skip to Main Content

Can you buy celebrex over the counter

04 September, can you buy celebrex over the counter 2020. Following a comprehensive search, the Board of the Australian Digital Health Agency announced today that Ms Amanda Cattermole PSM will be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Agency. Ms Cattermole has a long and distinguished history of senior leadership roles in service delivery in the public sector, leading high performing organisations, while can you buy celebrex over the counter growing customer satisfaction and staff engagement. She also has deep expertise in digital transformation across government and within the health sector.Most recently, Ms Cattermole was Chief Operating Officer of Services Australia with responsibility for budget and financial services, people, governance, audit and risk.

Ms Cattermole was previously the interim CEO of Services Australia and has held Deputy Secretary roles in health service can you buy celebrex over the counter delivery in the Commonwealth and in the Victorian State Government. Ms Cattermole holds a Master of Laws from Charles Darwin University, a Master of Business Administration from the University of Western Australia and Bachelor Degrees in Law and Commerce from the University of Melbourne.Welcoming Ms Cattermole’s appointment on behalf of the Agency, Board Chair Dr Elizabeth Deveny said “Amanda Cattermole is held in the highest regard across the public service and health sector and will bring a depth of knowledge and capability to the role of CEO at a time when digital health has never been more important. The Board has appointed a leader who is deeply can you buy celebrex over the counter skilled, committed to improving the health of all Australians and who understands the importance of digital innovation in better connecting Australia’s healthcare system.”The Hon Greg Hunt, Minister for Health, said “I am pleased to welcome Ms Cattermole and look forward to working closely together to drive technology in healthcare as the need has never been greater.”The Board of the Agency also acknowledged the invaluable leadership of Ms Bettina McMahon, who has acted as CEO since February this year. €œThe Board of the Agency would like to thank Ms McMahon for her leadership, dedication and commitment, and wishes her the best for the future.”Ms Cattermole will commence on Tuesday 29 September.Media contactAustralian Digital Health Agency Media TeamMobile.

0428 772 421Email. [email protected] About the Australian Digital Health AgencyThe Agency is tasked with improving health outcomes for all Australians through the delivery of digital healthcare systems, and implementing Australia’s National Digital can you buy celebrex over the counter Health Strategy – Safe, Seamless, and Secure. Evolving health and care to meet the needs of modern Australia in collaboration with partners across the community. The Agency is the can you buy celebrex over the counter System Operator of My Health Record, and provides leadership, coordination, and delivery of a collaborative and innovative approach to utilising technology to support and enhance a clinically safe and connected national health system.

These improvements will give individuals more control of their health and their health information, and support healthcare providers to deliver informed healthcare through access to current clinical and treatment information. Further information can you buy celebrex over the counter. Www.digitalhealth.gov.auMedia release - Australian Digital Health Agency CEO announced.docx 66KB)Media release - Australian Digital Health Agency CEO announced.pdf (191KB)By operation of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Establishing the Australian Digital Health Agency) Rule 2016, on 1 July 2016, all the assets and liabilities of NEHTA will vest in the Australian Digital Health Agency. In this website, on and from 1 July 2016, all references to "National E-Health Transition Authority" or "NEHTA" will be deemed to be references to the Australian Digital can you buy celebrex over the counter Health Agency.

PCEHR means the My Health Record, formerly the "Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record", within the meaning of the My Health Records Act 2012 (Cth), formerly called the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012 (Cth). Website Accessibility Copyright ©2015-2020 Australian Digital Health Agency.

Celebrex ulcer

Celebrex
Amalaki
Dexone
Orapred oral drops
Side effects
Yes
Yes
You need consultation
No
Possible side effects
200mg
60pills
0.5mg
Without prescription
Consultation
No
Online
REFILL
Online price
Once a day
Twice a day
Twice a day
Twice a day
Daily dosage
No
Not always
Yes
Yes

Start Preamble Centers celebrex ulcer for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Proposed rule celebrex ulcer. This proposed rule would establish a Medicare coverage pathway to provide Medicare beneficiaries nationwide with faster access to new, innovative medical devices designated as breakthrough by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). After the final rule is effective, the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) pathway would begin national Medicare coverage on the date of FDA market authorization and would continue for 4 years.

We are also proposing regulatory standards celebrex ulcer to be used in making reasonable and necessary determinations under section Start Printed Page 543281862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) for items and services that are furnished under Part A and Part B. To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. On November celebrex ulcer 2, 2020. In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3372-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

You may celebrex ulcer submit comments in one of three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed). 1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov celebrex ulcer. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY. Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention.

CMS-3372-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. By express or overnight mail.

You may send written comments to the following address ONLY. Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention. CMS-3372-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Start Further Info Linda Gousis or JoAnna Baldwin, (410) 786-2281 or CAGinquiries@cms.hhs.gov. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Inspection of Public Comments. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received. Http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. To 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

I. Background The Administration is committed to ensuring Medicare beneficiaries have access to new cures and technologies that improve health outcomes. Section 6 of the October 3, 2019 Executive Order 13890 (E.O. 13890) “Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation's Seniors,” [] directs the Secretary to “propose regulatory and sub-regulatory changes to the Medicare program to encourage innovation for patients” including by “streamlining the approval, coverage, and coding process”.[] The E.O. 13890 explicitly includes making coverage of breakthrough medical devices “widely available, consistent with the principles of patient safety, market-based policies, and value for patients.” [] The E.O.

Also directs the Secretary to “clarify the application of coverage standards.” [] We are responding directly to these directives by proposing a definition of the term “reasonable and necessary” to clarify coverage standards and proposing the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) pathway to accelerate the coverage of new, innovative breakthrough devices to Medicare beneficiaries. To date, the factors used in making “reasonable and necessary” determinations based on section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act have not been established in regulations for Medicare coverage purposes. The Secretary has authority to determine whether a particular medical item or service is “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. (See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S.

602, 617 (1984).) When making coverage determinations, our policies have long considered whether the item or service is safe and effective, not experimental or investigational, and appropriate. (For more information see the January 30, 1989 notice of proposed rulemaking (54 FR 4307)). These factors are found in Chapter 13 of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (PIM) at section 13.5.4—Reasonable and Necessary Provisions in LCDs as instructions for Medicare contractors. We are proposing to codify in regulations the Program Integrity Manual definition of “reasonable and necessary” with modifications, including to add a reference to Medicare patients and a reference to commercial health insurer coverage policies. We propose that an item or service would be considered “reasonable and necessary” if it is—(1) safe and effective.

(2) not experimental or investigational. And (3) appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it is— Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel. One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need.

And At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. We also propose that an item or service would be “appropriate for Medicare patients” under (3) if it is covered in the commercial insurance market, except where evidence supports that there are clinically relevant differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals. An item or service deemed appropriate for Medicare coverage based on commercial coverage would be covered on that basis without also having to satisfy the bullets listed above. We believe this definition is a significant step in meeting the E.O.'s directive to bring clarity to coverage standards. Stakeholders have expressed interest in codifying a definition of “reasonable and necessary” for many years.

This proposed definition is familiar and functional, can satisfy that interest and meet the E.O.'s ask, while also aligning with the goals of MCIT by providing clarity and predictability for innovation, including for beneficiaries and innovators. The proposed MCIT coverage pathway is specifically for Medicare coverage of devices that are designated as part of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Breakthrough Devices Program (hereafter referred to as “breakthrough devices”) and are FDA market authorized. The MCIT pathway would be voluntary and device manufacturers would notify CMS if they want to utilize this coverage option. We propose that national Medicare coverage under the MCIT pathway would begin immediately upon the date of FDA market authorization (that is, the Start Printed Page 54329date the medical device receives Premarket Approval (PMA). 510(k) clearance.

Or the granting of a De Novo classification request) for the breakthrough device. This coverage would occur unless the device does not have a Medicare benefit category or is otherwise excluded from coverage by statute (that is, the Medicare statute does not allow for coverage of the particular device.) This coverage pathway delivers on the Administration's commitment to give Medicare beneficiaries access to the newest innovations on the market, consistent with the statutory definitions of Medicare benefits. Because Medicare is a defined benefit program, devices that do not fit within the statutory definitions may not be considered for MCIT. As an example, medical equipment for home use by the beneficiary must be durable (that is, withstand repeated use) for it to be coverable by Medicare (as defined in statutes and regulations by the Secretary). At this time, we are limiting MCIT to medical devices because that is a category of products explicitly identified in E.O.

13890, and we have identified that breakthrough devices can experience variable coverage across the nation shortly after market authorization. We propose this MCIT pathway because the prescribed statutory timeframes for the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process limit CMS' ability to institute immediate national coverage policies for new, innovative medical devices. NCDs and Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) take, on average, 9 to 12 months to finalize. Because of this length of time, there may be coverage uncertainty between the period of FDA market authorization and CMS finalization of an NCD or a Medicare Administrative Contractor's (MACs) finalization of an LCD. During this time period shortly after market authorization, MACs make coverage determinations on a case-by-case (individual beneficiary) basis, but those decisions do not usually establish agency policies for future claims because a case-by-case decision is for a particular beneficiary and their health circumstances.

Over the past few years, CMS has heard concerns from stakeholders that breakthrough devices are not automatically covered nationally by Medicare once they are FDA market authorized. Variation in coverage from one jurisdiction to another is also a concern. To date, 16 breakthrough devices have also been market authorized. The majority of these breakthrough devices (10 devices) experience variability in coverage for two reasons. One reason is because the breakthrough devices are coverable at MAC discretion, like many other item and services, on a case-by-case basis (that is, the breakthrough device may be covered for one patient, but not for another within the same jurisdiction).

The other reason is because breakthrough devices are used by a hospital or other provider that operates under a bundled payment system (such as a diagnosis related group (DRG) system), so there may be no separate coverage policy for each item or service that may be included in the bundled payment. Another example of variable coverage is for one breakthrough device that is non-covered by a local policy in Florida, but coverable at MAC discretion on a case-by-case basis in other jurisdictions. One breakthrough device has national coverage through an NCD. One breakthrough device has uniform coverage because the same LCD has been adopted in all jurisdictions. There are three breakthrough devices that do not have a Medicare benefit category (for example, certain wearable devices).

Therefore, those breakthrough devices cannot be covered by the Medicare program. In contrast to varied local coverage, the proposed MCIT would create a pathway for immediate national Medicare coverage of any FDA-market authorized breakthrough device if the device meets criteria outlined in this proposal. A. Statutory Authority We are also proposing to establish in regulations the factors we have historically used in making “reasonable and necessary” determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, with some modification. To summarize, this section explains that Medicare payment may be made under part A or part B for any expenses incurred for items or services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.

Thus, with some exceptions, section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that an item or service be “reasonable and necessary” to be covered by Medicare. The courts have recognized that the Secretary has significant authority to determine whether a particular item or service is “reasonable and necessary.” (Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984). See also, Yale-New Haven Hospital v.

Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71, 84 (2d Cir. 2006). Kort v. Burwell, 209 F. Supp.

3d 98, 110 (D.C. 2016) (The statute vests substantial authority in the Secretary.)) So even though section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act limits the scope of Medicare coverage, the Secretary has discretion to revise his/her interpretation of the statute in order to ensure adequate coverage for items and services under Part A and Part B. This proposal would provide national Medicare coverage for breakthrough devices that are FDA market-authorized and used consistent with the FDA approved or cleared indication for use (also referred to as the “FDA-required labeling”).[] This device coverage under the MCIT pathway is reasonable and necessary under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act because the device has met the unique criteria of the FDA Breakthrough Devices Program. B. FDA Breakthrough Devices Program Under the proposed MCIT coverage pathway, CMS would coordinate with FDA and manufacturers as medical devices move through the FDA regulatory process for Breakthrough Devices to ensure seamless Medicare coverage on the date of FDA market authorization unless CMS determines those devices do not have a Medicare benefit category.

The Breakthrough Devices Program is an evolution of the Expedited Access Pathway Program and the Priority Review Program (section 515B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)), 21 U.S.C. 360e-3. See also final guidance for industry entitled, “Breakthrough Devices Program,” https://www.fda.gov/​downloads/​MedicalDevices/​DeviceRegulationandGuidance/​GuidanceDocuments/​UCM581664.pdf). The FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program is not for all new medical devices. Rather, it is only for those that the FDA determines meet the standards for breakthrough device designation.

In accordance with section 3051 of the 21st Century Cures Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3),[] the Breakthrough Devices Program is for medical devices and device-led combination products that meet two criteria. The first criterion is that the device provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. The second criterion is that the device must satisfy one of the following elements. It Start Printed Page 54330represents a breakthrough technology.

No approved or cleared alternatives exist. It offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, including additional considerations outlined in the statute. Or device availability is in the best interest of patients (for more information see 21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)(2)). These criteria make breakthrough designated devices unique among all other medical devices.[] The parameters of the breakthrough devices program focus on innovations for patients, in turn, MCIT, focuses on these breakthrough devices consistent with E.O.

13890 and in order to streamline coverage of innovative medical devices. C. Current Medicare Coverage Pathways Currently, we utilize several coverage pathways for items and services, which includes medical devices. None of the coverage pathways described in this section offer immediate, predictable coverage concurrently with FDA market authorization like the proposed MCIT pathway would do. We summarize the other coverage pathways here to provide context for MCIT.

National Coverage Determinations (NCDs). Section 1862(l)(6)(A) of the Act defines the term national coverage determination as “a determination by the Secretary with respect to whether or not a particular item or service is covered nationally under this title.” In general, NCDs are national policy statements published to identify the circumstances under which particular items and services will be considered covered by Medicare. Traditionally, CMS relies heavily on health outcomes data to make NCDs. Most NCDs have involved determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, but NCDs can be made based on other provisions of the Act, and includes a determination that the item or service under consideration has a Medicare benefit category. The NCD pathway, which has statutorily prescribed timeframes, generally takes 9 to 12 months to complete.[] Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs).

Medicare contractors develop LCDs based on section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act that apply only within their geographic jurisdictions. (Sections 1862(l)(6)(B) and 1869(f)(2)(B) of the Act.) MACs will not need to develop LCDs for breakthrough devices when they are nationally covered through MCIT. The MACs follow specific guidance for developing LCDs for Medicare coverage in the CMS Program Integrity Manual, and in some instances, an LCD can also take 9 to12 months to develop (MACs must finalize proposed LCDs within 365 days from opening per Chapter 13—Local Coverage Determinations of the (PIM) 13.5.1). We note that the MCIT pathway will not alter the existing coverage standards in Chapter 13—Local Coverage Determinations of the PIM.[] That chapter will continue to be used in making determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act for other items and services at the local level. Claim-by-claim Adjudication.

In the absence of an NCD or LCD, MACs would make coverage decisions under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and may cover or not cover items and services on a claim-by-claim basis. The majority of claims are handled through the claim adjudication process. Clinical Trial Policy (CTP) NCD 310.1. The CTP pathway can be used for coverage of routine care items and services (but generally not the technology under investigation) in a clinical study that is supported by certain Federal agencies. The CTP coverage pathway was developed in 2000.[] This coverage pathway has not generally been utilized by device manufacturers because they usually seek coverage of the device, which is not included in this pathway.

Parallel Review. Parallel Review is a mechanism for FDA and CMS to simultaneously review the submitted clinical data to help decrease the time between FDA's approval of a premarket application or granting of a de novo classification and the subsequent CMS NCD. Parallel Review has two stages. (1) FDA and CMS meet with the manufacturer to provide feedback on the proposed pivotal clinical trial within the FDA pre-submission process. And (2) FDA and CMS concurrently review (“in parallel”) the clinical trial results submitted in the PMA, or De Novo request.

FDA and CMS independently review the data to determine whether it meets their respective Agency's standards and communicate with the manufacturer during their respective reviews. This program is most successful for devices that have a significant amount of clinical evidence. (Candidates for parallel review would not be appropriate for simultaneous MCIT consideration.) Even though CMS has multiple coverage pathways, at this time none are readily available to provide immediate national coverage for new breakthrough devices with a Medicare benefit category at the same time as FDA market authorization. Further, some of these new breakthrough devices are likely to have limited or developing bodies of clinical evidence because of the newness of the device. Therefore, the MCIT pathway can support manufacturers that are interested in combining coverage with their own clinical study to augment clinical evidence of improved health outcomes, particularly for Medicare patients.

Given this summary of existing coverage pathways, we seek comment from the public regarding if any of these existing pathways should be modified to achieve the goals set out by E.O. 13890. D. MCIT Pathway We propose that the MCIT pathway would provide immediate national coverage for breakthrough devices beginning on the date of FDA market authorization and continue for up to 4 years, unless we determine the device does not have a Medicare benefit category as determined by us as part of the MCIT pathway process. The MCIT pathway is voluntary (that is, manufacturers would affirmatively opt-in), and would be initiated when a manufacturer notifies CMS of its intention to utilize the MCIT pathway.

(This notification process is described further in section III. Of this proposed rule.) We would subsequently coordinate with the manufacturer regarding steps that need to be taken for MCIT implementation purposes. The frequency of subsequent engagement will be largely driven by whether the manufacturer has questions for CMS, or CMS and FDA. The timing of coverage will depend upon the timing of the FDA's market authorization decision. Engagements can take place in the form of in-person meetings, phone calls, emails, etc.

We intend to put devices that are covered through the MCIT pathway on the CMS website so that all stakeholders will be aware of what is covered through the MCIT pathway. Manufacturers of breakthrough devices will not be obligated or mandated by CMS to conduct clinical studies during Start Printed Page 54331coverage under the proposed MCIT pathway. However, we seek comment as to whether CMS should require or incentivize manufacturers to provide data about outcomes or should be obligated to enter into a clinical study similar to CMS's Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) paradigm.[] We are aware some manufacturers may be required by the FDA to conduct post market data collection as a condition of market authorization, and nothing in this proposed rule would alter that FDA requirement. Manufacturers are encouraged to develop the clinical evidence base needed for one of the other coverage pathways after the MCIT pathway ends. This evidence is encouraged not only for CMS and private commercial health insurer coverage policies but also to better inform the clinical community and the public generally about the risks and benefits of treatment.

CMS encourages early manufacturer engagement, both before and after FDA market authorization, for manufacturers to receive feedback from CMS on potential clinical study designs and clinical endpoints that may produce the evidence needed for a definitive coverage determination after MCIT. This feedback would not involve CMS predicting specific coverage or non-coverage. In order to further the goals of E.O. 13890, CMS proposes to rely on FDA's breakthrough device designation and market authorization of those devices to define the universe of devices eligible for MCIT, except for those particular devices CMS determines do not have a Medicare benefit category or are statutorily excluded from coverage under Part A or Part B. In order to provide immediate national coverage to innovative medical devices, we propose to establish a time limit on how long a breakthrough device can be eligible for MCIT (that is, considered a breakthrough device for coverage purposes).

