Health Policy Report – August 12, 2026

Missouri Cancer Associates Hosts MO Speaker of the House Jon Patterson, MD, for Site Visit

Missouri Cancer Associates (MCA) recently welcomed Missouri Speaker of the House Jon Patterson, MD, to its Columbia practice for a discussion on the importance of preserving access to high-quality, community-based cancer care across Mid-Missouri. Practice leaders shared how MCA’s integrated model brings together medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, clinical trials, pharmacy, laboratory, imaging, and patient support services in a coordinated setting that allows patients to receive comprehensive cancer care close to home.

The discussion focused on the value of the community oncology model and the challenges facing independent practices. Physicians and practice leaders shared how community-based care helps improve convenience, affordability, and continuity of care for patients while reducing the need for long-distance travel during treatment. They also discussed growing pressures on independent practices, including rising costs, administrative burdens, reimbursement challenges, and ongoing healthcare consolidation.

A significant portion of the conversation focused on HB 3170, state legislation that would expand MU Health Care’s authority to acquire hospitals and other healthcare facilities across a large region of Missouri while providing protection from certain antitrust challenges. MCA physicians shared their support for efforts to improve healthcare access in rural communities while expressing concerns that it could also accelerate healthcare consolidation, reduce competition, limit patient choice, and shift more care into the higher-cost setting.

If your practice is interested in hosting a site visit, please contact Angela Storseth at angela.storseth@usoncology.com.

Former Speaker of the MO House of Representatives Tim Jones Pens Op-Ed in the Kansas City Star

In an op-ed published in the Kansas City Star on August 5, Former Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Tim Jones encouraged Congress to pass H.R. 4299, the Protecting Patient Access to Care and Complex Therapies Act. This bipartisan bill would preserve access to physician-administered cancer drugs while reducing costs for patients, all without undermining the practices that deliver them.

In his op-ed, Jones writes that reimbursement for certain Part B drugs under the Inflation Reduction Act falls below the cost for independent oncologists to acquire, store, and deliver them. At the same time, Missourians are losing access to community cancer care as local medical practices disappear or consolidate with larger hospitals. These trends threaten to leave patients with limited options for cancer care. According to Jones, ensuring appropriate payments to community-based oncologists would help practices meet local demand and ensure complex cancer treatments for patients.

To read his full op-ed, CLICK HERE.

Dr. Randolph Drosick Speaks Out Against White Bagging in the Hamilton Journal News

In a letter to the editor (LTE) recently published in the Hamilton Journal News, Dr. Randolph Drosick asked Ohio legislators to pass HB 682, which would prohibit insurers’ use of “white bagging” mandates for physician-administered cancer treatments.

In his letter, Dr. Drosick highlighted how such white bagging policies force physicians to order drugs from a specialty pharmacy often affiliated with the patients’ insurer. This potentially causes delays in patient care, inefficiency, and drug waste. He explained that HB 682 would help oncologists adjust dosing based on patient need, a flexibility that is denied under a white bagging mandate.

“This may seem like a minor difference, but as many oncologists and their patients know, the consequences are not,” Dr. Drosick wrote.

To read his letter to the editor, CLICK HERE.

Senate Releases Text of Continuing Resolution

On August 3, the Senate released the text of a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded through December 11. The temporary funding measure is designed to avoid a government shutdown ahead of midterm elections, while also giving lawmakers time to finalize an annual budget before the September 30 deadline to fund the government. The Senate advanced the resolution in an 89-4 vote, and lawmakers have set a goal of approving the measure before leaving town for its August recess.

In its newly released framework, the Senate provides target funding for disaster relief, nutrition, and national security. It prevents loopholes for funds provided for other programs to move to Customs and Border Patrol or be canceled under proposed administrative grant rules.

Last month, the House approved a separate stopgap measure to fund the government into December, in a vote that fell largely along party lines and faced opposition from Democrats. House Speaker Mike Johnson will have to decide whether to pass the Senate’s bill or push the House’s original measure after they return from recess on August 31.

To read more about the resolution, CLICK HERE.

