Survey: Clinicians Call for Clarity, Consistency, and Sustainability in Future CTP Policy

Key Takeaways 

• Clinicians are seeking greater clarity and consistency in policy requirements. Variability across payers and evolving guidance continue to create uncertainty, with respondents emphasizing the need for more standardized and stable coverage frameworks.  
• Respondents highlight the need to balance utilization controls with clinical flexibility. While acknowledging concerns about overuse, many clinicians expressed that current restrictions may not fully reflect patient-specific needs or real-world practice.  
• Reimbursement and patient access remain central concerns moving forward. Feedback suggests a desire for more sustainable payment structures and targeted policy approaches that preserve access while addressing inappropriate utilization. 

This series of content from the CTP News Desk highlights various aspects of clinicians’ responses to their current experience with recent regulatory changes for skin substitutes. As part of this survey, clinicians were asked a forward-looking question: What should an ideal long-term policy framework for skin substitutes (CTPs) look like? 

While these open, free-text responses varied in detail, several consistent themes emerged—particularly around clarity, consistency, reimbursement, and maintaining patient access. 

A Clear Call for Policy Clarity and Consistency 

One of the most frequently cited needs was greater clarity in coverage policies and expectations. Clinicians described ongoing challenges navigating variable payer requirements and evolving guidance. 

As one respondent noted, “the terminology and information delivery has been muddy… more succinct guidelines would be helpful.” Another emphasized the need for “consistency from payors,” pointing to persistent variation in coverage policies. 

Several clinicians also highlighted the importance of stability over time, with one noting that an ideal framework is one “that doesn’t change all the time [and] has clear boundaries.” 

These perspectives align with broader concerns around administrative burden and the effort required to remain compliant in a shifting environment. 

Balancing Oversight With Clinical Flexibility 

Respondents also pointed to the need for a more balanced approach to utilization controls and application limits. While some acknowledged past overuse, there was a clear sentiment that current policies may not fully account for clinical nuance. 

“I think there was abuse happening,” one clinician shared, “however… not all practices… were abusing it and that wasn’t considered.” 

Others suggested that future frameworks should allow for earlier or more flexible use in appropriate patients, with one respondent calling for “lighter utilization criteria” and another noting the importance of earlier access, from their experience.  

These responses reflect a desire to preserve appropriate oversight while ensuring that policies remain adaptable to real-world patient needs. 

Reimbursement Pressures Remain Central 

Reimbursement continues to be a focal point in clinician feedback. Many respondents called for more sustainable, predictable, and hopefully increased payment structures, particularly in light of rising costs and operational pressures. 

Comments ranged from general concerns—“there needs to be reasonable reimbursement”—to more specific suggestions around payment models and what respondents considered appropriate flat-rate thresholds. One respondent noted that reimbursement levels should be “reasonable… to keep clinics open [and] helping patients in need,” while another pointed to the need for better alignment between reimbursement and product cost. 

Some responses also reflected frustration with recent changes, including sharp reductions or perceived inconsistencies in payment. 

Maintaining Access While Addressing Misuse 

A recurring theme across responses was the importance of protecting patient access while addressing inappropriate utilization. 

Several clinicians expressed concern that current policies may disproportionately impact appropriate use. One respondent highlighted the need to “improve access to all patients with reduced prices and/or improved insurance coverage,” while another suggested focusing enforcement efforts on outliers, rather than broad restrictions—“weed out the bad players.” 

These perspectives suggest that clinicians are seeking more targeted approaches that distinguish between high- and low-performing practices. 

A Need for Predictability 

Taken together, the responses point to a broader underlying priority: predictability. Clinicians are navigating a policy environment that many describe as complex and evolving, and are looking for a framework that is more stable, transparent, and operationally feasible. 

As one respondent summarized, the goal is a system with clear expectations, equitable application across payers, and reimbursement structures that support sustainable care delivery. 

A Snapshot of Clinician Perspectives 

While these open-ended responses reflect a range of individual experiences, the themes are consistent with the broader survey findings—particularly around administrative burden, financial pressure, and uncertainty about future policy direction. 

As the regulatory and reimbursement landscape for CTPs continues to evolve, these perspectives offer a directional view of how clinicians believe policy could better align with both clinical practice and patient access.