MCIT has a time limit on newness similar to our New Technology Add-on Payment (NTAP) policy. Eligibility for the NTAP is also time limited and this time limit applies to all new technologies, including breakthrough devices, for which an application for additional payment is submitted. Additionally, the time-limited characteristic of MCIT will drive some manufacturers to leverage this period of coverage to demonstrate the value of their device in the competitive marketplace. The 4-year coverage period is particularly important for manufacturers of breakthrough devices that choose to further develop the clinical evidence basis on which the FDA granted marketing authorization. From our experience with clinical studies conducted as part of an NCD, 4 years is approximately the amount of time it takes to complete a study.

At the end of the 4-year MCIT pathway, coverage of the breakthrough device would be subject to one of these possible outcomes. (1) NCD (affirmative coverage, which may include facility or patient criteria). (2) NCD (non-coverage). Or (3) MAC discretion (claim-by-claim adjudication or LCD). Manufacturers that are interested in a NCD are encouraged to submit a NCD request during the third year of MCIT to allow for sufficient time for NCD development.

We seek public comment on whether CMS should open a national coverage analysis if a MAC has not issued an LCD for a breakthrough device within 6 months of the expiration date of the 4-year MCIT period. In our analysis of the current coverage landscape to determine opportunities for innovation and efficiencies, we also considered modifying the coverage process for non-breakthrough devices (for example, PMAs because they are also new to the market), but ultimately determined that it was the unique characteristics of FDA designated breakthrough devices and their ability to serve unmet needs that resonated most with the E.O.'s direction to encourage innovation for patients. We also considered expedited coverage of newly market authorized and breakthrough devices when used in a clinical study. We seek public comment on the proposed MCIT pathway, the considerations described, whether any of the existing coverage pathways should be modified to achieve the goals set out by the E.O., and alternatives to these proposals. We specifically seek public comment on whether the MCIT pathway should also include diagnostics, drugs and/or biologics that utilize breakthrough or expedited approaches at the FDA (for example, Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track, Priority Review, Accelerated Approval) [] or all diagnostics, drugs and/or biologics.

We seek data to support including these additional item categories in the MCIT pathway. Also, we specifically seek manufacturer input on whether an opt-in or opt-out approach would work best for utilizing the MCIT pathway. We believe manufactures will welcome this new coverage pathway. We want to preserve manufacturers' business judgment and not assume which Medicare coverage pathway a given manufacturer of a breakthrough device would prefer (if any). Therefore, we have proposed an opt-in approach with an email to CMS to indicate affirmative interest in coverage.

We are interested in whether an opt-out approach would be less burdensome for stakeholders. If so, we encourage public comment on a process for stakeholders to opt-out of MCIT that would not be burdensome. Also, we seek public comment on whether, once a manufacturer has opted-out of coverage, it can subsequently opt-in to MCIT. II. Provision of Proposed Regulations A.

Defining “Reasonable and Necessary” As described in section I. Of this proposed rule, the Secretary has authority to determine the meaning of “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. We are proposing to codify the longstanding Program Integrity Manual definition of “reasonable and necessary” into our regulations at 42 CFR 405.201(b), with modification. Under the current definition, an item or service is considered “reasonable and necessary” if it is (1) safe and effective. (2) not experimental or investigational.

And (3) appropriate, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it is— Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel. One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need. And At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative.

In addition to codifying the above criteria, we propose to include a separate basis under which an item or service would be appropriate under (3) above that is based on commercial health insurers' coverage policies (that is, non-governmental entities that sponsor health insurance plans). The Start Printed Page 54332commercial market analysis would be initiated if an item/service fails to fulfill the existing factor (3) criteria defining appropriate for Medicare patients but fulfills (1) safe and effective and (2) not experimental or investigational. By considering commercial health insurer coverage policies, CMS would bring together the expertise of private payers and CMS. For example, in a recent NCD on acupuncture for chronic low back pain, CMS considered the technology assessments and coverage criteria among commercial health insurer coverage policies.[] We believe that this approach would be in line with E.O. 13890 that directs us to make technologies “widely available, consistent with the principles of patient safety, market-based policies, and value for patients.” Under this separate basis, we propose that an item or service would satisfy factor (3) if it is covered under a plan(s) coverage policy if offered in the commercial insurance market, unless evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant.

Under our proposal, we would exclude Medicaid managed care, Medicare Advantage, and other government administered healthcare coverage programs from the types of coverage CMS would consider, as these enrollees are not in the commercial market. In the following paragraphs, we seek comment on this proposal and on how best to implement this mechanism. We solicit comments on sources of data that could be used to implement this policy, and whether CMS should make this information public and transparent. We seek public comment on the most appropriate source(s) for these coverage policies and the best way to determine which commercial plan(s) we would rely on for Medicare coverage. We seek comment on whether beneficiaries, providers, innovators, or others wishing to gain coverage for an item or service demonstrate that the item or service is covered by at least one commercial insurance plan policy.

If they can provide CMS with evidence of commercial coverage or if CMS or its MACs identify such coverage from its review of compilations of health insurance offerings or data from other sources, CMS would consider factor (3) to be satisfied. We solicit comment on whether we should limit our consideration of commercial plan offerings or covered lives to a subset of the commercial market in the interest of simplicity, including looking at geographic subsets, subsets based on number of enrollees, subsets based on plan type (HMO, PPO, etc.), or other subsets of plans—including utilizing a singular plan. We also seek comment on whether, given considerations such the variation and distribution of coverage policies and access to innovations, we should only cover an item or service if it is covered for a majority, or a different proportion such as a plurality, of covered lives amongst plans or a majority, plurality, or some other proportion of plan offerings in the commercial market. (A plan offering is a contract an insurer offers to its enrollees, and a single insurance company may provide many different offerings.) We also recognize that plan offerings may impose certain coverage restrictions on an item or service, e.g. Related to clinical criteria, disease stage, or number and frequency of treatment.

As greater access to innovative treatments provides beneficiaries with more opportunity to improve health and drive decisions, we would, when coverage is afforded on the basis of commercial coverage, adopt the least restrictive coverage policy for the item or service amongst the offerings we examine. However, given potential unreasonable or unnecessary utilization, we also solicit comment on whether we should instead adopt the most restrictive coverage policy. We are further considering, as another variation, that if coverage restrictions are largely similar and present across the majority of offerings, CMS would adopt these in its coverage policies. We note that such coverage restrictions include the basic requirement for medical necessity at the level of individual patients. Medicare will still only pay for an item or service received by a beneficiary if it is medically necessary for the beneficiary.

We seek comment on whether, if we were to take this approach, we should instead use a proportion other than a majority, as low as any offering and as high as all offerings, as a sufficient threshold. As a final variation, we could defer, in the absence of an NCD or national policy, to the MACs to tailor the restrictions on coverage based on what they observe in the commercial market, just as we rely on MACs with regards to the current definition. We further solicit comment on whether to grant coverage for an item or service to the extent it meets the first and second factors and the commercial coverage basis for the third factor. Under this approach, we would only use the current definition of “appropriate” from the current PIM when the exception for clinically relevant differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals applies (or if the commercial coverage basis is determined by a proportion like a majority and there is insufficient commercial coverage information available). We note that referring to commercial coverage in this way may expand or narrow the circumstances under which we will cover a particular item or service and therefore solicit comment on whether, under such an approach, we should grandfather our current coverage policies for items and services.

We also emphasize that the MACs will continue to make judgements in evaluating individual claims for reimbursement, such that a decision by CMS that an item or service is reasonable and necessary in general does not mean that it is reasonable and necessary in all circumstances with respect to individual claims for reimbursement. We seek public comment on the most appropriate source(s) for these coverage policies. Further, under our proposal, each MAC would be responsible for reviewing commercial offerings to inform their LCDs or claim by claim decisions, which would include individual medical necessity decisions. We may also allow the MACs to develop approaches to address any or all of the considerations outlined above, parallel to their current practice of making coverage decisions in the absence of an NCD or national policy. We solicit comment on the best role of the MACs, along these lines or otherwise.

We also solicit comment on whether the discretion to use the current criteria in the PIM when there is evidence to believe Medicare beneficiaries have different clinical needs should be exercised through the NCD process or in other ways, as well as what quantum of evidence should be sufficient. In sum, we are proposing to define the term “reasonable and necessary” based on the factors currently found in the PIM, plus an alternative basis for meeting factor (3) based on any coverage in the commercial market. We are also soliciting comment on an alternative under whether an item or service satisfies the commercial coverage basis for factor (3) is determined by how it is treated across a majority of covered lives amongst commercial plan offerings, as well as an alternative whereby an item or service would be appropriate for Medicare patients to the extent it is covered in the commercial market. Start Printed Page 54333When evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant, we would rely on the criteria in the current PIM. We would continue relying on local administration of the program by MACs (including coverage on a claim by claim basis and LCDs) and maintain our discretion to issue NCDs based on the final rule.

We solicit comment on this proposed definition of reasonable and necessary, and alternatives outlined above, as well as other mechanisms or definitions we could establish for the term “reasonable and necessary”, and the merits and drawbacks associated with each, including the potential impact on Medicare program expenses or complexity. We may finalize any variation or outgrowth of the policies described in this proposal, or some combination of these options in lieu of or in conjunction with our proposed definition. B. Application of the “Reasonable and Necessary” Standard to the MCIT Pathway We are proposing that, under the proposed MCIT pathway, an item or service that receives a breakthrough device designation from the FDA would be considered “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act because breakthrough devices have met the FDA's unique breakthrough devices criteria, and they are innovations that serve unmet needs. While other devices are still considered new to the market, for example, PMAs and even some 510(k)s, the devices designated by the FDA as breakthrough are representative of true innovations in the marketplace.

This application of the “reasonable and necessary” standard in this way would ensure that the MCIT pathway can provide a fast-track to Medicare coverage of innovative devices that may more effectively treat or diagnose life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. MCIT would improve healthcare for Medicare beneficiaries by providing national Medicare coverage for devices receiving the FDA breakthrough device designation, which are FDA market-authorized and used consistent with the FDA approved or cleared indication for use (also referred to as the “FDA required labeling”),[] so long as the breakthrough device is described in an appropriate Medicare benefit category under Part A or Part B and is not specifically excluded by statute. We believe the criteria for qualification as a breakthrough device, as defined in section 515B(b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)) is sufficient to satisfy the elements of the “reasonable and necessary” standard. The first breakthrough device designation criterion is that a device must “provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions” (21 U.S.C.

360e-3(b)(1)). The second criterion is that the device must satisfy one of the following elements. It represents a breakthrough technology. There are no approved or cleared alternatives. It offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, including additional considerations outlined in the statute.

Or availability of the device is in the best interest of patients (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)(2)). Thus, breakthrough devices are those that HHS has determined may provide better health outcomes for patients facing life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. We believe that a device meeting these criteria, once also FDA market authorized, is “reasonable and necessary” for purposes of Medicare coverage. This proposed rule recognizes that the FDA market authorization of breakthrough devices warrants immediate coverage under the “reasonable and necessary” clause in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

We previously stated that FDA determinations were not controlling determinations for Medicare coverage purposes under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. (For more information see the January 30, 1989 Federal Register (54 FR 4307) (“FDA approval for the marketing of a medical device will not necessarily lead to a favorable coverage recommendation. . . €) and the August 7, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 48165) (“However, FDA approval or clearance alone does not entitle that technology to Medicare coverage.”) Under the Secretary's broad authority to interpret section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act (supra section I.A.), we are revising our interpretation of the statute because of the practical concerns that our current standards have delayed access to a unique set of innovative devices that FDA has found to be safe and effective, and we believe are “reasonable and necessary” for purposes of Medicare coverage.

In light of E.O. 13890, the Secretary has determined that application of the current standards for making “reasonable and necessary” determinations may take too long following FDA market authorization of breakthrough devices. More importantly, the existing standard has not always provided Medicare beneficiaries adequate access to certain breakthrough medical devices when needed to improve health outcomes. We are proposing that breakthrough devices per se meet the reasonable and necessary standard in order to increase access and to reduce the delay from FDA market authorization to Medicare coverage. C.

MCIT Pathway We are proposing the MCIT pathway to deliver on the Administration's commitment to provide access to breakthrough devices to Medicare beneficiaries. The MCIT pathway provides up to 4 years of national coverage to newly FDA market authorized breakthrough devices. We are aware that this coverage may also facilitate evidence development on devices for the Medicare population because manufacturers can gather additional data on utilization of the device during the MCIT coverage period. 1. Definitions In § 405.601(a) we are proposing that the MCIT pathway is voluntary.

Operationally, we propose that manufacturers of breakthrough devices notify CMS of their intention to elect MCIT shortly after receiving notice from the FDA of being granted the breakthrough device designation. Ideally, this notification would be sent to CMS within 2 weeks of receiving breakthrough designation. However, entities would not be penalized for notifying CMS after that time. Alternatively, submitting a notification to CMS shortly before or concurrently with the date of the FDA marketing submission should also afford CMS sufficient time to operationalize MCIT for the device. The CMS Coverage and Analysis Group would establish an email box for these inquires.

This notification alerts CMS to offer guidance to manufacturers about the MCIT pathway and point to resources for coding and payment, which are key conversations to effectuate coverage upon FDA market authorization. We intend to utilize the existing coverage implementation processes to be prepared to offer coverage immediately upon the FDA market authorization. In § 405.601(b), we propose the following definitions for the purposes of 42 CFR part 405. We propose to define Start Printed Page 54334“breakthrough device” as a medical device that receives such designation by the FDA (section 515B(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(d)(1))).

We also propose to define, for the sake of clarity in the rule, that the acronym MCIT stands for Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology. 2. MCIT Pathway Device Eligibility In § 405.603(a) we propose that the pathway is available to devices that meet the definitions proposed in § 405.601. Based on the explicit mention of devices in E.O. 13890 and our interaction and feedback from stakeholders who expressed their concern that there is more uncertainty of coverage for devices than for other items and services (for example, diagnostics, drugs and biologics), this proposed policy is for devices only.

We propose in § 405.603(b) that the breakthrough devices that received FDA market authorization no more than 2 calendar years prior to the effective date of this subpart (the date the final rule is finalized) and thereafter will be eligible for coverage for claims submitted on or after the effective date of this rule. Claims for breakthrough devices with dates of service that occurred before the effective date of this rule would not be covered through MCIT. For example, a hypothetical breakthrough device that was FDA market authorized on October 1, 2018, and utilized on January 1, 2020 would not be eligible for coverage under MCIT because on January 1, 2020, the date of service, the final MCIT rule was not yet legally in effect. In contrast, a claim for utilization of the same hypothetical breakthrough device with a date of service on January 1, 2021 might be eligible for coverage if the claim occurred after the effective date of the rule (assuming that the effective date of the rule was prior to January 1, 2021). Breakthrough devices market authorized prior to the effective date of this rule will not be eligible for all 4 years of coverage.

The 4-year period starts on the date of FDA market authorization. For example, a breakthrough device market authorized on October 1, 2018 would have claims covered through MCIT from the effective date of the final rule until October 1, 2022. If a manufacturer initially chooses to not utilize the MCIT pathway, and then chooses to do so some time after the breakthrough device's market authorization, coverage still only lasts 4 years from the date of FDA market authorization. We seek comment on this eligibility criterion for devices and specifically the 2 year lookback. We propose in § 405.603(c) that to be part of the MCIT pathway, the device must be used according to its FDA approved or cleared indication for use.

We propose that the device is only covered for use consistent with its FDA approved or cleared indication for use because that is the indication and conditions for use that were reviewed by the FDA and authorized for marketing. Data are unlikely to be available to support extending beyond the FDA required labeling for breakthrough devices on the date of marketing authorization. Use of the device for a condition or population that is not labeled (“off-label”) will not be covered as that use would not be FDA authorized. We specifically seek comment on whether off-label use of breakthrough devices should be covered and, if so, under what specific circumstances and/or evidentiary support. In § 405.603(d) and (e), we additionally propose limitations to what is coverable under the Act.

In § 405.603(e), we are proposing that if CMS has issued an NCD on a particular breakthrough device, that breakthrough device is not eligible for MCIT. We are proposing this because, once the device has been reviewed by CMS for the FDA required approved or cleared indication for use. CMS has made a coverage determination based on the available evidence for that technology. We believe this would happen rarely because breakthrough devices are new technologies that are not likely to have been previously reviewed through the NCD process. In § 405.603(f), we acknowledge that devices in the MCIT pathway may be excluded due to statute or regulation (for example, 42 CFR 411.15, Particular services excluded from coverage) and, like other items and services coverable by Medicare, the device must fall within the scope of a Medicare benefit category under section 1861 of the Act and the implementing regulations.

If the device does not fall within a Medicare benefit category as outlined in the statute and implementing regulations, the device is not eligible for Medicare coverage. Therefore, the device would not be eligible for the MCIT pathway. 3. General Coverage of Items and Services under the MCIT Pathway We propose in § 405.605 that devices covered under the MCIT pathway are covered no differently from devices that are covered outside of MCIT. In other words, provided the items and services are otherwise coverable (that is, not specifically excluded and not found by CMS to be outside the scope of a Medicare benefit category), covered items and services could include the device, reasonable and necessary surgery to implant the device, if implantable, related care and services costs of the device (for example, replacing reasonable and necessary parts of the device such as a battery), and coverage of any reasonable and necessary treatments due to complications arising from use of the device.

What the MCIT pathway offers compared to other pathways is predictable national coverage simultaneous with FDA market authorization that will generally last for a set time period. The proposed MCIT pathway would support and accelerate beneficiary access to certain innovative devices. CMS encourages manufacturers that have breakthrough devices covered under MCIT to develop additional data for the healthcare community. 4. MCIT Pathway for Breakthrough Devices.

4 Years of Coverage In § 405.607(a), we propose that the MCIT pathway for coverage would begin on the same date the device receives FDA market authorization. We propose this point in time to ensure there is no gap between Medicare coverage and FDA market authorization. This supports the MCIT pathway's focus of ensuring beneficiaries have a predictable access to new devices. We propose in § 405.607(b)(1) that the MCIT pathway for breakthrough devices ends 4 years from the date the device received FDA market authorization. We propose this 4 year time period because it could allow manufacturers to develop clinical evidence and data regarding the benefit of the use of their device in a real world setting.