Budget Neutrality Bill Introduced in the Senate

On July 30, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the Provider Reimbursement Stability Act, a companion bill to legislation that was introduced in the House earlier this year. Introduced by Senators John Boozman (R-AR), Peter Welch (D-VT), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), Angus King (I-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the bill would help ensure greater stability and predictability of Medicare physician payments.

Specifically, the legislation would update Medicare’s budget neutrality threshold from $20 million—the level it has been set at for over three decades—to $57.64 million in 2028. Every five years, the threshold would be updated by the cumulative increase in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI), a measure of inflation, starting in 2033. It would also increase payment accuracy by requiring the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to update its spending estimates and budget neutrality adjustments based on actual after-the-fact utilization rates derived from claims data. Finally, the bill would update direct costs and limit variances in the conversion factor to no greater than 2.5% from year to year, thereby providing more stability to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

To read more about the Provider Reimbursement Stability Act, CLICK HERE and HERE.

340B Program Updates

In recent weeks, there have been several significant developments affecting the 340B drug pricing program.

On July 31, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) proposed a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program. Under this new framework, hospitals would have to purchase 340B drugs upfront from manufacturers and apply for rebates instead of purchasing with upfront discounts. These changes apply to select outpatient drugs and are a part of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) initiatives to increase transparency and accountability in 340B.

On August 5, a group of bipartisan Senators introduced legislation that would reform the 340B program. Introduced by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tim Kaine (D-VA), John Boozman (R-AR), and John Hickenlooper (D-CO), the SUSTAIN 340B Act would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to end the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program after one year and instead establish a clearinghouse for the federal government to collect claims data in order to prevent duplicate discounts. It would also formally permit the use of contract pharmacies, which pharmaceutical companies would be required to offer 340B pricing to, while preventing them from creating new conditions or restricting delivery of drugs to contract pharmacies. The legislation would also create new requirements to strengthen transparency and program integrity.

Meanwhile, a New Hampshire hospital is suing Eli Lilly over the decision to stop providing 340B drug price discounts because the hospital was not complying with the company’s policy to submit detailed claims data on received discounts. The lawsuit argues that Congress did not authorize companies to enact additional reporting requirements on 340B discounts. Earlier this month, a hospital in Tampa filed a similar lawsuit against the company.

Finally, a white paper released by the Health Equity Collaborative (HEC) examined the effectiveness of the 340B program in expanding healthcare services for low-income patients. The study found that generally, hospitals participating in 340B were not expanding unprofitable services or concentrating growth in underserved areas. The HEC recommended increased transparency, oversight, and eligibility screening for 340B discounts based on these results.

To read more about the SUSTAIN 340B Act, CLICK HERE.

To read more about the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, CLICK HERE.

To read the full white paper, CLICK HERE.

Inpatient Hospitals to Receive 2.3% Payment Increase Under PPS Final Rule

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) rates for FY 2027, which includes a 2.3% payment increase for inpatient hospitals – but overall represents a -0.1% decrease compared to FY 2026. Under the final rule, Medicare payments to hospitals would increase by roughly $2.1 billion next year. CMS also estimated that additional payments for inpatient cases involving new medical technologies will increase by approximately $779 million in FY 2027, primarily driven by new approvals for new technology add-on payments.

To read more about CMS’s FY 2027 final rule for hospital payments, CLK HERE.

To read CMS’ fact sheet about the final rule, CLICK HERE.

Trump Administration Ends Part D Drug Subsidies

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that the Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration will end a year earlier than planned, at the end of 2026.

These drug subsidies were created to stabilize insurance premium increases during the transitional period after the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act capped Medicare patients’ out-of-pocket medication costs, shifting costs onto Part D insurance sponsors. The subsidies were estimated to have reduced the average Medicare drug plan premium significantly for seniors.

Critics caution that an abrupt end to these subsidies is likely to raise costs and premiums for beneficiaries to offset the increased spending on medications by insurers. Plan-specific premium increases won’t be known until more information is released by CMS.

To read more, CLICK HERE.