS is expanding coverage: (1) to additional indications for the drugs listed in the local coverage determinations (LCD); or (2) to additional indications for the listed drugs, plus to external infusion pumps and additional drugs that can be administered through infusion pumps but are not currently listed in the LCD. We recommend that CMS clarify in its final rule (or in guidance) that during the public health emergency Medicare will cover drugs and biologicals that can safely be administered through external infusion pumps (as well as the pumps themselves) for all reasonable and necessary indications, regardless of whether the drugs and indications are currently listed in the External Infusion Pump LCD.”
- The Administration should clearly state the flexibilities for blood draws and other specimen collection conducted in patients’ homes during the public health crisis. “Various drugs for Medicare beneficiaries require some level of clinical laboratory monitoring for their safe and effective use. Often, whole blood counts or other assays are required to titrate dosing or monitor for toxicity which necessitates patients having blood drawn. … The expansion of the definition of ‘homebound’ should now permit expanded coverage for Part B payment for a specimen collection fee and travel allowance for a laboratory technician to draw a specimen from homebound patient.”
Additionally, PhRMA called attention to the increased burden COVID-19 is putting on providers and suggested the Administration consider ways to temporarily increase reimbursement under Part B for providers working to continue to safely administer these medicines during the pandemic. “We recognize that there will be some situations where drug administration in a beneficiary’s home is not the safest or best option. Physicians and infusion centers may choose to continue to administer medicines to patients at their offices. In addition, ensuring broad capacity for drug administration in as many sites of services as possible, as determined to be appropriate by a patient’s provider, will help relieve pressure on high-acuity hospital settings in regions where COVID-19 is more prevalent. However, in order to do so safely, physicians may need to purchase PPE or stay open longer in order to space out patients. ... CMS should consider either special allocation or prioritization of providers that administer Part B medicines, infusion centers, and additional entities providing home infusions to receive support from the Provider Relief Fund.”
Read PhRMA’s full comments here.
Nicole Longo
Nicole Longo is Deputy Vice President of public affairs at PhRMA focusing on Medicare, 340B, importation and more. She previously worked for a D.C.-based public affairs firm where she assisted a wide range of clients with communications efforts on everything from trade policy to agriculture policy to health care policy. Outside the office, Nicole can be found trying new restaurants (usually Italian), taking an occasional barre class and cheering on the Cincinnati Bengals.
Nicole Longo
The Inflation Reduction Act could increase costs and reduce access for millions of seniors
Are the IRA’s Part B inflation rebates lowering costs for Medicare patients? No.
Biosimilars continue to drive market competition and increase savings for seniors
New analysis: Flawed assessments of a medicine’s value jeopardize patient access
CMS guidance on IRA price setting process doubles down on bad policy
A guide to MedPAC’s Part B vote today
MedPAC proposal threatens access to medicines in Part B
CMS coverage policy is detrimental to Alzheimer’s patients
How Part B’s ASP system helps control costs for the government and seniors
Medicare Part B spending in four points
Biosimilar uptake is increasing and so are health savings
CMS coverage policies restrict patient access to important treatment options for Alzheimer’s disease
The Senate’s latest price setting proposal will undermine: Patient access to medicines
New research shows competition driven by biosimilars helps control costs in Part B
CMS coverage decision restricts access to treatments for Alzheimer’s disease
Part B 101: Three charts show the program helps control costs for health care system and enrollees
PhRMA submits comments urging CMS to withdraw coverage proposal
It’s a new year, but sadly Congress is still pursuing flawed price setting policies
Post-approval research save lives. Why is Congress trying disincentivize it?
A price control by any other name would still put patients at risk and threaten innovation
Making medicines more affordable: Modernizing Medicare
ICYMI: New study confirms policies like H.R. 3 could significantly reduce drug development
Recent polling misrepresents public support for Medicare “negotiation”
What they’re saying: Patient advocates want to protect Medicare from government interference
The ABCs (and Ds) of Medicare
New analysis finds stark difference in coverage of breast cancer medicines for seniors in the United States and England
No matter how you look at it, the Most Favored Nation rule is bad policy
Three reasons the Administration should abandon its International Pricing Index proposal
New analysis: Government intervention in Part B threatens patient access to medicines
Setting the record straight on international reference pricing
No matter how you structure it, government arbitration is wrong for Medicare drug coverage
What you should know: Government arbitration is the wrong way to change Medicare
By the numbers: A look at the Part B International Pricing Index Model
Event tomorrow: Improving access and affordability for America’s seniors
Fact Check: How the Part B International Pricing Index Model replaces market competition with government-set prices
340B continues to drive shift in site of care for physician-administered medicines to more expensive hospital settings
Fact Check: How the Part B International Pricing Index model threatens patient access
New analysis finds Average Sales Price system has led to significant cost savings for Medicare and seniors
New “Prescription for Medicare” campaign focuses on impacts of wrong and right solutions for Medicare
In survey, PhRMA member companies highlight impact of IPI on R&D
ICYMI: New study reinforces dangers of proposed IPI model
PhRMA comments to administration on International Pricing Index Model
10 things you should know about medicine spending and costs
ICYMI: WSJ and NYT highlight concerns with Part B International Pricing Index Model
Groups sound the alarm on administration’s new Part B proposal
4 things you need to know about the administration’s latest Part B proposal
PhRMA comments in response to request for information on competitive bidding program in Medicare Part B
Fact Check Friday: Getting the facts straight about negotiation in Medicare Part B
How much do you know about Medicare Part B?
PhRMA submission to HHS on blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs
New analysis shows negative impact of ICER’s value framework on patient access in Medicare Part B
Medicare Monday: New Xcenda white paper looks at four strengths of Part B
Medicare Monday: Moran finds Part B medicine prices are stable, not a key driver of Medicare costs
Guess what? Part B drug spending remains stable share of Medicare spending
Medicare Monday: CMS withdraws Part B demo, takes positive step forward on CMMI
Medicare Monday: Medicare turns 52!
Medicare Monday: How Part B has evolved over the years
Medicare Monday: It is Medicare’s birthday month!
Medicare Monday: New report highlights progress in fighting cancer with new physician-administered medicines
Medicare Monday: Catch up on MedPAC and its Part B recommendations
Medicare Monday: Did you know Medicare Part B uses a market-based system to pay for medicines?
Medicare Monday: Stakeholders raise concern with MedPAC’s proposed changes to drug purchasing program
Medicare Monday: What they are saying about MedPAC’s Part B recommendations
Medicare Monday: A guide to MedPAC’s Part B vote this week
Medicare Monday: Billing code basics for biologics in Part B
Medicare Monday: A closer look at Part B spending
Medicare Monday: How Medicare helps beneficiaries access needed medicines
Medicare Monday: A closer look at Medicare Part B
Medicare Monday: Kicking off 2017 with Medicare resources
PhRMA submits comments to CMS on policy changes for in-home care under Part B during COVID-19
Part B
PhRMA submits comments to CMS on policy changes for in-home care under Part B during COVID-19
PhRMA submits comments to CMS on policy changes for in-home care under Part B during COVID-19