For example, we believe 4 years would allow most manufacturers sufficient time to complete FDA required post-approval or other real-world data collection studies that may have been a condition of FDA market authorization. This assumption is based upon our historical experience with studies conducted through coverage with evidence development (CED). Further, this time period allows Medicare to support manufacturers that, whether required by the FDA or not, have an interest in better understanding the health outcomes of their device in the Medicare population, including impacts on patient-reported and longer-term outcomes. Further, § 405.607(b) proposes reasons that the MCIT pathway may end prior to 4 years. This includes circumstances whereby the device becomes subject to an NCD, regulation, statute, or if the device can no longer be lawfully marketed.Start Printed Page 54335 D.

Summary In summary, the MCIT pathway would provide immediate Medicare coverage of newly FDA market authorized breakthrough devices for 4 years. We seek public comment on all of our proposals. In particular, we seek feedback on whether the proposed 4 year coverage period is sufficient. We also look to stakeholders and the public to determine the level of interest and expected use of the proposed MCIT pathway so the agency can begin to estimate the level of needed resources to support successful implementation. We are also seeking public comments on our proposal to codify in regulations the standards we have historically used in making reasonable and necessary decisions under Part A and Part B under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

After considering public comments we would prepare a final rule that we expect would be effective 60 days after publication of the final rule. III. Collection of Information Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we solicit comment on the following issues. The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.

The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques. We are soliciting public comment on each of the section 3506(c)(2)(A)-required issues for the following sections of this document that contain information collection requirements (ICRs). To derive average costs, we used data from the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2018 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for all salary estimates (https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes131041.htm, released May 2019). In this regard, the table that follows presents the mean hourly wage, the cost of fringe benefits (calculated at 100 percent of salary), and the adjusted hourly wage. Table 1—National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for MCITOccupation titleOccupation codeMean hourly wage ($/hr)Fringe benefit ($/hr)Adjusted hourly wage ($/hr)Compliance Officer13-104134.8634.8669.72 As indicated, we are adjusting our employee hourly wage estimates by a factor of 100 percent. This is necessarily a rough adjustment, both because fringe benefits and overhead costs vary significantly from employer to employer. Nonetheless, there is no practical alternative and we believe that doubling the hourly wage to estimate total cost is a reasonably accurate estimation method.

This proposed coverage pathway allows for a voluntary participation and therefore necessitates that manufacturers of breakthrough devices notify CMS of their intent to enter the MCIT pathway. Therefore, the burden associated with notifying CMS is the time and effort it would take for each of the organizations to send CMS an email or letter. We anticipate two MCIT pathway participants in the first year based upon the number of medical devices that received FY2020 NTAP and were non-covered in at least one MAC jurisdiction by LCDs and related articles. We estimate notifying CMS of intent to participate in MCIT would involve 15 minutes at $69.72 per hour by a compliance officer. In this regard, we estimate 15 mins per notification at a cost of $17.43 per organization (0.25 hours × $69.72).

In aggregate, we estimate 0.5 hours (0.25 hours × 2 submissions) at $34.86 ($17.43 × 2 submissions). After the anticipated initial 2 submitters, over the next 3 years we expect 3 submitters in year 2, 4 submitters in year 3, and 5 submitters in year 4 to notify CMS of interested in the MCIT pathway. We expect this increase in submitters each year to level off at this point. In this regard, we estimate the same 0.25 hours per submission at a cost of $17.43 per organization. Similarly, in aggregate, we estimate, for year 2 (0.75 hours at $52.29 an hour), for year 3 (1.0 hour at $69.72 an hour), and for year 4 (1.25 hours at $87.15 an hour).

The proposed requirements and burden will be submitted to OMB under control number 0938-NEW. We are requesting public comments on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements. If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please do either of the following. 1. Submit your comments electronically as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule.

Or 2. Submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention. CMS Desk Officer, CMS-3372-P, Fax. (202) 395-6974. Or Email.

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments must be received on/by November 2, 2020. IV. Regulatory Impact Statement This proposed rule makes Medicare coverage policy updates pursuant to the authority at section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. We are using regulatory action per the October 3, 2019 “Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation's Seniors” to address the increasing need for a swift Medicare coverage mechanism to allow beneficiaries across the nation to access breakthrough devices faster after FDA market authorization.

This proposed rule addresses that need by establishing a coverage pathway that will allow immediate beneficiary access to FDA market authorized breakthrough devices. We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995. Pub.

L. 104-4), Start Printed Page 54336Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year).

This proposed rule does reach the economic threshold and thus is considered a major rule. Regulatory alternatives to this proposed rule were to combine Medicare coverage with clinical evidence development under section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act, to take no regulatory action at this time, or to adjust the duration of the MCIT pathway. Combining coverage with clinical evidence development would have met the E.O. 13890 overarching goal of beneficiary access to breakthrough devices. However, this alternative did not meet the other E.O.

13890 aims of minimizing time between FDA market authorization and Medicare coverage and wide availability. The timing of coverage would depend upon the manufacturer being able to initiate a clinical study and the wide availability of coverage could be an issue if providers did not have the infrastructure necessary to participate in the clinical study. CMS chose to not to pursue combining coverage with evidence development for breakthrough devices because we wanted to meet the timing and wide availability aims of E.O. 13890. CMS also considered taking no regulatory action and trying to leverage the existing Medicare coverage pathways or proposing sub-regulatory policies to achieve the streamlined coverage process described in E.O.

13890. Taking no action would not have resulted in the desired national coverage and access envisioned in E.O. 13890 because, as described in this preamble, the existing coverage pathways do not consistently provide swift, national beneficiary access to innovative devices. As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the nature of the problem being addressed by this proposed regulation is a potential delay between a milestone such as FDA market authorization and CMS coverage. As such, we request comment on a policy option of shortening of the duration of the MCIT pathway from the proposed 4 years to 1 year.

In addition to the alternatives just discussed, there are various possibilities regarding how to change the definition of “reasonable and necessary”—for example, whether to include a new aspect of the proposed definition that focuses on commercial insurance coverage practices. As noted earlier in the preamble, the goal of this revision is to expand coverage. However, the nuances of the definition would affect the magnitude of the impact and we request comment that would facilitate quantification of effects and comparison of alternatives at the final rule stage. The impact of implementing the MCIT pathway is difficult to determine without knowing the specific technologies that would be covered. In addition, many of these technologies would be eligible for coverage in the absence of this rule, such as through a local or national coverage determination, so the impact for certain items may be the acceleration of coverage or adoption by just a few months.

Furthermore, some of these devices would be covered immediately if the MACs decide to pay for them, which would result in no impact on Medicare spending for devices approved under this pathway. However, it is possible that some of these innovative technologies would not otherwise be eligible for coverage in the absence of this rule. Because it is not known how these new technologies would otherwise come to market and be reimbursed, it is not possible to develop a point estimate of the impact. In general, we believe the MCIT coverage pathway would range in impact from having no impact on Medicare spending, to a temporary cost for innovations that are adopted under an accelerated basis. The decision to enter the MCIT pathway is voluntary for the manufacturer.

Because manufacturers typically join the Medicare coverage pathway that is most beneficial to them, this would result in selection against the existing program coverage pathways (to what degree is unknown at this point). In addition, the past trend of new technology costing more than existing technology could lead to a higher cost for Medicare if this trend continued for technologies enrolling in the MCIT pathway. Nevertheless, new technology may also mitigate ongoing chronic health issues or improve efficiency of services thereby reducing some costs for Medicare. In order to demonstrate the potential impact on Medicare spending, the CMS Office of the Actuary (OACT) developed three hypothetical scenarios that illustrate the impact of implementing the proposed MCIT pathway. Scenarios two and three assume that the device would not have been eligible for coverage in the absence of this proposed rule.

(See Table 2) The illustration used the new devices that applied for a NTAP in FY 2020 as a proxy for the new devices that would utilize the MCIT pathway. The submitted cost and anticipated utilization for these devices was published in the Federal Register.[] In addition, we assumed that two manufacturers would elect to utilize the MCIT pathway in the first year, three manufacturers in the second year, four manufacturers in the third year, and five manufacturers in the fourth year each year for all three scenarios. This assumption is based on the number of medical devices that received FY 2020 NTAP and were non-covered in at least one MAC jurisdiction by LCDs and related articles and our impression from the FDA that the number of devices granted breakthrough status is increasing. For the first scenario, the no-cost scenario, we assumed that all the devices would be eligible for coverage in the absence of the proposed rule. If the devices received payment nationally and at the same time then there would be no additional cost under this pathway.

For the second scenario, the low-cost scenario, we assumed that the new technologies would have the average costs ($2,044) and utilization (2,322 patients) of similar technologies included in the FY 2020 NTAP application cycle. Therefore, to estimate the first year of MCIT, we multiplied the add-on payment for a new device by the anticipated utilization for a new device by the number of anticipated devices in the pathway ($2,044 × 2,322 × 2 = $ 9.5 million). For the third scenario, the high-cost scenario, we assumed the new technologies would receive the maximum add-on payment from the FY 2020 NTAP application cycle ($22,425) and the highest utilization of a device (6,500 patients). Therefore, to estimate for the first year of MCIT, we estimated similarly ($22,425 × 6,500 patients × 2 = $ 291.5 million). For subsequent years, we increased the number of anticipated devices in the pathway by three, four, and five in the last two scenarios until 2024.[] In addition to Start Printed Page 54337not taking into account inflation, the illustration does not reflect any offsets for the costs of these technologies that would be utilized through existing authorities nor the cost of other treatments (except as noted).

It is not possible to explicitly quantify these offsetting costs but they could substantially reduce or eliminate the net program cost. However, by assuming that only two to five manufacturers will elect MCIT coverage, we have implicitly assumed that, while more manufacturers could potentially elect coverage under MCIT, the majority of devices would have been covered under a different coverage pathway. Therefore, a substantial portion of the offsetting costs are implicitly reflected. Based on this analysis, there is a range of potential impacts of the proposed MCIT coverage pathway as shown in Table 2. The difference between the three estimates demonstrates how sensitive the impact is to the cost and utilization of these unknown devices.

Table 2—Illustrated Impact on the Medicare Program by Proposed MCIT Coverage Pathway Costs (in millions)FY 2021FY 2022FY 2023FY 2024No-cost Scenario$0$0$0$0Low-cost Scenario9.523.742.766.4High-cost Scenario291.5728.81,311.92,040.7 We believe the assumptions used in the three scenarios are reasonable to show the possible wide range of impacts for implementing this proposed pathway, in particular for a technology that would not have otherwise been eligible for coverage. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Some hospitals and other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity.

We reviewed the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes to determine the NAICS U.S. Industry titles and size standards in millions of dollars and/or number of employees that apply to small businesses that could be impacted by this rule.[] We determined that small businesses potentially impacted may include surgical and medical instrument manufacturers (NAICS code 339112, dollars not provided/1,000 employees), Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) (NAICS code 621111, $12 million/employees not provided), and Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers (NAICS code 621493, $16.5 million/employees not provided). During the first 4 years of MCIT, we anticipate approximately 14 surgical and medical instrument manufacturers may participate, and based off of U.S. Census data, the majority of this businesses type are small businesses with less than 1,000 employees (968 out of 1,093 businesses have less than 500 employees).[] As such, this proposed rule would impact less than 5 percent of these businesses, and the revenue impact, if any, would not be negative. Rather, it would be a positive impact because MCIT would provide Medicare coverage (and subsequent payment) to providers who purchase the devices from these manufacturers.

For Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) and Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers that may be providing the breakthrough devices, the majority are small businesses with less than 1,000 employees (4,060 out of 4,385 and 160, 367 out of 161, 286 have less than 500 employees, respectively).[] Given that we estimate, at most in the high-cost scenario, that 6,500 beneficiaries would utilize breakthrough devices through MCIT per year, and even if each beneficiary were to access services at only one of these small businesses (that is, no two beneficiaries used the same office or center), still less than 5 percent of these small businesses would be impacted by MCIT. As such, the revenue impact, if any, would not be negative, rather, it would be a positive impact because MCIT would provide Medicare coverage (and subsequent payment) to providers. Overall, this proposed rule results in a payment, not a reduction in revenue. We are not preparing a further analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because small entities are not being asked to undertake additional effort or take on additional costs outside of the ordinary course of business through this proposed rule. Rather, for small entities that develop or provide breakthrough devices to patients, this proposed rule is a means for the device to be covered through the Medicare program, which does not detract from revenue and could be viewed as a positive economic impact.

With the limited information we had to base this estimate, we solicit public comment on improvements to this estimate for the final rule. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital Start Printed Page 54338as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals because small rural hospitals are not being asked to undertake additional effort or take on additional costs outside of the ordinary course of business through this proposed rule.

Obtaining breakthrough devices for patients is at the discretion of providers. We are not requiring the purchase and use of breakthrough devices. Providers should continue to work with their patients to choose the best treatment. For small rural hospitals that provide breakthrough devices to their patients, this proposed rule is a means for the device to be covered through the Medicare program. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation.

In 2020, that threshold was approximately $156 million. This proposed rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable. Executive Order 13771 (E.O.

13771), titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to impose no more than de minimis costs and thus be neither an E.O. 13771 regulatory action nor an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

V. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. Start List of Subjects Administrative practice and procedureDiseasesHealth facilitiesHealth professionsMedical devicesMedicareReporting and recordkeeping requirementsRural areasX-rays End List of Subjects For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below.

Start Part End Part Start Amendment Part1. The authority for part 405 continues to read as follows. End Amendment Part Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 263a, 405(a), 1302, 1320b-12, 1395x, 1395y(a), 1395ff, 1395hh, 1395kk, 1395rr, and 1395ww(k). End Authority Start Amendment Part2.

Section 405.201 is amended in paragraph (b) by adding the definition of “Reasonable and necessary” in alphabetical order to read as follows. End Amendment Part Scope of subpart and definitions. * * * * * (b) * * * Reasonable and necessary means that an item or service is considered— (1) Safe and effective. (2) Except as set forth in § 411.15(o)) of this chapter, not experimental or investigational. And (3) Appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it (i) Meets all of the following criteria.

(A) Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. (B) Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. (C) Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel. (D) One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need. And (E) At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative.

Or (ii) Is covered by commercial insurers, unless evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant. * * * * * Start Amendment Part3. Subpart F, consisting of §§ 405.601-405.607, is added to read as follows. End Amendment Part 405.601 Medicare coverage of innovative technology. 405.603 Medical device eligibility.

405.605 Coverage of items and services. 405.607 Coverage period. Medicare coverage of innovative technology. (a) Basis and scope. Medicare coverage of innovative technology (MCIT) is a program that provides national, time-limited coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act for certain breakthrough medical devices.

Manufacturer participation in the pathway for breakthrough device coverage is voluntary. (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions are applicable. Breakthrough device means a device that receives such designation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (section 515B(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(d)(1)).

MCIT stands for Medicare coverage of innovative technology. Medical device eligibility. The MCIT pathway is available only to medical devices that meet all of the following. (a) That are FDA-designated breakthrough devices. (b) That are FDA market authorized at most [date 2 years prior to effective date of final rule] and thereafter.

(c) That are used according to their FDA approved or cleared indication for use. (d) That are within a Medicare benefit category. (e) That are not the subject of a Medicare national coverage determination. (f) That are not otherwise excluded from coverage through law or regulation. Coverage of items and services.

Covered items and services furnished within the MCIT pathway may include any of the following, if not otherwise excluded from coverage. (a) The breakthrough device. (b) Any reasonable and necessary procedures to implant the breakthrough device.Start Printed Page 54339 (c) Reasonable and necessary costs to maintain the breakthrough device. (d) Related care and services for the breakthrough device. (e) Reasonable and necessary services to treat complications arising from use of the breakthrough device.

Coverage period. (a) Start of the period. The MCIT pathway begins on the date the breakthrough device receives FDA market authorization. (b) End of the period. The MCIT pathway for a breakthrough device ends as follows.

(1) No later than 4 years from the date the breakthrough device received FDA market authorization. (2) Prior to 4 years if a manufacturer withdraws the breakthrough device from the MCIT pathway. (3) Prior to 4 years if the breakthrough device becomes the subject of a national coverage determination or otherwise becomes noncovered through law or regulation. Start Signature Dated. May 4, 2020.

Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services. Dated. June 11, 2020. Alex M.

Azar II, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-19289 Filed 8-31-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-P.

Start Preamble can you buy celebrex over the counter Centers for This Site Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Proposed rule can you buy celebrex over the counter. This proposed rule would establish a Medicare coverage pathway to provide Medicare beneficiaries nationwide with faster access to new, innovative medical devices designated as breakthrough by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

After the final rule is effective, the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) pathway would begin national Medicare coverage on the date of FDA market authorization and would continue for 4 years. We are also proposing regulatory standards to be used can you buy celebrex over the counter in making reasonable and necessary determinations under section Start Printed Page 543281862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) for items and services that are furnished under Part A and Part B. To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. On November 2, can you buy celebrex over the counter 2020.

In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3372-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one can you buy celebrex over the counter of three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed). 1.

Electronically. You may submit can you buy celebrex over the counter electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions. 2.

By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY. Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention.

CMS-3372-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3.

By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY. Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention.

CMS-3372-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Start Further Info Linda Gousis or JoAnna Baldwin, (410) 786-2281 or CAGinquiries@cms.hhs.gov. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Inspection of Public Comments.

All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following website as soon as possible after they have been received. Http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments.

Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. To 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

I. Background The Administration is committed to ensuring Medicare beneficiaries have access to new cures and technologies that improve health outcomes. Section 6 of the October 3, 2019 Executive Order 13890 (E.O. 13890) “Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation's Seniors,” [] directs the Secretary to “propose regulatory and sub-regulatory changes to the Medicare program to encourage innovation for patients” including by “streamlining the approval, coverage, and coding process”.[] The E.O.

