Journal of wound care · 2026
Early reported effects of the 2026 CMS Physician Fee Schedule on patient access to CAMPs in wound care: a national clinician and practice survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tettelbach William H, Armstrong David G, Tucker Travis, Oropallo Alisha, Wahab Naz, Rogers Lee C, Low Mervin, Driver Vickie, Kapp Daniel L, Morrison Lynnette, Nolan Kevin, Ostler Marta, Tettelbach Will, Gooden Justin, Bohn Gregory A, Niezgoda Jeffery A, Desvigne Michael N, Snyder Robert J, Davenport Thomas, Gitterle Marcus, Kelso Martha R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In 2026, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented an update to the Physician Fee Schedule establishing a unified reimbursement rate for skin substitutes, also referred to as cellular, acellular and matrix-like products (CAMPs). This policy change introduced a fixed payment of [Formula: see text]127.14 per cm2, regardless of product type or regulatory classification. The aim of this work was to assess perceived impacts of the revised fee schedule that went into effect on 1 January 2026.
METHOD: The Wound and Hyperbaric Association conducted an online national survey of wound care practitioners and practices from 4 February 2026 to 14 April 2026. The Access Crisis Feedback Form consisted of 13 questions, including two open-ended items.
RESULTS: Over the 69 days that the survey was open, 130 (~3%) responses were received from a comparative pool of 4551 National Provider Identifiers that had applied a CAMP in 2024. Collectively, respondents reported providing care to approximately 12,000 patients with wounds per week. Geographic representation included 36 of 50 (72%) states and Washington DC, and 8 of 12 (67%) Medicare Administrative Contractors. Most respondents (82%) practiced in non-facility settings; however, hospital-affiliated outpatient wound centres, and ambulatory surgery centres were also represented. The most severe concern identified was the 'Closure or planned closure of a wound care practice or service line', reported by just over 45% of responding settings. Only five (4%) respondents reported no significant impact, indicating that 96% perceived at least one operational impact following implementation of the revised payment policy. The most frequently cited concern (61%) was 'Authorisation delays for clinically eligible patients'.
CONCLUSION: Analysis of the survey data suggests widespread impacts of the implemented CAMPs universal fee schedule across diverse wound care delivery settings in the US, including a substantial risk of service line closures. These findings raise concerns that a uniform CAMP product payment may not achieve site-of-care neutrality when hospital outpatient departments receive a separate application facility payment, while non-facility providers do not. Respondents reported that patients are already experiencing reduced access to advanced wound care, with associated complications such as: infection; sepsis; amputation; wound deterioration or enlargement; hospital readmission; the need for surgical debridement in the operating room setting; and flap- or graft-based salvage procedures. Responding wound care providers and practices, across diverse care settings and geographic regions, urge reevaluation of the current reimbursement framework to ensure the financial sustainability of wound care services, and to protect patient access and outcomes.
METHOD: The Wound and Hyperbaric Association conducted an online national survey of wound care practitioners and practices from 4 February 2026 to 14 April 2026. The Access Crisis Feedback Form consisted of 13 questions, including two open-ended items.
RESULTS: Over the 69 days that the survey was open, 130 (~3%) responses were received from a comparative pool of 4551 National Provider Identifiers that had applied a CAMP in 2024. Collectively, respondents reported providing care to approximately 12,000 patients with wounds per week. Geographic representation included 36 of 50 (72%) states and Washington DC, and 8 of 12 (67%) Medicare Administrative Contractors. Most respondents (82%) practiced in non-facility settings; however, hospital-affiliated outpatient wound centres, and ambulatory surgery centres were also represented. The most severe concern identified was the 'Closure or planned closure of a wound care practice or service line', reported by just over 45% of responding settings. Only five (4%) respondents reported no significant impact, indicating that 96% perceived at least one operational impact following implementation of the revised payment policy. The most frequently cited concern (61%) was 'Authorisation delays for clinically eligible patients'.
CONCLUSION: Analysis of the survey data suggests widespread impacts of the implemented CAMPs universal fee schedule across diverse wound care delivery settings in the US, including a substantial risk of service line closures. These findings raise concerns that a uniform CAMP product payment may not achieve site-of-care neutrality when hospital outpatient departments receive a separate application facility payment, while non-facility providers do not. Respondents reported that patients are already experiencing reduced access to advanced wound care, with associated complications such as: infection; sepsis; amputation; wound deterioration or enlargement; hospital readmission; the need for surgical debridement in the operating room setting; and flap- or graft-based salvage procedures. Responding wound care providers and practices, across diverse care settings and geographic regions, urge reevaluation of the current reimbursement framework to ensure the financial sustainability of wound care services, and to protect patient access and outcomes.