Oncology Reimbursement: Where Have the Drug Profits Gone?

A physician called me recently and said, “I am mad as heck and I am not taking this anymore.” He is not making 6%, he is making 2%. He believes the drug distributors are taking too much of a margin on the drugs. Another issue that is of major concern is why are the GPO’s owned by the distributors? Is this not a conflict of interest? If you note that when you switch, two white shirts show up at your door. One represents the distributor and the other represents the GPO. How can one impose savings if the physician is paying for two salespersons, two distribution systems? It is apparent we need some transparency in the game of drug purchasing.

I believe it is time for oncologists to demand some transparency and demand a 6% margin on drug purchases. I would think an investigation is needed to identify what margin of profit the distributor takes and what margin of profit the GPO takes. If they are one in the same company then we have a double dip. Instead of simply giving me the best price, the GPO offers many gimmicks and trickery into thinking you are getting the best price.

It is time to eliminate our current drug pricing methodology. Since 2001, our drug distribution system has convinced oncologists that it is okay to accept a 2% margin, or in many cases a 2% negative margin, on the drugs they purchase. Contrary to what should be happening in the industry, drug representatives are still encouraging physicians to use their drug more frequently. And the current drug rebate programs being offered to oncologists (if your volume is high enough) are an abomination that promotes the mentality of “use our drugs and treat like crazy so you get a rebate.” Forget patient care and the best drug for the patient.

Not only are many oncologists tied into the drug distributors and GPO’s for hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are also trapped and are now paying excessive interest for the 75 day hold.

As we consider all this information, it is important to realize that the perception in Congress is that oncologists are still making excess profits on drugs. Where are the needed dollars to provide the excellent care patients demand? Oncologists aren’t seeing them.

Today’s Oncology Drug Procurement: Effective or in Crisis?

Is the drug procurement process for the cancer delivery system in crisis or is it working?

In Economics 101, the law of supply and demand suggests that as demand increases, supply should follow and eventually the price should decrease accordingly. The customer expects to receive the best value for the product or services received at the lowest price.

But this “price drop” is not a term frequently used in the healthcare industry, especially when we look at oncology drugs. When a patient finds out that they are diagnosed with cancer, there is no goal to compare prices for the best deal; the goal is to be cured.

The patient has no incentive to focus on finding the best price for the product they were prescribed. The patient’s focus is on improving and recovering. The question is who becomes the advocate for the patient to ensure their best interests are being met? Who asks for the prices of Taxol versus Taxotere, Procrit versus Aranesp, Neupogen versus Neulasta?

Believe it or not, oncologists and insurance companies share a common problem. The drug distribution system is depleting precious financial resources from Medicare. But the solution is not to hurt the drug industry, but to instead cut out the waste of inappropriate costs that are added by the manufacturer to the end product.

This will enable oncologists to avoid the enormous debts that they are incurring today because of the price of drugs. The distributors gain security because the likelihood of Oncologists filing bankruptcy or repudiating their debts is lessened.

Is your oncology practice incurring debt due to the costs of drug procurement?

Reimbursement of Administering Chemotherapy is at a Low Level

Unfortunately, professional services for medical oncologists and hematologists administering chemotherapy and other infusables are getting reimbursed at a low level.

Oncology infusion codes are still using technical descriptors based on 1985 to 1989 CPT codes, which present their descriptors as a “nurse only” type of service. This does not take into account the knowledge, years of training and experience the physician has. We believe the infusion codes must take this into consideration.

Radiation oncology has treatment planning codes, and medical oncology should as well. Or even better yet, the capability to bill level six, seven and eight codes.

Are you receiving the reimbursement needed to take care of your patients, much less just cover your costs of chemotherapy? What are you experiencing? Share your comments with us. We would like to know.

Persistence Pays Off: A Success Story Worth Discussing

On behalf of a client, we have a great success story to report. One of our oncology clients was having continued denials with a large private pay insurance company. Regarding this particular situation, the oncologist was following AMA coding guidelines, however, the insurance company did not agree. The issue at hand was relative to CPT 96413, used for initial drug infusion, along with CPT 96416, used for chemotherapy administration via IV infusion (when patients are sent home with a pump).

