Comparing DPA 2023 blog and 2026 blog

 Here is the comparison I would use. My bottom line: the 2023 article is a technical reimbursement primer with some advocacy ambitions; the 2026 article is a much shorter but more institutional “we are organizing for battle” statement. It does look like a restart, but the restart is more about governance, policy capacity, and payer-facing evidence strategy than about new technical reimbursement theory.

The two articles

2023: Pathways to Direct Reimbursement for Slide Digitization and Digital Pathology/AI Technologies — posted 10/10/2023 by the DPA Reimbursement Task Force.

2026: Full Speed Ahead: Shaping the Future of Digital Pathology Reimbursement in 2026 — posted 04/06/2026 by the DPA Reimbursement Task Force.

https://digitalpathologyassociation.org/blog/author/id/66

High-level contrast

The 2023 article is reimbursement-mechanics heavy. It begins with the then-current and upcoming Category III slide digitization codes, explains why they had no payment rate, and warns that converting Category III codes to Category I codes may be neither fast nor necessarily sufficient. But it is not only about Category III codes. It also discusses CMS authority to price Category III codes, CMS divergence from AMA/RUC valuation, OPPS treatment of AI/software add-on codes, and the awkward interaction between AMA CPT codes and CMS-created HCPCS codes such as G0416 for prostate biopsies.

The 2026 article is much less a coding tutorial and much more a mobilization statement. It frames reimbursement as a critical barrier to adoption, states a DPA mission to “define and shape” reimbursement pathways, highlights a pending AI validation/implementation recommendation statement, and announces a strategic partnership with McDermott+ to monitor and influence CMS, AMA, Congress, and other policymakers.

What the 2023 article was really saying

The 2023 piece was not naïve about Category III codes. In fact, it was surprisingly nuanced. It acknowledged that 43 digital pathology Category III codes would soon exist, but that they had no national payment rates and that CMS and payer perception of the codes remained unclear. It emphasized that one rationale for using the codes was to demonstrate utilization, creating a data trail that might support eventual Category I coding.

But the article also warned against assuming that Category I conversion was the magic door. It noted that Category III codes can be paid locally, that Category I codes may not get better rates, and that CMS—not AMA—ultimately controls Medicare payment. The article gave examples where CMS created national payment rates for Category III codes, ignored or modified RUC recommendations, created alternative HCPCS Level II codes, or used OPPS payment logic for AI/software services.

So, while the headline emphasis was slide digitization Category III codes, the deeper message was broader: digital pathology should not put all its chips on the AMA/RUC/Category I pathway. CMS has multiple routes to recognition and payment, but stakeholders must bring data, valuation evidence, and advocacy.

What the 2026 article adds

The 2026 article does not revisit the technical coding map in detail. Instead, it shifts from “here are the possible payment pathways” to “here is the infrastructure we are building to act on them.”

Two elements stand out.

First, DPA links reimbursement to a formal evidence strategy. The article describes a pending recommendation statement for validation, implementation, and clinical application of AI in the clinical laboratory. DPA frames this as both a clinical roadmap and a payer-facing evidence base: labs need a standardized blueprint, and payers need proof that AI is safe, validated, and essential for patient care.

Second, DPA announces the McDermott+ partnership. This is the clearest difference from 2023. In 2023, the Task Force said it was initiating CMS engagement and would comment on CMS and MAC policies. In 2026, DPA says it has hired specialized Washington policy capacity to monitor CMS, AMA, Congress, and other decision-makers and to make DPA an “active and recognized stakeholder” through official comment and direct agency engagement.

That is a materially different posture. It is no longer just “the community should understand reimbursement pathways.” It is “DPA intends to shape them.”

Continuity between 2023 and 2026

There is real continuity. Both articles identify reimbursement as a barrier to adoption. Both are issued by the DPA Reimbursement Task Force. Both see CMS and AMA policy as central. Both argue that the digital pathology community must generate evidence and engage policymakers.

The 2023 article already closed with a pledge that DPA would contribute actively to reimbursement momentum and build a unified advocacy effort. The 2026 article essentially says: that effort now has a public mission statement, an AI-evidence publication strategy, and outside policy counsel.

Key difference in tone

The tone is strikingly different.

The 2023 tone is cautious, lawyerly, and explanatory. It is full of caveats: Category III may help, Category I may not be enough, CMS may or may not assign payment, stakeholders must provide data, and multiple pathways exist.

The 2026 tone is promotional and action-oriented. Phrases like “Full Speed Ahead,” “North Star,” “not a year for wait and see,” and “tangible, measurable progress” give the article the feel of an organizational relaunch. It is not a detailed policy memo; it is a signal to members and external stakeholders that DPA intends to be more visible and organized.

My clean blog-ready interpretation

A fair way to say it:

DPA’s October 2023 reimbursement article was a sophisticated but technical map of possible payment pathways, centered on the then-new Category III slide digitization codes but extending into CMS authority, HCPCS alternatives, OPPS software payment, and the need for valuation data. The April 2026 article is different. It is shorter, less technical, and more strategic. Rather than explaining the maze, it announces that DPA is building the machinery to navigate it: a validation/evidence statement for AI, a more explicit reimbursement mission, and a policy partnership with McDermott+ to engage CMS, AMA, Congress, and other decision-makers. In that sense, the 2026 piece reads less like a reimbursement tutorial and more like an organizational reboot.