Last week we discussed ROCR and a few things seem to draw most of the critiques of the plan - today we'll look at bit closer at these issues and beyond.
Nice discussion as always. Would’ve liked to hear from you what points a chairman or board-experienced MD would make re: PPS exemption. Also, my understanding of the current Medicare dilemma for rad onc is the budget neutrality forces steep cuts to expensive tech-driven fields in order to raise reimbursement to cognitive specialties. Is that not correct? If it is, then I respectfully disagree with your hypothesis that ROCR would lead Medicare to specifically punish proton therapy. It seems that the usual budget ratchet would continue the same course as it always has. I.e. the statutory cuts would continue to come, but proton owners presumably accept that.
Thanks for reading along and the comment. PPS - I just really think if you have been forced to play nice in the boardroom / a form of politics that the vast majority of players on that level would appreciate the need to not directly tie PPS changes to our goals. As discussed, to me, quite easy to see the need to not tightly linked. As discussed last week, hypofractionation is the major item driving our revenue - far more than budget neutrality issues. And with protons, they are growing - more and more facilities which links to growth in that segment so I do think it will still jump off dashboard for CMS - when growth of facilities is paired with hypo, the revenue cuts will be quite significant in my assessment - easily enough to force ASTRO to address the 10% next. (I don't think you can leave it on an island for long at all). But opinion of one. Thanks for discussion - a vast majority needs to land in support of this and you get there via good discussion.
Nice discussion as always. Would’ve liked to hear from you what points a chairman or board-experienced MD would make re: PPS exemption. Also, my understanding of the current Medicare dilemma for rad onc is the budget neutrality forces steep cuts to expensive tech-driven fields in order to raise reimbursement to cognitive specialties. Is that not correct? If it is, then I respectfully disagree with your hypothesis that ROCR would lead Medicare to specifically punish proton therapy. It seems that the usual budget ratchet would continue the same course as it always has. I.e. the statutory cuts would continue to come, but proton owners presumably accept that.
Thanks for reading along and the comment. PPS - I just really think if you have been forced to play nice in the boardroom / a form of politics that the vast majority of players on that level would appreciate the need to not directly tie PPS changes to our goals. As discussed, to me, quite easy to see the need to not tightly linked. As discussed last week, hypofractionation is the major item driving our revenue - far more than budget neutrality issues. And with protons, they are growing - more and more facilities which links to growth in that segment so I do think it will still jump off dashboard for CMS - when growth of facilities is paired with hypo, the revenue cuts will be quite significant in my assessment - easily enough to force ASTRO to address the 10% next. (I don't think you can leave it on an island for long at all). But opinion of one. Thanks for discussion - a vast majority needs to land in support of this and you get there via good discussion.