13890 explicitly includes making coverage of breakthrough medical devices “widely available, consistent with the principles of patient safety, market-based policies, and value for patients.” [] The E.O. Also directs the Secretary to “clarify the application of coverage standards.” [] We are responding directly to these directives by proposing a definition of the term “reasonable and necessary” to clarify coverage standards and proposing the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) pathway to accelerate the coverage of new, innovative breakthrough devices to Medicare beneficiaries. To date, the factors used in making “reasonable and necessary” determinations based on section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act have not been established in regulations for Medicare coverage purposes. The Secretary has authority to determine whether a particular medical item or service is “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

(See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984).) When making coverage determinations, our policies have long considered whether the item or service is safe and effective, not experimental or investigational, and appropriate. (For more information see the January 30, 1989 notice of proposed rulemaking (54 FR 4307)).

These factors are found in Chapter 13 of the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (PIM) at section 13.5.4—Reasonable and Necessary Provisions in LCDs as instructions for Medicare contractors. We are proposing to codify in regulations the Program Integrity Manual definition of “reasonable and necessary” with modifications, including to add a reference to Medicare patients and a reference to commercial health insurer coverage policies. We propose that an item or service would be considered “reasonable and necessary” if it is—(1) safe and effective. (2) not experimental or investigational.

And (3) appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it is— Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel. One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need.

And At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. We also propose that an item or service would be “appropriate for Medicare patients” under (3) if it is covered in the commercial insurance market, except where evidence supports that there are clinically relevant differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals. An item or service deemed appropriate for Medicare coverage based on commercial coverage would be covered on that basis without also having to satisfy the bullets listed above. We believe this definition is a significant step in meeting the E.O.'s directive to bring clarity to coverage standards.

Stakeholders have expressed interest in codifying a definition of “reasonable and necessary” for many years. This proposed definition is familiar and functional, can satisfy that interest and meet the E.O.'s ask, while also aligning with the goals of MCIT by providing clarity and predictability for innovation, including for beneficiaries and innovators. The proposed MCIT coverage pathway is specifically for Medicare coverage of devices that are designated as part of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Breakthrough Devices Program (hereafter referred to as “breakthrough devices”) and are FDA market authorized. The MCIT pathway would be voluntary and device manufacturers would notify CMS if they want to utilize this coverage option.

We propose that national Medicare coverage under the MCIT pathway would begin immediately upon the date of FDA market authorization (that is, the Start Printed Page 54329date the medical device receives Premarket Approval (PMA). 510(k) clearance. Or the granting of a De Novo classification request) for the breakthrough device. This coverage would occur unless the device does not have a Medicare benefit category or is otherwise excluded from coverage by statute (that is, the Medicare statute does not allow for coverage of the particular device.) This coverage pathway delivers on the Administration's commitment to give Medicare beneficiaries access to the newest innovations on the market, consistent with the statutory definitions of Medicare benefits.

Because Medicare is a defined benefit program, devices that do not fit within the statutory definitions may not be considered for MCIT. As an example, medical equipment for home use by the beneficiary must be durable (that is, withstand repeated use) for it to be coverable by Medicare (as defined in statutes and regulations by the Secretary). At this time, we are limiting MCIT to medical devices because that is a category of products explicitly identified in E.O. 13890, and we have identified that breakthrough devices can experience variable coverage across the nation shortly after market authorization.

We propose this MCIT pathway because the prescribed statutory timeframes for the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process limit CMS' ability to institute immediate national coverage policies for new, innovative medical devices. NCDs and Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) take, on average, 9 to 12 months to finalize. Because of this length of time, there may be coverage uncertainty between the period of FDA market authorization and CMS finalization of an NCD or a Medicare Administrative Contractor's (MACs) finalization of an LCD. During this time period shortly after market authorization, MACs make coverage determinations on a case-by-case (individual beneficiary) basis, but those decisions do not usually establish agency policies for future claims because a case-by-case decision is for a particular beneficiary and their health circumstances.

Over the past few years, CMS has heard concerns from stakeholders that breakthrough devices are not automatically covered nationally by Medicare once they are FDA market authorized. Variation in coverage from one jurisdiction to another is also a concern. To date, 16 breakthrough devices have also been market authorized. The majority of these breakthrough devices (10 devices) experience variability in coverage for two reasons.

One reason is because the breakthrough devices are coverable at MAC discretion, like many other item and services, on a case-by-case basis (that is, the breakthrough device may be covered for one patient, but not for another within the same jurisdiction). The other reason is because breakthrough devices are used by a hospital or other provider that operates under a bundled payment system (such as a diagnosis related group (DRG) system), so there may be no separate coverage policy for each item or service that may be included in the bundled payment. Another example of variable coverage is for one breakthrough device that is non-covered by a local policy in Florida, but coverable at MAC discretion on a case-by-case basis in other jurisdictions. One breakthrough device has national coverage through an NCD.

One breakthrough device has uniform coverage because the same LCD has been adopted in all jurisdictions. There are three breakthrough devices that do not have a Medicare benefit category (for example, certain wearable devices). Therefore, those breakthrough devices cannot be covered by the Medicare program. In contrast to varied local coverage, the proposed MCIT would create a pathway for immediate national Medicare coverage of any FDA-market authorized breakthrough device if the device meets criteria outlined in this proposal.

A. Statutory Authority We are also proposing to establish in regulations the factors we have historically used in making “reasonable and necessary” determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, with some modification. To summarize, this section explains that Medicare payment may be made under part A or part B for any expenses incurred for items or services that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. Thus, with some exceptions, section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that an item or service be “reasonable and necessary” to be covered by Medicare.

The courts have recognized that the Secretary has significant authority to determine whether a particular item or service is “reasonable and necessary.” (Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 617 (1984). See also, Yale-New Haven Hospital v.

Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71, 84 (2d Cir. 2006). Kort v. Burwell, 209 F.

Supp. 3d 98, 110 (D.C. 2016) (The statute vests substantial authority in the Secretary.)) So even though section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act limits the scope of Medicare coverage, the Secretary has discretion to revise his/her interpretation of the statute in order to ensure adequate coverage for items and services under Part A and Part B. This proposal would provide national Medicare coverage for breakthrough devices that are FDA market-authorized and used consistent with the FDA approved or cleared indication for use (also referred to as the “FDA-required labeling”).[] This device coverage under the MCIT pathway is reasonable and necessary under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act because the device has met the unique criteria of the FDA Breakthrough Devices Program.

B. FDA Breakthrough Devices Program Under the proposed MCIT coverage pathway, CMS would coordinate with FDA and manufacturers as medical devices move through the FDA regulatory process for Breakthrough Devices to ensure seamless Medicare coverage on the date of FDA market authorization unless CMS determines those devices do not have a Medicare benefit category. The Breakthrough Devices Program is an evolution of the Expedited Access Pathway Program and the Priority Review Program (section 515B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)), 21 U.S.C. 360e-3.

See also final guidance for industry entitled, “Breakthrough Devices Program,” https://www.fda.gov/​downloads/​MedicalDevices/​DeviceRegulationandGuidance/​GuidanceDocuments/​UCM581664.pdf). The FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program is not for all new medical devices. Rather, it is only for those that the FDA determines meet the standards for breakthrough device designation. In accordance with section 3051 of the 21st Century Cures Act (21 U.S.C.

360e-3),[] the Breakthrough Devices Program is for medical devices and device-led combination products that meet two criteria. The first criterion is that the device provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. The second criterion is that the device must satisfy one of the following elements. It Start Printed Page 54330represents a breakthrough technology.

No approved or cleared alternatives exist. It offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, including additional considerations outlined in the statute. Or device availability is in the best interest of patients (for more information see 21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)(2)).

These criteria make breakthrough designated devices unique among all other medical devices.[] The parameters of the breakthrough devices program focus on innovations for patients, in turn, MCIT, focuses on these breakthrough devices consistent with E.O. 13890 and in order to streamline coverage of innovative medical devices. C. Current Medicare Coverage Pathways Currently, we utilize several coverage pathways for items and services, which includes medical devices.

None of the coverage pathways described in this section offer immediate, predictable coverage concurrently with FDA market authorization like the proposed MCIT pathway would do. We summarize the other coverage pathways here to provide context for MCIT. National Coverage Determinations (NCDs). Section 1862(l)(6)(A) of the Act defines the term national coverage determination as “a determination by the Secretary with respect to whether or not a particular item or service is covered nationally under this title.” In general, NCDs are national policy statements published to identify the circumstances under which particular items and services will be considered covered by Medicare.

Traditionally, CMS relies heavily on health outcomes data to make NCDs. Most NCDs have involved determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act, but NCDs can be made based on other provisions of the Act, and includes a determination that the item or service under consideration has a Medicare benefit category. The NCD pathway, which has statutorily prescribed timeframes, generally takes 9 to 12 months to complete.[] Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs). Medicare contractors develop LCDs based on section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act that apply only within their geographic jurisdictions.

(Sections 1862(l)(6)(B) and 1869(f)(2)(B) of the Act.) MACs will not need to develop LCDs for breakthrough devices when they are nationally covered through MCIT. The MACs follow specific guidance for developing LCDs for Medicare coverage in the CMS Program Integrity Manual, and in some instances, an LCD can also take 9 to12 months to develop (MACs must finalize proposed LCDs within 365 days from opening per Chapter 13—Local Coverage Determinations of the (PIM) 13.5.1). We note that the MCIT pathway will not alter the existing coverage standards in Chapter 13—Local Coverage Determinations of the PIM.[] That chapter will continue to be used in making determinations under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act for other items and services at the local level. Claim-by-claim Adjudication.

In the absence of an NCD or LCD, MACs would make coverage decisions under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act and may cover or not cover items and services on a claim-by-claim basis. The majority of claims are handled through the claim adjudication process. Clinical Trial Policy (CTP) NCD 310.1. The CTP pathway can be used for coverage of routine care items and services (but generally not the technology under investigation) in a clinical study that is supported by certain Federal agencies.

The CTP coverage pathway was developed in 2000.[] This coverage pathway has not generally been utilized by device manufacturers because they usually seek coverage of the device, which is not included in this pathway. Parallel Review. Parallel Review is a mechanism for FDA and CMS to simultaneously review the submitted clinical data to help decrease the time between FDA's approval of a premarket application or granting of a de novo classification and the subsequent CMS NCD. Parallel Review has two stages.

(1) FDA and CMS meet with the manufacturer to provide feedback on the proposed pivotal clinical trial within the FDA pre-submission process. And (2) FDA and CMS concurrently review (“in parallel”) the clinical trial results submitted in the PMA, or De Novo request. FDA and CMS independently review the data to determine whether it meets their respective Agency's standards and communicate with the manufacturer during their respective reviews. This program is most successful for devices that have a significant amount of clinical evidence.

(Candidates for parallel review would not be appropriate for simultaneous MCIT consideration.) Even though CMS has multiple coverage pathways, at this time none are readily available to provide immediate national coverage for new breakthrough devices with a Medicare benefit category at the same time as FDA market authorization. Further, some of these new breakthrough devices are likely to have limited or developing bodies of clinical evidence because of the newness of the device. Therefore, the MCIT pathway can support manufacturers that are interested in combining coverage with their own clinical study to augment clinical evidence of improved health outcomes, particularly for Medicare patients. Given this summary of existing coverage pathways, we seek comment from the public regarding if any of these existing pathways should be modified to achieve the goals set out by E.O.

13890. D. MCIT Pathway We propose that the MCIT pathway would provide immediate national coverage for breakthrough devices beginning on the date of FDA market authorization and continue for up to 4 years, unless we determine the device does not have a Medicare benefit category as determined by us as part of the MCIT pathway process. The MCIT pathway is voluntary (that is, manufacturers would affirmatively opt-in), and would be initiated when a manufacturer notifies CMS of its intention to utilize the MCIT pathway.

(This notification process is described further in section III. Of this proposed rule.) We would subsequently coordinate with the manufacturer regarding steps that need to be taken for MCIT implementation purposes. The frequency of subsequent engagement will be largely driven by whether the manufacturer has questions for CMS, or CMS and FDA. The timing of coverage will depend upon the timing of the FDA's market authorization decision.

Engagements can take place in the form of in-person meetings, phone calls, emails, etc. We intend to put devices that are covered through the MCIT pathway on the CMS website so that all stakeholders will be aware of what is covered through the MCIT pathway. Manufacturers of breakthrough devices will not be obligated or mandated by CMS to conduct clinical studies during Start Printed Page 54331coverage under the proposed MCIT pathway. However, we seek comment as to whether CMS should require or incentivize manufacturers to provide data about outcomes or should be obligated to enter into a clinical study similar to CMS's Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) paradigm.[] We are aware some manufacturers may be required by the FDA to conduct post market data collection as a condition of market authorization, and nothing in this proposed rule would alter that FDA requirement.

Manufacturers are encouraged to develop the clinical evidence base needed for one of the other coverage pathways after the MCIT pathway ends. This evidence is encouraged not only for CMS and private commercial health insurer coverage policies but also to better inform the clinical community and the public generally about the risks and benefits of treatment. CMS encourages early manufacturer engagement, both before and after FDA market authorization, for manufacturers to receive feedback from CMS on potential clinical study designs and clinical endpoints that may produce the evidence needed for a definitive coverage determination after MCIT. This feedback would not involve CMS predicting specific coverage or non-coverage.

In order to further the goals of E.O. 13890, CMS proposes to rely on FDA's breakthrough device designation and market authorization of those devices to define the universe of devices eligible for MCIT, except for those particular devices CMS determines do not have a Medicare benefit category or are statutorily excluded from coverage under Part A or Part B. In order to provide immediate national coverage to innovative medical devices, we propose to establish a time limit on how long a breakthrough device can be eligible for MCIT (that is, considered a breakthrough device for coverage purposes). MCIT has a time limit on newness similar to our New Technology Add-on Payment (NTAP) policy.

Eligibility for the NTAP is also time limited and this time limit applies to all new technologies, including breakthrough devices, for which an application for additional payment is submitted. Additionally, the time-limited characteristic of MCIT will drive some manufacturers to leverage this period of coverage to demonstrate the value of their device in the competitive marketplace. The 4-year coverage period is particularly important for manufacturers of breakthrough devices that choose to further develop the clinical evidence basis on which the FDA granted marketing authorization. From our experience with clinical studies conducted as part of an NCD, 4 years is approximately the amount of time it takes to complete a study.

At the end of the 4-year MCIT pathway, coverage of the breakthrough device would be subject to one of these possible outcomes. (1) NCD (affirmative coverage, which may include facility or patient criteria). (2) NCD (non-coverage). Or (3) MAC discretion (claim-by-claim adjudication or LCD).

Manufacturers that are interested in a NCD are encouraged to submit a NCD request during the third year of MCIT to allow for sufficient time for NCD development. We seek public comment on whether CMS should open a national coverage analysis if a MAC has not issued an LCD for a breakthrough device within 6 months of the expiration date of the 4-year MCIT period. In our analysis of the current coverage landscape to determine opportunities for innovation and efficiencies, we also considered modifying the coverage process for non-breakthrough devices (for example, PMAs because they are also new to the market), but ultimately determined that it was the unique characteristics of FDA designated breakthrough devices and their ability to serve unmet needs that resonated most with the E.O.'s direction to encourage innovation for patients. We also considered expedited coverage of newly market authorized and breakthrough devices when used in a clinical study.

We seek public comment on the proposed MCIT pathway, the considerations described, whether any of the existing coverage pathways should be modified to achieve the goals set out by the E.O., and alternatives to these proposals. We specifically seek public comment on whether the MCIT pathway should also include diagnostics, drugs and/or biologics that utilize breakthrough or expedited approaches at the FDA (for example, Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track, Priority Review, Accelerated Approval) [] or all diagnostics, drugs and/or biologics. We seek data to support including these additional item categories in the MCIT pathway. Also, we specifically seek manufacturer input on whether an opt-in or opt-out approach would work best for utilizing the MCIT pathway.

We believe manufactures will welcome this new coverage pathway. We want to preserve manufacturers' business judgment and not assume which Medicare coverage pathway a given manufacturer of a breakthrough device would prefer (if any). Therefore, we have proposed an opt-in approach with an email to CMS to indicate affirmative interest in coverage. We are interested in whether an opt-out approach would be less burdensome for stakeholders.

If so, we encourage public comment on a process for stakeholders to opt-out of MCIT that would not be burdensome. Also, we seek public comment on whether, once a manufacturer has opted-out of coverage, it can subsequently opt-in to MCIT. II. Provision of Proposed Regulations A.

Defining “Reasonable and Necessary” As described in section I. Of this proposed rule, the Secretary has authority to determine the meaning of “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. We are proposing to codify the longstanding Program Integrity Manual definition of “reasonable and necessary” into our regulations at 42 CFR 405.201(b), with modification. Under the current definition, an item or service is considered “reasonable and necessary” if it is (1) safe and effective.

(2) not experimental or investigational. And (3) appropriate, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it is— Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel.

One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need. And At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. In addition to codifying the above criteria, we propose to include a separate basis under which an item or service would be appropriate under (3) above that is based on commercial health insurers' coverage policies (that is, non-governmental entities that sponsor health insurance plans). The Start Printed Page 54332commercial market analysis would be initiated if an item/service fails to fulfill the existing factor (3) criteria defining appropriate for Medicare patients but fulfills (1) safe and effective and (2) not experimental or investigational.

By considering commercial health insurer coverage policies, CMS would bring together the expertise of private payers and CMS. For example, in a recent NCD on acupuncture for chronic low back pain, CMS considered the technology assessments and coverage criteria among commercial health insurer coverage policies.[] We believe that this approach would be in line with E.O. 13890 that directs us to make technologies “widely available, consistent with the principles of patient safety, market-based policies, and value for patients.” Under this separate basis, we propose that an item or service would satisfy factor (3) if it is covered under a plan(s) coverage policy if offered in the commercial insurance market, unless evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant. Under our proposal, we would exclude Medicaid managed care, Medicare Advantage, and other government administered healthcare coverage programs from the types of coverage CMS would consider, as these enrollees are not in the commercial market.

In the following paragraphs, we seek comment on this proposal and on how best to implement this mechanism. We solicit comments on sources of data that could be used to implement this policy, and whether CMS should make this information public and transparent. We seek public comment on the most appropriate source(s) for these coverage policies and the best way to determine which commercial plan(s) we would rely on for Medicare coverage. We seek comment on whether beneficiaries, providers, innovators, or others wishing to gain coverage for an item or service demonstrate that the item or service is covered by at least one commercial insurance plan policy.

