For decades, long-term infusion therapy has largely taken place in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs). This was not because hospitals were the most efficient or appropriate setting, but because they controlled the infrastructure, workflows, and referral pathways that shaped care delivery.
That assumption is now being challenged. Across the healthcare system, a recalibration is underway. For many stable, non-oncology patients, hospital outpatient care has become the highest-cost setting for routine infusion without delivering better outcomes. As lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives have matured, the question is no longer whether they can be used, but why they would not be.
Cost is driving the shift
The price difference between hospital outpatient infusion and ambulatory settings is no longer marginal. Infusions delivered in hospital outpatient departments can cost more than 40 percent more than those provided in freestanding infusion centers or home settings, without measurable improvements in safety or quality. Similar analyses show higher outpatient costs without reductions in adverse events, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits.
In long-term therapy, those differences compound. Patients with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and immune disorders often receive infusions every few weeks or months for years. In that context, site-of-care pricing becomes a structural cost issue, not an incremental one.
Payers are actively redirecting care
As cost exposure increases, payer strategies have evolved. With growing confidence that many infused therapies can be safely administered outside hospitals, benefit design, prior authorization requirements, and site-of-care programs increasingly steer stable patients toward freestanding centers and home infusion.
This shift is not ideological; it is economic. When outcomes are comparable and costs differ materially, payers respond accordingly. Long-term therapy amplifies both inefficiencies and savings, making site-of-care decisions especially consequential.
Policy is narrowing the hospital advantage
Historically, hospital outpatient departments were shielded from this pressure by payment policy. Hospitals were reimbursed more for delivering the same infusion simply because of where care occurred.
That insulation is eroding. Through expanded site-neutral payment policies, CMS has begun narrowing the reimbursement gap between hospital outpatient departments and physician office settings, particularly for off-campus sites. As these payment differentials shrink, the structural advantage hospitals once held for routine infusion diminishes as well.
Hospitals benefit from the transition
This shift is not anti-hospital. In many cases, hospitals welcome it. Outpatient departments face ongoing staffing shortages, rising patient acuity, and competing demands for space. Chronic infusion therapy adds volume without adding complexity, drawing resources away from oncology and other higher-acuity services that genuinely require hospital infrastructure.
Routine infusion is fundamentally a throughput challenge. It benefits from predictable scheduling, standardized protocols, and high chair utilization — conditions that are difficult to optimize in hospital outpatient departments designed around acute care. Ambulatory infusion centers, by contrast, are built to support repeatable, high-volume workflows.
The emerging model is practical: reserve hospital settings for complex care, and move stable, maintenance therapy to environments designed to deliver it efficiently at scale.
Experience matters in long-term therapy
Long-term infusion patients return again and again. Over time, the experience becomes inseparable from the therapy itself. Shorter visits, easier access, predictable schedules, calmer environments, and familiar care teams are not cosmetic benefits. They are essential to making long-term treatment sustainable.
For patients whose lives are organized around recurring therapy, friction accumulates quickly. Reducing that friction is not just a satisfaction issue; it is a care-delivery imperative.
A structural, not temporary, shift
The move toward infusion centers as the preferred site of care is not a short-term response. It aligns with broader industry trends, including specialty drug pipelines that continue to favor infused biologics and a sustained rise in infusion demand.
Routine, recurring therapy was never designed to live inside high-cost hospital outpatient departments. As volume grows, higher costs, constrained capacity, staffing pressure, and patient friction become increasingly difficult to justify. In this context, “preferred” has a clear meaning: the setting that can consistently deliver long-term therapy with lower cost, comparable safety, predictable operations, and an experience patients can sustain for years.
That is why infusion centers are becoming the preferred site of care — not as a temporary workaround, but as a necessary structural correction as infusion becomes a core mode of chronic disease treatment.
Photo: YDL, Getty Images
As Founder and Chief Executive Officer of TwelveStone Health Partners, Shane Reeves has built a best-in-class specialty infusion center organization that covers 4 states and 23 sites. With patient experience data including more than 1,500 5-star ratings, TwelveStone has become a model of care delivery focus on those with chronic long-term conditions.
This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.
