The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.
The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.
“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.
Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.
The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:
- CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
- Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.
“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.
“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience
TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.
The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.
In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.
Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.
The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).
Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.
Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.
This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.
“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”
The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.
“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.
AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.
“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.
Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.
The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.
“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.
Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.