If they can provide CMS with evidence of commercial coverage or if CMS or its MACs identify such coverage from its review of compilations of health insurance offerings or data from other sources, CMS would consider factor (3) to be satisfied. We solicit comment on whether we should limit our consideration of commercial plan offerings or covered lives to a subset of the commercial market in the interest of simplicity, including looking at geographic subsets, subsets based on number of enrollees, subsets based on plan type (HMO, PPO, etc.), or other subsets of plans—including utilizing a singular plan. We also seek comment on whether, given considerations such the variation and distribution of coverage policies and access to innovations, we should only cover an item or service if it is covered for a majority, or a different proportion such as a plurality, of covered lives amongst plans or a majority, plurality, or some other proportion of plan offerings in the commercial market. (A plan offering is a contract an insurer offers to its enrollees, and a single insurance company may provide many different offerings.) We also recognize that plan offerings may impose certain coverage restrictions on an item or service, e.g.

Related to clinical criteria, disease stage, or number and frequency of treatment. As greater access to innovative treatments provides beneficiaries with more opportunity to improve health and drive decisions, we would, when coverage is afforded on the basis of commercial coverage, adopt the least restrictive coverage policy for the item or service amongst the offerings we examine. However, given potential unreasonable or unnecessary utilization, we also solicit comment on whether we should instead adopt the most restrictive coverage policy. We are further considering, as another variation, that if coverage restrictions are largely similar and present across the majority of offerings, CMS would adopt these in its coverage policies.

We note that such coverage restrictions include the basic requirement for medical necessity at the level of individual patients. Medicare will still only pay for an item or service received by a beneficiary if it is medically necessary for the beneficiary. We seek comment on whether, if we were to take this approach, we should instead use a proportion other than a majority, as low as any offering and as high as all offerings, as a sufficient threshold. As a final variation, we could defer, in the absence of an NCD or national policy, to the MACs to tailor the restrictions on coverage based on what they observe in the commercial market, just as we rely on MACs with regards to the current definition.

We further solicit comment on whether to grant coverage for an item or service to the extent it meets the first and second factors and the commercial coverage basis for the third factor. Under this approach, we would only use the current definition of “appropriate” from the current PIM when the exception for clinically relevant differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals applies (or if the commercial coverage basis is determined by a proportion like a majority and there is insufficient commercial coverage information available). We note that referring to commercial coverage in this way may expand or narrow the circumstances under which we will cover a particular item or service and therefore solicit comment on whether, under such an approach, we should grandfather our current coverage policies for items and services. We also emphasize that the MACs will continue to make judgements in evaluating individual claims for reimbursement, such that a decision by CMS that an item or service is reasonable and necessary in general does not mean that it is reasonable and necessary in all circumstances with respect to individual claims for reimbursement.

We seek public comment on the most appropriate source(s) for these coverage policies. Further, under our proposal, each MAC would be responsible for reviewing commercial offerings to inform their LCDs or claim by claim decisions, which would include individual medical necessity decisions. We may also allow the MACs to develop approaches to address any or all of the considerations outlined above, parallel to their current practice of making coverage decisions in the absence of an NCD or national policy. We solicit comment on the best role of the MACs, along these lines or otherwise.

We also solicit comment on whether the discretion to use the current criteria in the PIM when there is evidence to believe Medicare beneficiaries have different clinical needs should be exercised through the NCD process or in other ways, as well as what quantum of evidence should be sufficient. In sum, we are proposing to define the term “reasonable and necessary” based on the factors currently found in the PIM, plus an alternative basis for meeting factor (3) based on any coverage in the commercial market. We are also soliciting comment on an alternative under whether an item or service satisfies the commercial coverage basis for factor (3) is determined by how it is treated across a majority of covered lives amongst commercial plan offerings, as well as an alternative whereby an item or service would be appropriate for Medicare patients to the extent it is covered in the commercial market. Start Printed Page 54333When evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant, we would rely on the criteria in the current PIM.

We would continue relying on local administration of the program by MACs (including coverage on a claim by claim basis and LCDs) and maintain our discretion to issue NCDs based on the final rule. We solicit comment on this proposed definition of reasonable and necessary, and alternatives outlined above, as well as other mechanisms or definitions we could establish for the term “reasonable and necessary”, and the merits and drawbacks associated with each, including the potential impact on Medicare program expenses or complexity. We may finalize any variation or outgrowth of the policies described in this proposal, or some combination of these options in lieu of or in conjunction with our proposed definition. B.

Application of the “Reasonable and Necessary” Standard to the MCIT Pathway We are proposing that, under the proposed MCIT pathway, an item or service that receives a breakthrough device designation from the FDA would be considered “reasonable and necessary” under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act because breakthrough devices have met the FDA's unique breakthrough devices criteria, and they are innovations that serve unmet needs. While other devices are still considered new to the market, for example, PMAs and even some 510(k)s, the devices designated by the FDA as breakthrough are representative of true innovations in the marketplace. This application of the “reasonable and necessary” standard in this way would ensure that the MCIT pathway can provide a fast-track to Medicare coverage of innovative devices that may more effectively treat or diagnose life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. MCIT would improve healthcare for Medicare beneficiaries by providing national Medicare coverage for devices receiving the FDA breakthrough device designation, which are FDA market-authorized and used consistent with the FDA approved or cleared indication for use (also referred to as the “FDA required labeling”),[] so long as the breakthrough device is described in an appropriate Medicare benefit category under Part A or Part B and is not specifically excluded by statute.

We believe the criteria for qualification as a breakthrough device, as defined in section 515B(b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)) is sufficient to satisfy the elements of the “reasonable and necessary” standard. The first breakthrough device designation criterion is that a device must “provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions” (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)(1)).

The second criterion is that the device must satisfy one of the following elements. It represents a breakthrough technology. There are no approved or cleared alternatives. It offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, including additional considerations outlined in the statute.

Or availability of the device is in the best interest of patients (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(b)(2)). Thus, breakthrough devices are those that HHS has determined may provide better health outcomes for patients facing life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. We believe that a device meeting these criteria, once also FDA market authorized, is “reasonable and necessary” for purposes of Medicare coverage.

This proposed rule recognizes that the FDA market authorization of breakthrough devices warrants immediate coverage under the “reasonable and necessary” clause in section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. We previously stated that FDA determinations were not controlling determinations for Medicare coverage purposes under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. (For more information see the January 30, 1989 Federal Register (54 FR 4307) (“FDA approval for the marketing of a medical device will not necessarily lead to a favorable coverage recommendation. .

. €) and the August 7, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 48165) (“However, FDA approval or clearance alone does not entitle that technology to Medicare coverage.”) Under the Secretary's broad authority to interpret section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act (supra section I.A.), we are revising our interpretation of the statute because of the practical concerns that our current standards have delayed access to a unique set of innovative devices that FDA has found to be safe and effective, and we believe are “reasonable and necessary” for purposes of Medicare https://www.voiture-et-handicap.fr/best-online-celebrex/ coverage. In light of E.O. 13890, the Secretary has determined that application of the current standards for making “reasonable and necessary” determinations may take too long following FDA market authorization of breakthrough devices.

More importantly, the existing standard has not always provided Medicare beneficiaries adequate access to certain breakthrough medical devices when needed to improve health outcomes. We are proposing that breakthrough devices per se meet the reasonable and necessary standard in order to increase access and to reduce the delay from FDA market authorization to Medicare coverage. C. MCIT Pathway We are proposing the MCIT pathway to deliver on the Administration's commitment to provide access to breakthrough devices to Medicare beneficiaries.

The MCIT pathway provides up to 4 years of national coverage to newly FDA market authorized breakthrough devices. We are aware that this coverage may also facilitate evidence development on devices for the Medicare population because manufacturers can gather additional data on utilization of the device during the MCIT coverage period. 1. Definitions In § 405.601(a) we are proposing that the MCIT pathway is voluntary.

Operationally, we propose that manufacturers of breakthrough devices notify CMS of their intention to elect MCIT shortly after receiving notice from the FDA of being granted the breakthrough device designation. Ideally, this notification would be sent to CMS within 2 weeks of receiving breakthrough designation. However, entities would not be penalized for notifying CMS after that time. Alternatively, submitting a notification to CMS shortly before or concurrently with the date of the FDA marketing submission should also afford CMS sufficient time to operationalize MCIT for the device.

The CMS Coverage and Analysis Group would establish an email box for these inquires. This notification alerts CMS to offer guidance to manufacturers about the MCIT pathway and point to resources for coding and payment, which are key conversations to effectuate coverage upon FDA market authorization. We intend to utilize the existing coverage implementation processes to be prepared to offer coverage immediately upon the FDA market authorization. In § 405.601(b), we propose the following definitions for the purposes of 42 CFR part 405.

We propose to define Start Printed Page 54334“breakthrough device” as a medical device that receives such designation by the FDA (section 515B(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-3(d)(1))). We also propose to define, for the sake of clarity in the rule, that the acronym MCIT stands for Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology. 2.

MCIT Pathway Device Eligibility In § 405.603(a) we propose that the pathway is available to devices that meet the definitions proposed in § 405.601. Based on the explicit mention of devices in E.O. 13890 and our interaction and feedback from stakeholders who expressed their concern that there is more uncertainty of coverage for devices than for other items and services (for example, diagnostics, drugs and biologics), this proposed policy is for devices only. We propose in § 405.603(b) that the breakthrough devices that received FDA market authorization no more than 2 calendar years prior to the effective date of this subpart (the date the final rule is finalized) and thereafter will be eligible for coverage for claims submitted on or after the effective date of this rule.

Claims for breakthrough devices with dates of service that occurred before the effective date of this rule would not be covered through MCIT. For example, a hypothetical breakthrough device that was FDA market authorized on October 1, 2018, and utilized on January 1, 2020 would not be eligible for coverage under MCIT because on January 1, 2020, the date of service, the final MCIT rule was not yet legally in effect. In contrast, a claim for utilization of the same hypothetical breakthrough device with a date of service on January 1, 2021 might be eligible for coverage if the claim occurred after the effective date of the rule (assuming that the effective date of the rule was prior to January 1, 2021). Breakthrough devices market authorized prior to the effective date of this rule will not be eligible for all 4 years of coverage.

The 4-year period starts on the date of FDA market authorization. For example, a breakthrough device market authorized on October 1, 2018 would have claims covered through MCIT from the effective date of the final rule until October 1, 2022. If a manufacturer initially chooses to not utilize the MCIT pathway, and then chooses to do so some time after the breakthrough device's market authorization, coverage still only lasts 4 years from the date of FDA market authorization. We seek comment on this eligibility criterion for devices and specifically the 2 year lookback.

We propose in § 405.603(c) that to be part of the MCIT pathway, the device must be used according to its FDA approved or cleared indication for use. We propose that the device is only covered for use consistent with its FDA approved or cleared indication for use because that is the indication and conditions for use that were reviewed by the FDA and authorized for marketing. Data are unlikely to be available to support extending beyond the FDA required labeling for breakthrough devices on the date of marketing authorization. Use of the device for a condition or population that is not labeled (“off-label”) will not be covered as that use would not be FDA authorized.

We specifically seek comment on whether off-label use of breakthrough devices should be covered and, if so, under what specific circumstances and/or evidentiary support. In § 405.603(d) and (e), we additionally propose limitations to what is coverable under the Act. In § 405.603(e), we are proposing that if CMS has issued an NCD on a particular breakthrough device, that breakthrough device is not eligible for MCIT. We are proposing this because, once the device has been reviewed by CMS for the FDA required approved or cleared indication for use.

CMS has made a coverage determination based on the available evidence for that technology. We believe this would happen rarely because breakthrough devices are new technologies that are not likely to have been previously reviewed through the NCD process. In § 405.603(f), we acknowledge that devices in the MCIT pathway may be excluded due to statute or regulation (for example, 42 CFR 411.15, Particular services excluded from coverage) and, like other items and services coverable by Medicare, the device must fall within the scope of a Medicare benefit category under section 1861 of the Act and the implementing regulations. If the device does not fall within a Medicare benefit category as outlined in the statute and implementing regulations, the device is not eligible for Medicare coverage.

Therefore, the device would not be eligible for the MCIT pathway. 3. General Coverage of Items and Services under the MCIT Pathway We propose in § 405.605 that devices covered under the MCIT pathway are covered no differently from devices that are covered outside of MCIT. In other words, provided the items and services are otherwise coverable (that is, not specifically excluded and not found by CMS to be outside the scope of a Medicare benefit category), covered items and services could include the device, reasonable and necessary surgery to implant the device, if implantable, related care and services costs of the device (for example, replacing reasonable and necessary parts of the device such as a battery), and coverage of any reasonable and necessary treatments due to complications arising from use of the device.

What the MCIT pathway offers compared to other pathways is predictable national coverage simultaneous with FDA market authorization that will generally last for a set time period. The proposed MCIT pathway would support and accelerate beneficiary access to certain innovative devices. CMS encourages manufacturers that have breakthrough devices covered under MCIT to develop additional data for the healthcare community. 4.

MCIT Pathway for Breakthrough Devices. 4 Years of Coverage In § 405.607(a), we propose that the MCIT pathway for coverage would begin on the same date the device receives FDA market authorization. We propose this point in time to ensure there is no gap between Medicare coverage and FDA market authorization. This supports the MCIT pathway's focus of ensuring beneficiaries have a predictable access to new devices.

We propose in § 405.607(b)(1) that the MCIT pathway for breakthrough devices ends 4 years from the date the device received FDA market authorization. We propose this 4 year time period because it could allow manufacturers to develop clinical evidence and data regarding the benefit of the use of their device in a real world setting. For example, we believe 4 years would allow most manufacturers sufficient time to complete FDA required post-approval or other real-world data collection studies that may have been a condition of FDA market authorization. This assumption is based upon our historical experience with studies conducted through coverage with evidence development (CED).

Further, this time period allows Medicare to support manufacturers that, whether required by the FDA or not, have an interest in better understanding the health outcomes of their device in the Medicare population, including impacts on patient-reported and longer-term outcomes. Further, § 405.607(b) proposes reasons that the MCIT pathway may end prior to 4 years. This includes circumstances whereby the device becomes subject to an NCD, regulation, statute, or if the device can no longer be lawfully marketed.Start Printed Page 54335 D. Summary In summary, the MCIT pathway would provide immediate Medicare coverage of newly FDA market authorized breakthrough devices for 4 years.

We seek public comment on all of our proposals. In particular, we seek feedback on whether the proposed 4 year coverage period is sufficient. We also look to stakeholders and the public to determine the level of interest and expected use of the proposed MCIT pathway so the agency can begin to estimate the level of needed resources to support successful implementation. We are also seeking public comments on our proposal to codify in regulations the standards we have historically used in making reasonable and necessary decisions under Part A and Part B under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act.

After considering public comments we would prepare a final rule that we expect would be effective 60 days after publication of the final rule. III. Collection of Information Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we solicit comment on the following issues.

The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency. The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.

We are soliciting public comment on each of the section 3506(c)(2)(A)-required issues for the following sections of this document that contain information collection requirements (ICRs). To derive average costs, we used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2018 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for all salary estimates (https://www.bls.gov/​oes/​current/​oes131041.htm, released May 2019). In this regard, the table that follows presents the mean hourly wage, the cost of fringe benefits (calculated at 100 percent of salary), and the adjusted hourly wage.

Table 1—National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for MCITOccupation titleOccupation codeMean hourly wage ($/hr)Fringe benefit ($/hr)Adjusted hourly wage ($/hr)Compliance Officer13-104134.8634.8669.72 As indicated, we are adjusting our employee hourly wage estimates by a factor of 100 percent. This is necessarily a rough adjustment, both because fringe benefits and overhead costs vary significantly from employer to employer. Nonetheless, there is no practical alternative and we believe that doubling the hourly wage to estimate total cost is a reasonably accurate estimation method. This proposed coverage pathway allows for a voluntary participation and therefore necessitates that manufacturers of breakthrough devices notify CMS of their intent to enter the MCIT pathway.

Therefore, the burden associated with notifying CMS is the time and effort it would take for each of the organizations to send CMS an email or letter. We anticipate two MCIT pathway participants in the first year based upon the number of medical devices that received FY2020 NTAP and were non-covered in at least one MAC jurisdiction by LCDs and related articles. We estimate notifying CMS of intent to participate in MCIT would involve 15 minutes at $69.72 per hour by a compliance officer. In this regard, we estimate 15 mins per notification at a cost of $17.43 per organization (0.25 hours × $69.72).

In aggregate, we estimate 0.5 hours (0.25 hours × 2 submissions) at $34.86 ($17.43 × 2 submissions). After the anticipated initial 2 submitters, over the next 3 years we expect 3 submitters in year 2, 4 submitters in year 3, and 5 submitters in year 4 to notify CMS of interested in the MCIT pathway. We expect this increase in submitters each year to level off at this point. In this regard, we estimate the same 0.25 hours per submission at a cost of $17.43 per organization.

Similarly, in aggregate, we estimate, for year 2 (0.75 hours at $52.29 an hour), for year 3 (1.0 hour at $69.72 an hour), and for year 4 (1.25 hours at $87.15 an hour). The proposed requirements and burden will be submitted to OMB under control number 0938-NEW. We are requesting public comments on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements. If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please do either of the following.

1. Submit your comments electronically as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. Or 2. Submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention.

CMS Desk Officer, CMS-3372-P, Fax. (202) 395-6974. Or Email. OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov.

Comments must be received on/by November 2, 2020. IV. Regulatory Impact Statement This proposed rule makes Medicare coverage policy updates pursuant to the authority at section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act. We are using regulatory action per the October 3, 2019 “Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation's Seniors” to address the increasing need for a swift Medicare coverage mechanism to allow beneficiaries across the nation to access breakthrough devices faster after FDA market authorization.

This proposed rule addresses that need by establishing a coverage pathway that will allow immediate beneficiary access to FDA market authorized breakthrough devices. We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995.

Pub. L. 104-4), Start Printed Page 54336Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This proposed rule does reach the economic threshold and thus is considered a major rule. Regulatory alternatives to this proposed rule were to combine Medicare coverage with clinical evidence development under section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act, to take no regulatory action at this time, or to adjust the duration of the MCIT pathway.

Combining coverage with clinical evidence development would have met the E.O. 13890 overarching goal of beneficiary access to breakthrough devices. However, this alternative did not meet the other E.O. 13890 aims of minimizing time between FDA market authorization and Medicare coverage and wide availability.

The timing of coverage would depend upon the manufacturer being able to initiate a clinical study and the wide availability of coverage could be an issue if providers did not have the infrastructure necessary to participate in the clinical study. CMS chose to not to pursue combining coverage with evidence development for breakthrough devices because we wanted to meet the timing and wide availability aims of E.O. 13890. CMS also considered taking no regulatory action and trying to leverage the existing Medicare coverage pathways or proposing sub-regulatory policies to achieve the streamlined coverage process described in E.O.

13890. Taking no action would not have resulted in the desired national coverage and access envisioned in E.O. 13890 because, as described in this preamble, the existing coverage pathways do not consistently provide swift, national beneficiary access to innovative devices. As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, the nature of the problem being addressed by this proposed regulation is a potential delay between a milestone such as FDA market authorization and CMS coverage.

As such, we request comment on a policy option of shortening of the duration of the MCIT pathway from the proposed 4 years to 1 year. In addition to the alternatives just discussed, there are various possibilities regarding how to change the definition of “reasonable and necessary”—for example, whether to include a new aspect of the proposed definition that focuses on commercial insurance coverage practices. As noted earlier in the preamble, the goal of this revision is to expand coverage. However, the nuances of the definition would affect the magnitude of the impact and we request comment that would facilitate quantification of effects and comparison of alternatives at the final rule stage.

The impact of implementing the MCIT pathway is difficult to determine without knowing the specific technologies that would be covered. In addition, many of these technologies would be eligible for coverage in the absence of this rule, such as through a local or national coverage determination, so the impact for certain items may be the acceleration of coverage or adoption by just a few months. Furthermore, some of these devices would be covered immediately if the MACs decide to pay for them, which would result in no impact on Medicare spending for devices approved under this pathway. However, it is possible that some of these innovative technologies would not otherwise be eligible for coverage in the absence of this rule.

Because it is not known how these new technologies would otherwise come to market and be reimbursed, it is not possible to develop a point estimate of the impact. In general, we believe the MCIT coverage pathway would range in impact from having no impact on Medicare spending, to a temporary cost for innovations that are adopted under an accelerated basis. The decision to enter the MCIT pathway is voluntary for the manufacturer. Because manufacturers typically join the Medicare coverage pathway that is most beneficial to them, this would result in selection against the existing program coverage pathways (to what degree is unknown at this point).

In addition, the past trend of new technology costing more than existing technology could lead to a higher cost for Medicare if this trend continued for technologies enrolling in the MCIT pathway. Nevertheless, new technology may also mitigate ongoing chronic health issues or improve efficiency of services thereby reducing some costs for Medicare. In order to demonstrate the potential impact on Medicare spending, the CMS Office of the Actuary (OACT) developed three hypothetical scenarios that illustrate the impact of implementing the proposed MCIT pathway. Scenarios two and three assume that the device would not have been eligible for coverage in the absence of this proposed rule.

(See Table 2) The illustration used the new devices that applied for a NTAP in FY 2020 as a proxy for the new devices that would utilize the MCIT pathway. The submitted cost and anticipated utilization for these devices was published in the Federal Register.[] In addition, we assumed that two manufacturers would elect to utilize the MCIT pathway in the first year, three manufacturers in the second year, four manufacturers in the third year, and five manufacturers in the fourth year each year for all three scenarios. This assumption is based on the number of medical devices that received FY 2020 NTAP and were non-covered in at least one MAC jurisdiction by LCDs and related articles and our impression from the FDA that the number of devices granted breakthrough status is increasing. For the first scenario, the no-cost scenario, we assumed that all the devices would be eligible for coverage in the absence of the proposed rule.

If the devices received payment nationally and at the same time then there would be no additional cost under this pathway. For the second scenario, the low-cost scenario, we assumed that the new technologies would have the average costs ($2,044) and utilization (2,322 patients) of similar technologies included in the FY 2020 NTAP application cycle. Therefore, to estimate the first year of MCIT, we multiplied the add-on payment for a new device by the anticipated utilization for a new device by the number of anticipated devices in the pathway ($2,044 × 2,322 × 2 = $ 9.5 million). For the third scenario, the high-cost scenario, we assumed the new technologies would receive the maximum add-on payment from the FY 2020 NTAP application cycle ($22,425) and the highest utilization of a device (6,500 patients).

Therefore, to estimate for the first year of MCIT, we estimated similarly ($22,425 × 6,500 patients × 2 = $ 291.5 million). For subsequent years, we increased the number of anticipated devices in the pathway by three, four, and five in the last two scenarios until 2024.[] In addition to Start Printed Page 54337not taking into account inflation, the illustration does not reflect any offsets for the costs of these technologies that would be utilized through existing authorities nor the cost of other treatments (except as noted). It is not possible to explicitly quantify these offsetting costs but they could substantially reduce or eliminate the net program cost. However, by assuming that only two to five manufacturers will elect MCIT coverage, we have implicitly assumed that, while more manufacturers could potentially elect coverage under MCIT, the majority of devices would have been covered under a different coverage pathway.

Therefore, a substantial portion of the offsetting costs are implicitly reflected. Based on this analysis, there is a range of potential impacts of the proposed MCIT coverage pathway as shown in Table 2. The difference between the three estimates demonstrates how sensitive the impact is to the cost and utilization of these unknown devices. Table 2—Illustrated Impact on the Medicare Program by Proposed MCIT Coverage Pathway Costs (in millions)FY 2021FY 2022FY 2023FY 2024No-cost Scenario$0$0$0$0Low-cost Scenario9.523.742.766.4High-cost Scenario291.5728.81,311.92,040.7 We believe the assumptions used in the three scenarios are reasonable to show the possible wide range of impacts for implementing this proposed pathway, in particular for a technology that would not have otherwise been eligible for coverage.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Some hospitals and other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity.

We reviewed the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes to determine the NAICS U.S. Industry titles and size standards in millions of dollars and/or number of employees that apply to small businesses that could be impacted by this rule.[] We determined that small businesses potentially impacted may include surgical and medical instrument manufacturers (NAICS code 339112, dollars not provided/1,000 employees), Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) (NAICS code 621111, $12 million/employees not provided), and Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers (NAICS code 621493, $16.5 million/employees not provided). During the first 4 years of MCIT, we anticipate approximately 14 surgical and medical instrument manufacturers may participate, and based off of U.S. Census data, the majority of this businesses type are small businesses with less than 1,000 employees (968 out of 1,093 businesses have less than 500 employees).[] As such, this proposed rule would impact less than 5 percent of these businesses, and the revenue impact, if any, would not be negative.

Rather, it would be a positive impact because MCIT would provide Medicare coverage (and subsequent payment) to providers who purchase the devices from these manufacturers. For Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) and Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers that may be providing the breakthrough devices, the majority are small businesses with less than 1,000 employees (4,060 out of 4,385 and 160, 367 out of 161, 286 have less than 500 employees, respectively).[] Given that we estimate, at most in the high-cost scenario, that 6,500 beneficiaries would utilize breakthrough devices through MCIT per year, and even if each beneficiary were to access services at only one of these small businesses (that is, no two beneficiaries used the same office or center), still less than 5 percent of these small businesses would be impacted by MCIT. As such, the revenue impact, if any, would not be negative, rather, it would be a positive impact because MCIT would provide Medicare coverage (and subsequent payment) to providers. Overall, this proposed rule results in a payment, not a reduction in revenue.

We are not preparing a further analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because small entities are not being asked to undertake additional effort or take on additional costs outside of the ordinary course of business through this proposed rule. Rather, for small entities that develop or provide breakthrough devices to patients, this proposed rule is a means for the device to be covered through the Medicare program, which does not detract from revenue and could be viewed as a positive economic impact. With the limited information we had to base this estimate, we solicit public comment on improvements to this estimate for the final rule. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital Start Printed Page 54338as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals because small rural hospitals are not being asked to undertake additional effort or take on additional costs outside of the ordinary course of business through this proposed rule. Obtaining breakthrough devices for patients is at the discretion of providers.

We are not requiring the purchase and use of breakthrough devices. Providers should continue to work with their patients to choose the best treatment. For small rural hospitals that provide breakthrough devices to their patients, this proposed rule is a means for the device to be covered through the Medicare program. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation.

In 2020, that threshold was approximately $156 million. This proposed rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.

Executive Order 13771 (E.O. 13771), titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to impose no more than de minimis costs and thus be neither an E.O. 13771 regulatory action nor an E.O.

13771 deregulatory action. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. V. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually.

We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. Start List of Subjects Administrative practice and procedureDiseasesHealth facilitiesHealth professionsMedical devicesMedicareReporting and recordkeeping requirementsRural areasX-rays End List of Subjects For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below. Start Part End Part Start Amendment Part1.

The authority for part 405 continues to read as follows. End Amendment Part Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 263a, 405(a), 1302, 1320b-12, 1395x, 1395y(a), 1395ff, 1395hh, 1395kk, 1395rr, and 1395ww(k). End Authority Start Amendment Part2.

Section 405.201 is amended in paragraph (b) by adding the definition of “Reasonable and necessary” in alphabetical order to read as follows. End Amendment Part Scope of subpart and definitions. * * * * * (b) * * * Reasonable and necessary means that an item or service is considered— (1) Safe and effective. (2) Except as set forth in § 411.15(o)) of this chapter, not experimental or investigational.

And (3) Appropriate for Medicare patients, including the duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service, in terms of whether it (i) Meets all of the following criteria. (A) Furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's condition or to improve the function of a malformed body member. (B) Furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient's medical needs and condition. (C) Ordered and furnished by qualified personnel.

(D) One that meets, but does not exceed, the patient's medical need. And (E) At least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. Or (ii) Is covered by commercial insurers, unless evidence supports that differences between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured individuals are clinically relevant. * * * * * Start Amendment Part3.

Subpart F, consisting of §§ 405.601-405.607, is added to read as follows. End Amendment Part 405.601 Medicare coverage of innovative technology. 405.603 Medical device eligibility. 405.605 Coverage of items and services.

405.607 Coverage period. Medicare coverage of innovative technology. (a) Basis and scope. Medicare coverage of innovative technology (MCIT) is a program that provides national, time-limited coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act for certain breakthrough medical devices.

Manufacturer participation in the pathway for breakthrough device coverage is voluntary. (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions are applicable. Breakthrough device means a device that receives such designation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (section 515B(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.

360e-3(d)(1)). MCIT stands for Medicare coverage of innovative technology. Medical device eligibility. The MCIT pathway is available only to medical devices that meet all of the following.

(a) That are FDA-designated breakthrough devices. (b) That are FDA market authorized at most [date 2 years prior to effective date of final rule] and thereafter. (c) That are used according to their FDA approved or cleared indication for use. (d) That are within a Medicare benefit category.

(e) That are not the subject of a Medicare national coverage determination. (f) That are not otherwise excluded from coverage through law or regulation. Coverage of items and services. Covered items and services furnished within the MCIT pathway may include any of the following, if not otherwise excluded from coverage.

(a) The breakthrough device. (b) Any reasonable and necessary procedures to implant the breakthrough device.Start Printed Page 54339 (c) Reasonable and necessary costs to maintain the breakthrough device. (d) Related care and services for the breakthrough device. (e) Reasonable and necessary services to treat complications arising from use of the breakthrough device.

Coverage period. (a) Start of the period. The MCIT pathway begins on the date the breakthrough device receives FDA market authorization. (b) End of the period.

The MCIT pathway for a breakthrough device ends as follows. (1) No later than 4 years from the date the breakthrough device received FDA market authorization. (2) Prior to 4 years if a manufacturer withdraws the breakthrough device from the MCIT pathway. (3) Prior to 4 years if the breakthrough device becomes the subject of a national coverage determination or otherwise becomes noncovered through law or regulation.

Start Signature Dated. May 4, 2020. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services.

Dated. June 11, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-19289 Filed 8-31-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-P.

Where should I keep Celebrex?

Keep out of the reach of children.

Store at room temperature between 15 and 30 degrees C (59 and 86 degrees F). Keep container tightly closed. Throw away any unused medicine after the expiration date.

Celebrex medication guide

The Empire Justice celebrex medication guide Center published a report in May, 2013 see this website exploring the policies that guide immigrant access to health care and making recommendations for improving immigrant access through New York's Health Insurance Exchange. New York's Exchange Portal. A Gateway to Coverage for Immigrants The report includes a new tool -- Immigrant Eligibility Crosswalk -- Eligibility by Immigration Status-- designed to help advocates and policymakers sort through the tangle of immigrant eligibility categories to determine who is eligible for which health care programs in 2014 and beyond. The report was made possible with support from the United Hospital Fund and benefited from the advice and input from many of our national partners in the effort to ensure maximum participation of immigrants in the nation's healthcare system as well as experts from the New celebrex medication guide York State Department of Health and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

SEE more about "PRUCOL" immigrant eligibility for Medicaid in this article. "Undocumented" immigrants are, with some exceptions for pregnant women and Child Health Plus, only eligible for "emergency Medicaid."NYS announced the 2020 Income and Resource levels in GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates ) and levels based on the Federal Poverty Level are in GIS 20 MA/02 – 2020 Federal Poverty Levels Here is the 2020 HRA Income and Resources Level Chart Non-MAGI - 2020 Disabled, 65+ or Blind ("DAB" or SSI-Related) and have Medicare MAGI (2020) (<. 65, Does not have Medicare)(OR has Medicare celebrex medication guide and has dependent child <. 18 or <.

19 in school) 138% FPL*** Children <. 5 and pregnant women have HIGHER LIMITS than shown ESSENTIAL PLAN For MAGI-eligible people over MAGI income limit up to 200% FPL No long term care celebrex medication guide. See info here 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Income $875 (up from $859 in 201) $1284 (up from $1,267 in 2019) $1,468 $1,983 $2,498 $2,127 $2,873 Resources $15,750 (up from $15,450 in 2019) $23,100 (up from $22,800 in 2019) NO LIMIT** NO LIMIT SOURCE for 2019 figures is GIS 18 MA/015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates (PDF). All of the attachments with the various levels are posted here.

NEED TO celebrex medication guide KNOW PAST MEDICAID INCOME AND RESOURCE LEVELS?. Which household size applies?. The rules are complicated. See rules celebrex medication guide here.

On the HRA Medicaid Levels chart - Boxes 1 and 2 are NON-MAGI Income and Resource levels -- Age 65+, Blind or Disabled and other adults who need to use "spend-down" because they are over the MAGI income levels. Box 10 on page 3 are the MAGI income levels -- The Affordable Care Act changed the rules for Medicaid income eligibility for many BUT NOT ALL New Yorkers. People in the "MAGI" category - those NOT on Medicare -- have expanded eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line, so may now qualify for Medicaid even if they were not eligible before, or may now be eligible for Medicaid without a "spend-down." They have NO resource celebrex medication guide limit. Box 3 on page 1 is Spousal Impoverishment levels for Managed Long Term Care &.

Nursing Homes and Box 8 has the Transfer Penalty rates for nursing home eligibility Box 4 has Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities Under Age 65 (still 2017 levels til April 2018) Box 6 are Medicare Savings Program levels (will be updated in April 2018) MAGI INCOME LEVEL of 138% FPL applies to most adults who are not disabled and who do not have Medicare, AND can also apply to adults with Medicare if they have a dependent child/relative under age 18 or under 19 if in school. 42 celebrex medication guide C.F.R. § 435.4. Certain populations have an even higher income limit - 224% FPL for pregnant women and babies <.

Age 1, 154% FPL for celebrex medication guide children age 1 - 19. CAUTION. What is counted as income may not be what you think. For the NON-MAGI Disabled/Aged 65+/Blind, income will still be determined by the same rules as before, explained in this outline and these charts celebrex medication guide on income disregards.

However, for the MAGI population - which is virtually everyone under age 65 who is not on Medicare - their income will now be determined under new rules, based on federal income tax concepts - called "Modifed Adjusted Gross Income" (MAGI). There are good changes and https://www.voiture-et-handicap.fr/best-online-celebrex/ bad changes. GOOD. Veteran's benefits, Workers compensation, and gifts from family or celebrex medication guide others no longer count as income.

BAD. There is no more "spousal" or parental refusal for this population (but there still is for the Disabled/Aged/Blind.) and some other rules. For celebrex medication guide all of the rules see. ALSO SEE 2018 Manual on Lump Sums and Impact on Public Benefits - with resource rules The income limits increase with the "household size." In other words, the income limit for a family of 5 may be higher than the income limit for a single person.

HOWEVER, Medicaid rules about how to calculate the household size are not intuitive or even logical. There are different rules depending on the "category" of the person celebrex medication guide seeking Medicaid. Here are the 2 basic categories and the rules for calculating their household size. People who are Disabled, Aged 65+ or Blind - "DAB" or "SSI-Related" Category -- NON-MAGI - See this chart for their household size.

These same rules apply to the Medicare Savings Program, with some exceptions explained in this celebrex medication guide article. Everyone else -- MAGI - All children and adults under age 65, including people with disabilities who are not yet on Medicare -- this is the new "MAGI" population. Their household size will be determined using federal income tax rules, which are very complicated. New rule is explained in State's directive 13 ADM-03 - Medicaid Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of celebrex medication guide 2010 (PDF) pp.

8-10 of the PDF, This PowerPoint by NYLAG on MAGI Budgeting attempts to explain the new MAGI budgeting, including how to determine the Household Size. See slides 28-49. Also seeLegal Aid Society and Empire Justice Center materials OLD RULE used until end of 2013 -- Count the person(s) applying for Medicaid who live together, plus any of their legally responsible relatives who do celebrex medication guide not receive SNA, ADC, or SSI and reside with an applicant/recipient. Spouses or legally responsible for one another, and parents are legally responsible for their children under age 21 (though if the child is disabled, use the rule in the 1st "DAB" category.

Under this rule, a child may be excluded from the household if that child's income causes other family members to lose Medicaid eligibility. See 18 NYCRR celebrex medication guide 360-4.2, MRG p. 573, NYS GIS 2000 MA-007 CAUTION. Different people in the same household may be in different "categories" and hence have different household sizes AND Medicaid income and resource limits.

If a man is age 67 and has Medicare and his wife is age 62 and not disabled or blind, the husband's household size for Medicaid is determined under Category 1/ Non-MAGI above and his wife's is under Category 2/MAGI. The following programs were available prior to 2014, but are now discontinued because they are folded into MAGI Medicaid. Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) was Medicaid for pregnant women and children under age 19, with higher income limits for pregnant woman and infants under one year (200% FPL for pregnant women receiving perinatal coverage only not full Medicaid) than for children ages 1-18 (133% FPL). Medicaid for adults between ages 21-65 who are not disabled and without children under 21 in the household.

