Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions | |
pubmed:issue |
4 Suppl 1
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
1993-1-14
|
pubmed:abstractText |
Economic forces are stimulating cost sensitivity and the need for clinical efficiency in medicine. The federal government has led the way with Medicare reform, and cost-containment efforts are evident in all health care payer programs. More and more, the office-based oncology nurse is involved in reimbursement issues as both a colleague and a patient advocate. Creative solutions to the challenges of reimbursement require knowledge of the issues, familiarity with patient-specific therapies, and recognition of unique cost and billing issues. Biologic agents frequently used in office-based oncology practice are easy targets for reimbursement denials because of regulations against their investigational status, "off-label" use, method of administration, and relatively high cost. Such agents include interferon, erythropoietin (EPO), granulocyte and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF and GM-CSF, respectively), and interleukin-2 (IL-2). Reimbursement decisions are often characterized by inconsistency and uncertainty, and rulings are based not only on law, but also on interpretation. The need for clarification often opens a window for negotiation for the complex reimbursement issues associated with biotherapy. In addition to thoroughly determining cost and accurately assigning appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, office-based oncology nurses can pursue various strategies to help their patients and practices obtain reimbursement of biotherapy. Chief among these is educating third-party payers on the appropriateness and necessity of newer treatment modalities. In individual cases, documentation of the scientific data, clinical outcomes, and cost benefits supporting a treatment decision almost always gains reimbursement.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
pubmed:chemical | |
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
Nov
|
pubmed:issn |
0749-2081
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
pubmed:volume |
8
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
8-12
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-15
|
pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Cost Allocation,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Drug Costs,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Drug Industry,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Drugs, Investigational,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Forecasting,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Immunologic Factors,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Information Services,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Neoplasms,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Office Nursing,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Oncologic Nursing,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-Reimbursement Mechanisms,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-United States,
pubmed-meshheading:1462057-United States Food and Drug Administration
|
pubmed:year |
1992
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Reimbursement of biotherapy: present status, future directions--perspectives of the office-based oncology nurse.
|
pubmed:affiliation |
P.C. Bennett Cancer Center, Stamford, CT.
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|