Witnesses say home infusion bill would expand care options, especially in rural areas
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Patient advocates and industry representatives told the subcommittee that HR 2172 would modernize Medicare’s home infusion benefit by removing the face‑to‑face requirement and reimbursing pharmacy services, potentially reducing hospital stays and improving access for rural patients.
Connie Sullivan, president and CEO of the National Home Infusion Association, urged the subcommittee to support HR 2172, the Preserving Patient Access to Home Infusion Act, saying Medicare’s current benefit is incomplete and prevents many beneficiaries from receiving appropriate home infusion care.
"The Medicare home infusion benefit only covers a handful of available drugs and is limited to a set of professional services that occur face to face in the home," Sullivan testified, adding that the restriction leaves beneficiaries ‘‘significantly underserved compared with those insured under commercial or other government plans." She cited a 2010 Government Accountability Office report confirming differences between Medicare and commercial market practices.
Tom Ryan of the American Association for Home Care described how home‑based infusion and durable medical equipment (DME) support patient independence and reduce costly hospital stays. He said the benefit’s current fragmentation—paying only for sporadic face‑to‑face services while excluding pharmacy coordination—undermines the practical delivery model used in commercial plans.
Members asked witnesses how HR 2172 would change discharge decisions and access. Sullivan said the bill removes the physical‑presence requirement for Medicare Part B home infusion and recognizes the full range of professional services and supplies required to support home infusion, enabling earlier discharge and fewer facility admissions for appropriate patients.
Several members emphasized rural access: witnesses said modernizing coverage would help patients who must travel hours to an infusion center and would expand participation by encouraging more providers to deliver home infusion. The witnesses and members also discussed Congressional Budget Office scoring and potential savings; Sullivan noted past GAO findings and industry letters supporting the legislation.
The subcommittee did not take an immediate vote. Members requested follow‑up questions for the record and signaled support for moving the bill to markup in future proceedings.