CMS Changes Course by Repealing the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology and Definition of Reasonable and Necessary Rule Due to Insufficient Beneficiary Protections

21 November 2021 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Devaki Patel Jessica M. Boubker Kyle Y. Faget

On November 12, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it is rescinding the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology and Definition of “Reasonable and Necessary” (MCIT/R&N) final rule, which would have become effective on December 15, 2021.

The MCIT/R&N final rule from the Trump administration would have granted expedited Medicare coverage for up to 4 years for certain Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-designated “breakthrough” devices having received or cleared market authorizations. Coverage would have started immediately on the date of FDA market authorization, or a manufacturer chosen date within 2 years. CMS intended the MCIT final rule to address delays and uncertainty in Medicare coverage that can slow innovation and hinder access to new, innovative technologies.

Accelerating coverage of breakthrough devices would have substantially increased availability of new breakthrough technology to Medicare beneficiaries. In a press release, CMS stated that it is rescinding the final rule, however, to address “concerns that the provisions in the final rule may have not been sufficient to protect Medicare patients.” According to the Federal Register published document repealing the MCIT/R&N final rule, CMS asserted that because this rule did not require data concerning Medicare beneficiaries, it could “establish insufficient beneficiary protections for certain devices.” Therefore, CMS determined that it would be in the best interest of Medicare patients to repeal the MCIT/R&N final rule and revisit the policy.

CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure states that “[a]lthough we continue to be in favor of enhancing access to new technologies, we are mindful that they may have unknown or unexpected risks and must first ensure such technologies improve health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries.” She notes, CMS must “balance access and appropriate safeguards” when implementing policies.

In its proposal to rescind the final rule, CMS outlined key concerns regarding streamlining coverage. Following the expedited 4-year coverage in the final rule, manufacturers would have had to extend coverage through existing coverage pathways, such as claim-by-claim adjudications, local coverage determinations (LCDs), and national coverage determinations (NCDs). The LCD and NCD process involves clinical evidence reviews to determine whether items and services furnished under Medicare Parts A and B are reasonable and necessary. While the second part of the R&N final rule would have implemented regulatory standards for making these reasonable and necessary determinations, CMS demonstrated concern over inhibiting its ability to make case-by-case determinations regarding whether a device is reasonable and necessary based on clinical evidence before beginning coverage. The ability to make case-by-case determinations is of key concern for CMS because of the wide-range of FDA-approved medical devices—which can range from surgical implants to blood glucose monitoring software—all of which carry different reasonable and necessary determination considerations.

While FDA market authorization does include safety and efficacy standards, CMS remains concerned as to whether the fact that FDA determined that a device is safe and effective automatically justifies insurance coverage. Unlike pharmaceuticals where CMS is required to cover any FDA-approved drug, medical device companies must apply to insurance companies to cover their newly approved device. (Social Security Act, Section 1862(l) (2020)). Congress intended for this bifurcated system to create a barrier in which medical device manufacturers must still prove that a device will be both reasonable and necessary to justify insurance coverage. The MCIT/R&N final rule would have chipped away at this bifurcated system, a system that can be frustrating to patients and providers desperate to try out breakthrough devices. Increasing access to these devices too early, however, could welcome an influx of expensive devices that are technically safe but not necessarily effective enough to be a reasonable and necessary use of finite resources or in the best interests of the beneficiary. The MCIT/R&N final rule would have increased the FDA’s role in determining insurance coverage and, according to CMS, weakened CMS’s ability to make the best coverage decisions for their beneficiaries. Medical device coverage will always be a balancing act between these two critical issues: access and safety.

How CMS will address issues related to breakthrough device coverage remains uncertain. In rescinding the final rule, CMS will now need to determine whether (1) accelerated breakthrough device coverage remains a goal for CMS, and (2) whether accelerated coverage should come from conducting future rulemaking or making better use of existing pathways.

In the press release, CMS noted that it intends to work with “the FDA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), medical device manufacturers, and other stakeholders to develop an expeditious process to cover innovative devices that benefit Medicare patients.” CMS further stated it plans to hold at least two stakeholder public meetings in 2022 to inform its future policy-making in this space.

Foley is here to help you address the short- and long-term impacts in the wake of regulatory changes. We have the resources to help you navigate these and other important legal considerations related to business operations and industry-specific issues. Please reach out to the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or to our Health Care Practice Group with any questions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights