Getting Paid for Clinical Services.

Increasingly, pharmacists are providing advanced, patient-centered clinical services. However, pharmacists are not currently included in key sections of the Social Security Act, which determines eligibility to bill and be reimbursed by Medicare. Many state and private health plans also cite the omission from Medicare as the rationale for excluding reimbursement of pharmacists for clinical services. This has prompted forward-thinking pharmacists to seek opportunities for reimbursement in other ways, allowing them to provide value to the health care system, while carving out unique niches for pharmacists to care for patients.

[Topical chemotherapy for conjunctival tumours - the medical and legal bearings of the case]. / Lokale Chemotherapie von Tumoren der Bindehaut - interdisziplinär medizinische und administrative Aspekte.

The treatment management of malignant tumours is characterised and limited by specific features of the topographical structure of the eye. The anatomic characteristics of the conjunctival sac, the movable tissue structures and the need to take care of corneal transparency and conjunctival stability are the main concerns of the experts. Clinical studies have revealed adjuvant chemotherapy to have a positive effect as a therapeutic treatment for neoplasia of the conjunctiva and cornea. Although mitomycin and interferon are widely used, there are no phase III studies on local adjuvant chemotherapy (interferon, mitomycin, 5-fluorouracil) that evaluate the proof of effectiveness, potential adverse effects or interactions with other drugs. For this reason, the currently available studies fail to comply with the jurisdiction of the German Federal Social Court. Hence, the Medical Service of the Health Insurance Funds (MDK) regionally does not accept the medical preconditions for reimbursement of the costs in adjuvant local chemotherapy. A doctor's unquestioned acceptance of such an MDK decision could have legal consequences. An off-label use is acceptable by law if there is no alternative treatment available with a higher evidence level that conforms to the medical standard. It is therefore recommendable for the Joint Federal Committee commissions the experts in ophthalmology and oncology on off-label use, to review the scientific evidence regarding adjuvant therapy of malignant tumours of the ocular surface. Only in this way can regional disparities in patient care, and intrusions on the doctor-patient relationship, be avoided.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform.

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.