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.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Adalimumab Biosimilar Switching Policy Shows Long-Term Success in IBD
February 26th 2025Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from reference adalimumab (Humira) to a biosimilar under a mandatory nonmedical switching policy maintained long-term safety, efficacy, and treatment persistence comparable to those who remained on the originator drug, according to a Canadian study.