Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Oncology Reimbursement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee backs bill letting oncology providers choose medical vs. pharmacy claims for pre‑chemo meds

INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE · April 20, 2021
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 19‑07 (as amended) gives oncology and hematology providers discretion to bill pre‑chemotherapy medications under the medical benefit when medically appropriate; CARTI Cancer Centers testified providers need that flexibility to protect frail patients from medication delays or improper self‑administration.

The Senate Insurance & Commerce Committee passed House Bill 19‑07 with an amendment limiting its scope to oncology and hematology services and giving providers discretion to submit claims under the medical benefit rather than the pharmacy benefit.

Sen. Hammer and Rep. Lowry described the change as a patient‑centered clarity that prevents payors from excluding clinic‑administered pre‑chemotherapy medications from coverage when those services are appropriately delivered in medical clinics. Melissa Massengill of Cartai Cancer Centers testified the change is needed because payors have begun excluding some pre‑chemo medications when provided in clinics and instead paying through a pharmacy benefit, which can force fragile patients to obtain and self‑administer medications from out-of-state mail-order pharmacies. Massengill said the result can cause delays, refrigeration/quality-control issues, dosing errors and burden frail, immunocompromised patients.

The sponsor and witnesses emphasized the bill does not change patient benefits but gives clinicians professional discretion over where care is provided and how claims are submitted. The committee adopted the amendment clarifying legislative intent and passed the bill as amended on a due‑pass motion.

Sponsors noted some implementation details may be addressed in rulemaking.