It was sometimes known as "S/CC" category for Singles and Childless Couples. This category had lower income limits than DAB/ADC-related, but had no asset limits. It did not allow "spend down" of excess income.

"Undocumented" immigrants are, with some exceptions for pregnant women and Child Health Plus, only eligible for "emergency Medicaid."NYS announced the 2020 Income and Resource levels in GIS 19 MA/12 – 2020 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates ) and levels can you buy celebrex over the counter based on the Federal Poverty Level are in GIS 20 MA/02 – 2020 Federal Poverty Levels Here is the 2020 HRA Income and Resources Level Chart Non-MAGI - 2020 Disabled, 65+ or Blind ("DAB" or SSI-Related) and have Medicare MAGI (2020) (<. 65, Does not have Medicare)(OR has Medicare and has dependent child <. 18 or <. 19 in can you buy celebrex over the counter school) 138% FPL*** Children <. 5 and pregnant women have HIGHER LIMITS than shown ESSENTIAL PLAN For MAGI-eligible people over MAGI income limit up to 200% FPL No long term care.

See info here 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Income $875 (up from $859 in 201) $1284 (up from $1,267 in 2019) $1,468 $1,983 $2,498 $2,127 $2,873 Resources $15,750 (up from $15,450 in 2019) $23,100 (up from $22,800 in 2019) NO LIMIT** NO LIMIT SOURCE for 2019 figures is GIS 18 MA/015 - 2019 Medicaid Levels and Other Updates (PDF). All of the attachments with the various levels are posted can you buy celebrex over the counter here. NEED TO KNOW PAST MEDICAID INCOME AND RESOURCE LEVELS?. Which household size applies?. The rules can you buy celebrex over the counter are complicated.

See rules here. On the HRA Medicaid Levels chart - Boxes 1 and 2 are NON-MAGI Income and Resource levels -- Age 65+, Blind or Disabled and other adults who need to use "spend-down" because they are over the MAGI income levels. Box 10 on page 3 are the MAGI income levels -- The Affordable Care Act changed the rules for Medicaid income eligibility can you buy celebrex over the counter for many BUT NOT ALL New Yorkers. People in the "MAGI" category - those NOT on Medicare -- have expanded eligibility up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Line, so may now qualify for Medicaid even if they were not eligible before, or may now be eligible for Medicaid without a "spend-down." They have NO resource limit. Box 3 on page 1 is Spousal Impoverishment levels for Managed Long Term Care &.

Nursing Homes and Box 8 has the Transfer Penalty rates for nursing home eligibility Box 4 has Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities Under Age 65 (still 2017 levels til April 2018) Box 6 are Medicare Savings Program levels (will can you buy celebrex over the counter be updated in April 2018) MAGI INCOME LEVEL of 138% FPL applies to most adults who are not disabled and who do not have Medicare, AND can also apply to adults with Medicare if they have a dependent child/relative under age 18 or under 19 if in school. 42 C.F.R. § 435.4. Certain populations have an even higher income limit - 224% can you buy celebrex over the counter FPL for pregnant women and babies <. Age 1, 154% FPL for children age 1 - 19.

CAUTION. What is can you buy celebrex over the counter counted as income may not be what you think. For the NON-MAGI Disabled/Aged 65+/Blind, income will still be determined by the same rules as before, explained in this outline and these charts on income disregards. However, for the MAGI population - which is virtually everyone under age 65 who is not on Medicare - their income will now be determined under new rules, based on federal income tax concepts - called "Modifed Adjusted Gross Income" (MAGI). There are good changes and can you buy celebrex over the counter bad changes.

GOOD. Veteran's benefits, Workers compensation, and gifts from family or others no longer count as income. BAD can you buy celebrex over the counter. There is no more "spousal" or parental refusal for this population (but there still is for the Disabled/Aged/Blind.) and some other rules. For all of the rules see.

ALSO SEE 2018 Manual on Lump Sums and Impact on Public Benefits - with resource rules The income limits increase with the "household size." In other words, the income limit for a family of 5 may be higher than the income limit for a single person. HOWEVER, can you buy celebrex over the counter Medicaid rules about how to calculate the household size are not intuitive or even logical. There are different rules depending on the "category" of the person seeking Medicaid. Here are the 2 basic categories and the rules for calculating their household size. People who are Disabled, Aged 65+ or Blind - "DAB" or "SSI-Related" Category -- NON-MAGI - See this chart for their household can you buy celebrex over the counter size.

These same rules apply to the Medicare Savings Program, with some exceptions explained in this article. Everyone else -- MAGI - All children and adults under age 65, including people with disabilities who are not yet on Medicare -- this is the new "MAGI" population. Their household size will can you buy celebrex over the counter be determined using federal income tax rules, which are very complicated. New rule is explained in State's directive 13 ADM-03 - Medicaid Eligibility Changes under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 (PDF) pp. 8-10 of the PDF, This PowerPoint by NYLAG on MAGI Budgeting attempts to explain the new MAGI budgeting, including how to determine the Household Size.

See slides 28-49. Also seeLegal Aid Society and Empire Justice Center materials OLD RULE used until end of 2013 -- Count the person(s) applying for Medicaid who live together, plus any of their legally responsible relatives who do not receive SNA, ADC, or SSI and reside with an applicant/recipient. Spouses or legally responsible for one another, and parents are legally responsible for their children under age 21 (though if the child is disabled, use the rule in the 1st "DAB" category. Under this rule, a child may be excluded from the household if that child's income causes other family members to lose Medicaid eligibility. See 18 NYCRR 360-4.2, MRG p.

573, NYS GIS 2000 MA-007 CAUTION. Different people in the same household may be in different "categories" and hence have different household sizes AND Medicaid income and resource limits. If a man is age 67 and has Medicare and his wife is age 62 and not disabled or blind, the husband's household size for Medicaid is determined under Category 1/ Non-MAGI above and his wife's is under Category 2/MAGI. The following programs were available prior to 2014, but are now discontinued because they are folded into MAGI Medicaid. Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) was Medicaid for pregnant women and children under age 19, with higher income limits for pregnant woman and infants under one year (200% FPL for pregnant women receiving perinatal coverage only not full Medicaid) than for children ages 1-18 (133% FPL).

Medicaid for adults between ages 21-65 who are not disabled and without children under 21 in the household. It was sometimes known as "S/CC" category for Singles and Childless Couples. This category had lower income limits than DAB/ADC-related, but had no asset limits. It did not allow "spend down" of excess income. This category has now been subsumed under the new MAGI adult group whose limit is now raised to 138% FPL.

Family Health Plus - this was an expansion of Medicaid to families with income up to 150% FPL and for childless adults up to 100% FPL. This has now been folded into the new MAGI adult group whose limit is 138% FPL. For applicants between 138%-150% FPL, they will be eligible for a new program where Medicaid will subsidize their purchase of Qualified Health Plans on the Exchange. PAST INCOME &.

What i should buy with celebrex

Credit visit our website what i should buy with celebrex. IStock Share Fast Facts New @HopkinsMedicine study finds African-American women with common form of hair loss at increased risk of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet New study in @JAMADerm shows most common form of alopecia (hair loss) in African-American women associated with higher risks of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet In a study of medical records gathered on hundreds of thousands of African-American women, Johns Hopkins researchers say they have evidence that women with a common form of hair loss have an increased chance of developing uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids.In a report on the research, published in the December 27 issue of JAMA Dermatology, the researchers call on physicians who treat women with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) to make patients aware that they may be at increased risk for fibroids and should be screened for the condition, particularly if they have symptoms such as heavy bleeding and pain. CCCA predominantly affects black women and is the most common form what i should buy with celebrex of permanent alopecia in this population. The excess scar tissue that forms as a result of this type of hair loss may also explain the higher risk for uterine fibroids, which are characterized by fibrous growths in the lining of the womb. Crystal Aguh, M.D., assistant professor of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says the scarring associated with CCCA is similar to the scarring associated with excess fibrous tissue elsewhere in the body, a situation that may explain why women with this type of hair loss are at a higher risk for fibroids.People of African descent, she notes, are more prone to develop other disorders of abnormal scarring, termed fibroproliferative disorders, such as keloids (a type of raised scar after trauma), scleroderma (an autoimmune disorder marked by thickening of what i should buy with celebrex the skin as well as internal organs), some types of lupus and clogged arteries.

During a four-year period from 2013-2017, the researchers analyzed patient data from the Johns Hopkins electronic medical record system (Epic) of 487,104 black women ages 18 and over. The prevalence of those with fibroids was compared in patients with and without CCCA what i should buy with celebrex. Overall, the researchers found that 13.9 percent of women with CCCA also had a history of uterine fibroids compared to only 3.3 percent of black women without the condition. In absolute numbers, out of the 486,000 women who were reviewed, 16,212 had fibroids.Within that population, 447 had CCCA, of which 62 had fibroids. The findings translate to a fivefold increased risk of uterine fibroids in women with CCCA, compared to age, sex and race matched what i should buy with celebrex controls.

Aguh cautions that their study does not suggest any cause and effect relationship, or prove a common cause for both conditions. €œThe cause of the link what i should buy with celebrex between the two conditions remains unclear,” she says. However, the association was strong enough, she adds, to recommend that physicians and patients be made aware of it. Women with this type of scarring alopecia should be screened not only for fibroids, but also for other disorders associated with excess fibrous tissue, Aguh what i should buy with celebrex says. An estimated 70 percent of white women and between 80 and 90 percent of African-American women will develop fibroids by age 50, according to the NIH, and while CCCA is likely underdiagnosed, some estimates report a prevalence of rates as high as 17 percent of black women having this condition.

The other what i should buy with celebrex authors on this paper were Ginette A. Okoye, M.D. Of Johns Hopkins and Yemisi Dina of Meharry Medical College.Credit. The New England Journal of Medicine Share what i should buy with celebrex Fast Facts This study clears up how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer types. - Click to Tweet The number of mutations in a tumor’s DNA is a good predictor of whether it will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors.

- Click to Tweet The “mutational burden,” or the number of mutations present in a tumor’s DNA, is a good predictor of whether that cancer type will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors, a new study led by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center what i should buy with celebrex researchers shows. The finding, published in the Dec. 21 New England Journal of Medicine, could be used to guide future what i should buy with celebrex clinical trials for these drugs. Checkpoint inhibitors are a relatively new class of drug that helps the immune system recognize cancer by interfering with mechanisms cancer cells use to hide from immune cells. As a result, the drugs cause the immune system to fight cancer in the same way that it would fight an infection https://www.voiture-et-handicap.fr/best-online-celebrex/.

These medicines have had what i should buy with celebrex remarkable success in treating some types of cancers that historically have had poor prognoses, such as advanced melanoma and lung cancer. However, these therapies have had little effect on other deadly cancer types, such as pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma. The mutational burden of certain tumor types has previously been proposed as an explanation for why certain cancers respond better than others to immune checkpoint inhibitors says study leader Mark Yarchoan, M.D., chief medical what i should buy with celebrex oncology fellow. Work by Dung Le, M.D., associate professor of oncology, and other researchers at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and its Bloomberg~Kimmel Cancer Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy showed that colon cancers that carry a high number of mutations are more likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors than those that have fewer mutations. However, exactly how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different what i should buy with celebrex cancer types was unclear.

To investigate this question, Yarchoan and colleagues Alexander Hopkins, Ph.D., research fellow, and Elizabeth Jaffee, M.D., co-director of the Skip Viragh Center for Pancreas Cancer Clinical Research and Patient Care and associate director of the Bloomberg~Kimmel Institute, combed the medical literature for the results of clinical trials using checkpoint inhibitors on various different types of cancer. They combined these findings with data on the mutational burden of thousands of tumor samples from patients with different tumor types what i should buy with celebrex. Analyzing 27 different cancer types for which both pieces of information were available, the researchers found a strong correlation. The higher a cancer type’s mutational burden tends to be, the more likely it is to respond to checkpoint inhibitors. More than half of the differences in how well cancers responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors could what i should buy with celebrex be explained by the mutational burden of that cancer.

€œThe idea that a tumor type with more mutations might be easier to treat than one with fewer sounds a little counterintuitive. It’s one what i should buy with celebrex of those things that doesn’t sound right when you hear it,” says Hopkins. €œBut with immunotherapy, the more mutations you have, the more chances the immune system has to recognize the tumor.” Although this finding held true for the vast majority of cancer types they studied, there were some outliers in their analysis, says Yarchoan. For example, Merkel cell cancer, a rare and highly aggressive skin cancer, tends to have a moderate number of mutations what i should buy with celebrex yet responds extremely well to checkpoint inhibitors. However, he explains, this cancer type is often caused by a virus, which seems to encourage a strong immune response despite the cancer’s lower mutational burden.

In contrast, the most common type of colorectal cancer has moderate mutational burden, yet responds poorly to checkpoint inhibitors for reasons that are still unclear. Yarchoan notes that these findings could help guide clinical trials to what i should buy with celebrex test checkpoint inhibitors on cancer types for which these drugs haven’t yet been tried. Future studies might also focus on finding ways to prompt cancers with low mutational burdens to behave like those with higher mutational burdens so that they will respond better to these therapies. He and his colleagues plan to extend this line of research by investigating whether mutational burden might be a good predictor of whether cancers in individual patients might respond well to this what i should buy with celebrex class of immunotherapy drugs. €œThe end goal is precision medicine—moving beyond what’s true for big groups of patients to see whether we can use this information to help any given patient,” he says.

Yarchoan receives what i should buy with celebrex funding from the Norman &. Ruth Rales Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Through a licensing agreement with Aduro Biotech, Jaffee has the potential to receive royalties in the future..

Credit https://www.voiture-et-handicap.fr/best-online-celebrex/ can you buy celebrex over the counter. IStock Share Fast Facts New @HopkinsMedicine study finds African-American women with common form of hair loss at increased risk of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet New study in @JAMADerm shows most common form of alopecia (hair loss) in African-American women associated with higher risks of uterine fibroids - Click to Tweet In a study of medical records gathered on hundreds of thousands of African-American women, Johns Hopkins researchers say they have evidence that women with a common form of hair loss have an increased chance of developing uterine leiomyomas, or fibroids.In a report on the research, published in the December 27 issue of JAMA Dermatology, the researchers call on physicians who treat women with central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) to make patients aware that they may be at increased risk for fibroids and should be screened for the condition, particularly if they have symptoms such as heavy bleeding and pain. CCCA predominantly affects black women and is the most common form can you buy celebrex over the counter of permanent alopecia in this population.

The excess scar tissue that forms as a result of this type of hair loss may also explain the higher risk for uterine fibroids, which are characterized by fibrous growths in the lining of the womb. Crystal Aguh, M.D., can you buy celebrex over the counter assistant professor of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says the scarring associated with CCCA is similar to the scarring associated with excess fibrous tissue elsewhere in the body, a situation that may explain why women with this type of hair loss are at a higher risk for fibroids.People of African descent, she notes, are more prone to develop other disorders of abnormal scarring, termed fibroproliferative disorders, such as keloids (a type of raised scar after trauma), scleroderma (an autoimmune disorder marked by thickening of the skin as well as internal organs), some types of lupus and clogged arteries. During a four-year period from 2013-2017, the researchers analyzed patient data from the Johns Hopkins electronic medical record system (Epic) of 487,104 black women ages 18 and over.

The prevalence of those with fibroids was can you buy celebrex over the counter compared in patients with and without CCCA. Overall, the researchers found that 13.9 percent of women with CCCA also had a history of uterine fibroids compared to only 3.3 percent of black women without the condition. In absolute numbers, out of the 486,000 women who were reviewed, 16,212 had fibroids.Within that population, 447 had CCCA, of which 62 had fibroids.

The findings translate can you buy celebrex over the counter to a fivefold increased risk of uterine fibroids in women with CCCA, compared to age, sex and race matched controls. Aguh cautions that their study does not suggest any cause and effect relationship, or prove a common cause for both conditions. €œThe cause of can you buy celebrex over the counter the link between the two conditions remains unclear,” she says.

However, the association was strong enough, she adds, to recommend that physicians and patients be made aware of it. Women with this type of scarring alopecia should be screened not only for fibroids, but also for other disorders associated with excess fibrous tissue, Aguh can you buy celebrex over the counter says. An estimated 70 percent of white women and between 80 and 90 percent of African-American women will develop fibroids by age 50, according to the NIH, and while CCCA is likely underdiagnosed, some estimates report a prevalence of rates as high as 17 percent of black women having this condition.

The other authors on this can you buy celebrex over the counter paper were Ginette A. Okoye, M.D. Of Johns Hopkins and Yemisi Dina of Meharry Medical College.Credit.

The New England Journal of Medicine Share Fast Facts This study clears up how big an effect the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer can you buy celebrex over the counter types. - Click to Tweet The number of mutations in a tumor’s DNA is a good predictor of whether it will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors. - Click to Tweet The “mutational burden,” or the number of mutations present in a tumor’s DNA, is a good predictor of whether that cancer type will respond to a class of cancer immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors, a new study led can you buy celebrex over the counter by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers shows.

The finding, published in the Dec. 21 New England Journal of Medicine, could be used to can you buy celebrex over the counter guide future clinical trials for these drugs. Checkpoint inhibitors are a relatively new class of drug that helps the immune system recognize cancer by interfering with mechanisms cancer cells use to hide from immune cells.

As a result, the drugs cause the immune system to fight cancer https://www.voiture-et-handicap.fr/best-online-celebrex/ in the same way that it would fight an infection. These medicines have had remarkable success in treating some types of cancers that historically have had poor prognoses, such can you buy celebrex over the counter as advanced melanoma and lung cancer. However, these therapies have had little effect on other deadly cancer types, such as pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma.

The mutational burden of certain tumor types has previously been proposed as an explanation for why certain cancers respond better than others to immune checkpoint inhibitors says study leader Mark Yarchoan, M.D., chief medical oncology fellow can you buy celebrex over the counter. Work by Dung Le, M.D., associate professor of oncology, and other researchers at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and its Bloomberg~Kimmel Cancer Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy showed that colon cancers that carry a high number of mutations are more likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors than those that have fewer mutations. However, exactly how big an effect can you buy celebrex over the counter the mutational burden has on outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors across many different cancer types was unclear.

