In a letter today, AHA again urged the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation to delay the start date for its new radiation oncology alternative payment model until Jan. 1, 2022. The complex model, which will be mandatory in certain areas of the country and for which many details are still forthcoming, “would be difficult to implement in three months in the best of circumstances; it will be nearly impossible to implement in three months during a public health emergency,” AHA wrote.

AHA also urged CMMI to reconsider sudden changes to the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced model effective Jan. 1, especially the move to clinical episode service line groups. “Requiring model participants to take on risk for large, diverse bundles of episodes — instead of allowing them to choose individual episodes as is current policy — will require more financial risk than many participants can currently bear,” AHA wrote. It urged the agency at least to delay the changes for a year so participants can model their impact before having to make participation decisions.  

Related News Articles

Headline
The House July 3 voted 218-214 to pass the final version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which enacts many of President Trump’s legislative…
Headline
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee June 30 denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by AbbVie in its lawsuit against the state’s…
Headline
The Senate narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) on July 1 by a 50-50 tally, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.…
Headline
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services June 30 issued its calendar year 2026 proposed rule for the home health prospective payment system. This rule…
Headline
The AHA June 29 sent a letter to senators urging them to amend the budget reconciliation bill before its final passage in the Senate. The Senate version of the…
Headline
The AHA June 27 filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee that defends the state’s 340B contract pharmacy law…