The physicians were doing chemo and charging the administration and chemo fee. The insurance company told them only one charge could be “initial”, and that they would not be able to bill these codes together on the same day for the same patient. This started in October of 2006. They received continued denials. We exhausted the official appeals process for this physician. We then participated in a conference call with the insurance company and their legal department. The results of that call were still negative. We provided them with more information and documentation.

Fast forward a year later. They reversed their decision. We won. The oncologist won. Reimbursements will be made retro to January of 2006. This was a huge win for a solo practitioner. Persistence pays off.

If you have success stories please let us know what they are. We will share them.

Where Does the Money Go?

In response to the comment on our post “Considering Solutions for Oncology Drug Purchasing”, we agree and that is why we are pushing into new directions in this area. The key ingredient we need is for small groups to band together to arrive at a critical mass to break up this price fixing between the distributors. Medical Oncologists were supposed to be able to purchase drugs at ASP and it's not the case. Right or wrong, our government says it is our responsibility to find the solution. With that said, we have three goals:

Goal 1: Attempt to find a way to purchase drugs at ASP,

Goal 2: If that fails, accumulate the data and visit CMS with specific information,

Goal 3: If CMS and government fail to act on the data we accumulate, then we collectively take legal action to prove that price fixing is occurring in the market.

These are the choices in a free market system. Call us and join our effort.

Reality is in the Results, and It is No Surprise

In our previous post, “Considering Solutions for Oncology Drug Purchasing”, we asked for you to fill out our short “worksheet” in the News area of our website. We had several responses from oncology/hematology practices, comparing what they are paying to the Medicare allowable. No surprise: most physicians are paying way too much. We have posted these current results on our Neltner Billing website, and will update this as we get more data from hematologists/oncologists across the country.

Now that you see the data, is it reality or myth that:

• Oncologists cannot purchase drugs at ASP or lower.
• Oncologists have been misled by industry representatives that oncologists are purchasing drugs at or below ASP.

The answer is reality, and you are proving it in your numbers. The table shows that most payments are red and blue. Red numbers denote payments of ASP+6% or higher; blue numbers denote payments between ASP and ASP+6%. There are few numbers in black which actually fall below ASP.

Thank you for the responses we have received so far and please keep them coming. It is clear from what we have collected so far, that ASP is flawed. The more data we can collect, the stronger we will be in lobbying for change. The data, the reality, cannot be ignored.

If any of you would be interested in attending pre-scheduled airport meetings, please comment back to us as we have considered this as a venue to discuss the ASP issue together in person.

Considering Solutions for Oncology Drug Purchasing

Thank you for your comments on the recent ASP post. Oncologists need to band together and find a solution to this problem.

Yes, this is doable. We need to create and engage in a process that suggests finding a solution in a free market system.

Medicare will never hear our plea for better reimbursement unless we can prove with documentation and examples that:
1. ASP is not working and why.
2. The current coding system is not properly reimbursing you for your cost.

How do we prove this to Medicare?

Who can purchase drugs at ASP or lower? You know that many of you are unfairly purchasing at ASP or higher. Following are some points to investigate in proving our case to Medicare:

1. How can we determine that the ASP formula is flawed?
2. Are distributors, GPO (Government Printing Office) and manufacturers taking more profit from the ASP formula than what they should be taking? Would the government agree?
3. Is it true that distributors obtain 2% plus from the manufacturers that are not counted in the ASP formula? If this is true, do distributors need to take another 4% profit from their customers?
4. Why hasn’t One Oncology launched its product? We are told that distributors will not sell to them and this interferes with the free market system. So, who is responsible for stopping this from working?
5. Have the manufacturers, distributors and GPOs misled their customers by making them think they are purchasing drugs below ASP, when in fact the customer is buying below ASP + 6% (huge difference)?
6. Isn’t the GPO supposed to help practices save money?
7. Aren’t we all supposed to purchase drugs at ASP?

Share your thoughts and ideas so we can collectively find the solution. On our Neltner Billing website, we have posted a short “worksheet” in the News area that will enable you to compare the Medicare allowable to what you are actually paying. You can fill it out, fax it back to us anonymously and we will build a spreadsheet with the results we receive. I think this is the type of real data we need to start lobbying.

Our next post will include a sample letter and instructions on writing your senators and congress representatives about this issue. We will do the same. If enough oncologists/ hematologists write in, we can create momentum. I think this is the first step in developing awareness.