To investigate this question, Yarchoan and colleagues Alexander Hopkins, Ph.D., research fellow, and Elizabeth Jaffee, M.D., co-director of the Skip Viragh Center for Pancreas Cancer Clinical Research and Patient Care and associate director of the Bloomberg~Kimmel Institute, combed the medical literature for the results of clinical trials using checkpoint inhibitors on various different types of cancer. They combined these findings with data on the mutational burden of thousands of can you buy celebrex over the counter tumor samples from patients with different tumor types. Analyzing 27 different cancer types for which both pieces of information were available, the researchers found a strong correlation.

The higher a cancer type’s mutational burden tends to be, the more likely it is to respond to checkpoint inhibitors. More than half of the differences in how well cancers can you buy celebrex over the counter responded to immune checkpoint inhibitors could be explained by the mutational burden of that cancer. €œThe idea that a tumor type with more mutations might be easier to treat than one with fewer sounds a little counterintuitive.

It’s one of those things that doesn’t sound right when you hear can you buy celebrex over the counter it,” says Hopkins. €œBut with immunotherapy, the more mutations you have, the more chances the immune system has to recognize the tumor.” Although this finding held true for the vast majority of cancer types they studied, there were some outliers in their analysis, says Yarchoan. For example, Merkel cell cancer, a rare and highly aggressive skin cancer, tends to can you buy celebrex over the counter have a moderate number of mutations yet responds extremely well to checkpoint inhibitors.

However, he explains, this cancer type is often caused by a virus, which seems to encourage a strong immune response despite the cancer’s lower mutational burden. In contrast, the most common type of colorectal cancer has moderate mutational burden, yet responds poorly to checkpoint inhibitors for reasons that are still unclear. Yarchoan notes that these findings could help guide clinical trials to test checkpoint inhibitors on cancer types for which these can you buy celebrex over the counter drugs haven’t yet been tried.

Future studies might also focus on finding ways to prompt cancers with low mutational burdens to behave like those with higher mutational burdens so that they will respond better to these therapies. He and his colleagues plan to extend this line of research by investigating whether mutational burden might be a good predictor can you buy celebrex over the counter of whether cancers in individual patients might respond well to this class of immunotherapy drugs. €œThe end goal is precision medicine—moving beyond what’s true for big groups of patients to see whether we can use this information to help any given patient,” he says.

Yarchoan receives can you buy celebrex over the counter funding from the Norman &. Ruth Rales Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation. Through a licensing agreement with Aduro Biotech, Jaffee has the potential to receive royalties in the future..

Celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen

Comfort and pain management have always been paramount in the child-centered approach to care at UC celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen Davis Children’s celebrex and blood pressure medicine Hospital. A new hospital initiative called Comfort Commitment launched this month, which provides a standardized approach to help pediatric patients better cope celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen with distressing procedures and decrease pain and anxiety. Child life specialist Emily McDaniel and nurse Carter Todd discuss comfort planning with a patient.It involves four steps to managing a patient’s comfort:Ask the child and caregiver what they know and understand about the procedureShare more about the procedure in simple terms using honest, age-appropriate languagePlan for the procedure, considering medicine and numbing options, refocusing techniques (toys, electronics, music), comfort positions (chest-to-chest for small children with their caregiver, swaddle for infants and young toddlers) and a calming environment (with lights, noises and words)Follow the agreed-upon plan and ensure the child feels heard and modify comfort measures to meet the patient’s needs“Our ultimate goal is to establish an environment where hospital experiences can be growth-promoting for children and families,” said child life specialist Emily McDaniel. €œThrough individualizing procedural comfort plans celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen with this collaborative four-step process, we are consistently able to provide coping support and empower the child to customize a plan that uniquely meets their specific needs.”The initiative was funded by a Children's Miracle Network at UC Davis grant.

For more information, visit https://ucdavis.health/comfort.A pandemic is probably not the best time to refer to someone’s personality as ‘infectious.’ Shalaine Reddic has always believed she could do more than people thought she could.But you don’t have to talk with Shalaine Reddic for long, even on the phone, to feel the positive energy and can-do spirit of this UC Davis Medical Center nurse.Reddic’s desire to help patients blends perfectly with her strong drive to succeed, academic muscle and never-say-die attitude – all wrapped up in what she calls her fashion-forward style.A single mother of three, Reddic has never stopped moving up the career ladder. She started out doing clerical work on the Davis campus celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen years ago. Today, Reddic is on the celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen verge of becoming a licensed nurse practitioner.“I always like to stay busy,” said Reddic.That’s an understatement. She was deftly juggling the phone conversation after a long work week while providing cooking instruction to her 16-year-old son.

€œAnd I’ve always believed that I could do more than people thought I celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen could,” she said.When she first started working, the Rancho Cordova resident didn’t consider the patient side of health care. She didn’t enjoy the thought of seeing blood or being in the clinic environment. But after becoming a clinical quality improvement coordinator at UC Davis Health, she started working with nurses and quickly gained an appreciation for the profession.Reddic spent nearly 10 years slowly but steadily taking classes and moving from one nursing degree to the next – from an associate of art’s degree at a community college to a bachelor’s degree (cum laude, of course) from Sacramento State – all while working and almost single-handedly raising her children.“I have seen her push through personal issues on numerous occasions,” said Darrell Desmond, celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen nurse manager of Reddic’s hospital unit. €œBut she just keeps moving forward with an always positive attitude despite life’s many challenges.”It was while volunteering at a community clinic for underserved women in Sacramento that Reddic had what she calls an epiphany.

It was a moment of intense clarity for someone who already had a rewarding nursing career.“I saw nurse practitioners working with celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen patients, diagnosing health problems, prescribing medications,” Reddic said. €œThey were celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen providers. They had the autonomy to make patient-care decisions. For me, that celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen was it.

I was in tears because I knew then and there that was what I really wanted to do.”So, Reddic decided to add another academic achievement to her three nursing degrees and an AA degree in business administration. A graduate degree as a family nurse practitioner.Always on the move, Reddic never stops seeking new goals and achievements.Three celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen years and many commute miles later, she recently completed her master’s from Sonoma State and is now studying for her boards. While working full time, of course.Reddic admits to being overwhelmed at times over the years. But she said strong faith and prayer helped her put things celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen in perspective when she felt defeated and exhausted.“It’s been a journey and a learning process,” Reddic said.

€œI’ve got a celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen few bruises, but I’m still here and excited about each day. When I face adversity, I always step it up a notch.”As if it wasn’t enough to become a nurse practitioner, Reddic is considering going back to school for a certificate in psychiatry and, perhaps, a doctorate at some point.She’s also dreaming about plans for starting two independent clinics. One would be dedicated to celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen serving underprivileged communities. The other would be an IV hydration bar, a trending intravenous therapy program for wellness, beauty and health.“Shalaine has organized her life for success,” said Joleen Lonigan, an executive director of Patient Care Services at UC Davis Medical Center.

€œShe’s turned her motivation into achievements celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen and her pathway into inspiration that can benefit others.”Her story is undoubtedly motivational for anyone who knows Reddic. Colleagues say her determination is impressive. Her attitude always stays positive, undoubtedly enhanced by that fashion-forward sensibility that can be seen, despite the required nursing apparel, celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen in some colorful shoe choices and unique earrings. And those academic and clinical accomplishments? celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen.

They’re likely just steppingstones leading toward further personal and professional goals.In short, Shalaine Reddic and the spirit with which she approaches life seem – even in a pandemic age – wonderfully contagious.11 September 2020 We are pleased to announce enhanced flexibility of training for senior healthcare scientists The Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath), National School of Healthcare Science in Health Education England (NSHCS in HEE), Academy for Healthcare Science (ACHS) and Manchester Academy of Healthcare Science Education (MAHSE) have come together to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Higher Specialist Scientific Training (HSST) Programme. The changes celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen will have a direct and positive impact on newly eligible IBMS members who wish to undertake the program.Professor Berne Ferry, Head of the National School of Healthcare Science, who contributed towards the changes commented:Opening up the entry criteria for HSST to allow all eligible scientists to enter the programme is a positive step forward in Healthcare Scientist Education and Training. Allowing eligible Biomedical Scientists to apply is hugely welcomed and the NSHCS in HEE is delighted to jointly announce this initiative with the IBMS, RCPath, the ACHS and the MAHSE. Having Biomedical Scientists undertaking HSST alongside Clinical Scientist colleagues can only strengthen, diversify and unify the NHS scientific celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen workforce and help to deliver the necessary scientific leadership which will be crucial for patients in the future.IBMS Council member Dr Jane Needham, the IBMS lead on this project, commented:This is really wonderful news.

It provides a career pathway and an exciting opportunity for our Biomedical Scientists to apply and develop their clinical and scientific knowledge and expertise through the consultant level HSST training programme, with the key benefit of improving and enhancing the clinical care and services we provide to our patients.On reviewing the changes, IBMS President Allan Wilson commented:The inclusion of Biomedical Scientists as an eligible professional group for the HSST programme will provide a route to consultant level posts for Biomedical Scientists and recognises the breadth and depth of experience and clinical skills that exist within the profession. This new training route will improve patient pathways by the addition of experienced clinical experts to the currently celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen stretched consultant capacity. This is tremendous news for Biomedical Scientists and healthcare in the UK.If you have any questions after celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen reading the statement please contact us via. Website@ibms.orgRead the statement and new eligibility criteria in full (or download) below:Joint Statement on HSST EligibilitySignificant scientific workforce shortages at senior levels have been identified in several Life Science specialties, which have been further highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Higher Specialist Scientific Training (HSST) Programme trains Healthcare Scientists to consultant level, however HSST is currently not open to all individual scientists with the potential to develop and take on the role of a consultant scientist.The National School of Healthcare Science in Health Education England, Academy for Healthcare Science, Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), Royal celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen College of Pathologists (RCPath) and Manchester Academy of Healthcare Scientist Education are pleased to announce a widening of the of the eligibility criteria for HSST. The new criteria will allow appropriately qualified senior Biomedical Scientists, who can demonstrate ability to work at Level 7 via academic and professional qualifications, to apply to join the programme. Both Biomedical Scientists and Clinical Scientists will be subject to the same HSST celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen interview process to determine suitability and readiness. The qualifications to confer eligibility will include:1) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and relevant MSc2) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and IBMS Higher Specialist Diploma or IBMS 2-part Fellowship Special Exam3) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and IBMS Diploma of Expert PracticeEligible individuals will also need to meet the requirements of the Universities to commence a doctoral level programme, including a First or 2:1 Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a relevant subject area or evidence of having written at that standard, and a minimum of four years working in a professional role.

In addition, training departments will need to achieve HSST training accreditation through the NSHCS to be successful celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen in the commissioning rounds. This includes demonstration of suitable workplace and research supervision at doctoral level, access to training to meet the specialism curriculum and HSS Standards of Proficiency, and senior level trust support.All Life celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen Science HSSTs must obtain Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists during the programme in order to complete HSST, in addition to the academic qualification and evidence of their workplace training. These requirements of the programme are identical for Clinical Scientists and Biomedical Scientists on HSST.This revised admission criteria to HSST is endorsed by NHS Education for Scotland - Healthcare Science. We look forward to working with all agencies concerned with the development of the next generation of consultant-level healthcare scientists.All scientists who celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen successfully complete the HSST programme or equivalence are eligible to join the Academy for Healthcare Science HSS Register and become a Fellow.This change to the HSST eligibility criteria will apply from 2021 entry to the HSST programme.7 September 2020 The four day digital event will feature content aimed at all IBMS members and will be free to attend SAVE THE DATE - 16-19th NovemberOur new, virtual CPD event, The Biomedical Scientist Live, will feature a packed line up of knowledge sharing sessions including.

Workshops, seminars, discussions and demonstrations. The dedicated event website will be live soon and will include more information on how to sign up, free for IBMS members, and the programme celebrex drug interactions with ibuprofen of talks. Members will be notified once live..

Comfort and pain can you buy celebrex over the counter management have always been paramount in the child-centered approach to care at UC Davis Children’s Hospital. A new hospital initiative called Comfort Commitment launched this month, which provides a standardized approach to help pediatric patients better cope with distressing procedures can you buy celebrex over the counter and decrease pain and anxiety. Child life specialist Emily McDaniel and nurse Carter Todd discuss comfort planning with a patient.It involves four steps to managing a patient’s comfort:Ask the child and caregiver what they know and understand about the procedureShare more about the procedure in simple terms using honest, age-appropriate languagePlan for the procedure, considering medicine and numbing options, refocusing techniques (toys, electronics, music), comfort positions (chest-to-chest for small children with their caregiver, swaddle for infants and young toddlers) and a calming environment (with lights, noises and words)Follow the agreed-upon plan and ensure the child feels heard and modify comfort measures to meet the patient’s needs“Our ultimate goal is to establish an environment where hospital experiences can be growth-promoting for children and families,” said child life specialist Emily McDaniel. €œThrough individualizing procedural comfort plans with can you buy celebrex over the counter this collaborative four-step process, we are consistently able to provide coping support and empower the child to customize a plan that uniquely meets their specific needs.”The initiative was funded by a Children's Miracle Network at UC Davis grant.

For more information, visit https://ucdavis.health/comfort.A pandemic is probably not the best time to refer to someone’s personality as ‘infectious.’ Shalaine Reddic has always believed she could do more than people thought she could.But you don’t have to talk with Shalaine Reddic for long, even on the phone, to feel the positive energy and can-do spirit of this UC Davis Medical Center nurse.Reddic’s desire to help patients blends perfectly with her strong drive to succeed, academic muscle and never-say-die attitude – all wrapped up in what she calls her fashion-forward style.A single mother of three, Reddic has never stopped moving up the career ladder. She started out doing clerical work on the Davis campus can you buy celebrex over the counter years ago. Today, Reddic can you buy celebrex over the counter is on the verge of becoming a licensed nurse practitioner.“I always like to stay busy,” said Reddic.That’s an understatement. She was deftly juggling the phone conversation after a long work week while providing cooking instruction to her 16-year-old son.

€œAnd I’ve always believed that I could do more than can you buy celebrex over the counter people thought I could,” she said.When she first started working, the Rancho Cordova resident didn’t consider the patient side of health care. She didn’t enjoy the thought of seeing blood or being in the clinic environment. But after becoming can you buy celebrex over the counter a clinical quality improvement coordinator at UC Davis Health, she started working with nurses and quickly gained an appreciation for the profession.Reddic spent nearly 10 years slowly but steadily taking classes and moving from one nursing degree to the next – from an associate of art’s degree at a community college to a bachelor’s degree (cum laude, of course) from Sacramento State – all while working and almost single-handedly raising her children.“I have seen her push through personal issues on numerous occasions,” said Darrell Desmond, nurse manager of Reddic’s hospital unit. €œBut she just keeps moving forward with an always positive attitude despite life’s many challenges.”It was while volunteering at a community clinic for underserved women in Sacramento that Reddic had what she calls an epiphany.

It was a moment of intense clarity for can you buy celebrex over the counter someone who already had a rewarding nursing career.“I saw nurse practitioners working with patients, diagnosing health problems, prescribing medications,” Reddic said. €œThey were can you buy celebrex over the counter providers. They had the autonomy to make patient-care decisions. For me, that was it can you buy celebrex over the counter.

I was in tears because I knew then and there that was what I really wanted to do.”So, Reddic decided to add another academic achievement to her three nursing degrees and an AA degree in business administration. A graduate degree as a family nurse practitioner.Always on the move, Reddic never stops seeking new goals and achievements.Three years and many commute miles later, can you buy celebrex over the counter she recently completed her master’s from Sonoma State and is now studying for her boards. While working full time, of course.Reddic admits to being overwhelmed at times over the years. But she can you buy celebrex over the counter said strong faith and prayer helped her put things in perspective when she felt defeated and exhausted.“It’s been a journey and a learning process,” Reddic said.

€œI’ve got can you buy celebrex over the counter a few bruises, but I’m still here and excited about each day. When I face adversity, I always step it up a notch.”As if it wasn’t enough to become a nurse practitioner, Reddic is considering going back to school for a certificate in psychiatry and, perhaps, a doctorate at some point.She’s also dreaming about plans for starting two independent clinics. One would be dedicated can you buy celebrex over the counter to serving underprivileged communities. The other would be an IV hydration bar, a trending intravenous therapy program for wellness, beauty and health.“Shalaine has organized her life for success,” said Joleen Lonigan, an executive director of Patient Care Services at UC Davis Medical Center.

€œShe’s turned her motivation into achievements and her pathway into inspiration that can benefit others.”Her story is undoubtedly motivational for anyone who knows Reddic can you buy celebrex over the counter. Colleagues say her determination is impressive. Her attitude always stays positive, undoubtedly can you buy celebrex over the counter enhanced by that fashion-forward sensibility that can be seen, despite the required nursing apparel, in some colorful shoe choices and unique earrings. And those academic and clinical accomplishments? can you buy celebrex over the counter.

They’re likely just steppingstones leading toward further personal and professional goals.In short, Shalaine Reddic and the spirit with which she approaches life seem – even in a pandemic age – wonderfully contagious.11 September 2020 We are pleased to announce enhanced flexibility of training for senior healthcare scientists The Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath), National School of Healthcare Science in Health Education England (NSHCS in HEE), Academy for Healthcare Science (ACHS) and Manchester Academy of Healthcare Science Education (MAHSE) have come together to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Higher Specialist Scientific Training (HSST) Programme. The changes will have a can you buy celebrex over the counter direct and positive impact on newly eligible IBMS members who wish to undertake the program.Professor Berne Ferry, Head of the National School of Healthcare Science, who contributed towards the changes commented:Opening up the entry criteria for HSST to allow all eligible scientists to enter the programme is a positive step forward in Healthcare Scientist Education and Training. Allowing eligible Biomedical Scientists to apply is hugely welcomed and the NSHCS in HEE is delighted to jointly announce this initiative with the IBMS, RCPath, the ACHS and the MAHSE. Having Biomedical Scientists undertaking HSST alongside Clinical Scientist colleagues can only strengthen, diversify and unify the NHS scientific workforce and help to deliver the necessary scientific leadership which will be crucial for patients in the future.IBMS Council member Dr Jane Needham, the IBMS lead on this project, commented:This is really wonderful can you buy celebrex over the counter news.

It provides a career pathway and an exciting opportunity for our Biomedical Scientists to apply and develop their clinical and scientific knowledge and expertise through the consultant level HSST training programme, with the key benefit of improving and enhancing the clinical care and services we provide to our patients.On reviewing the changes, IBMS President Allan Wilson commented:The inclusion of Biomedical Scientists as an eligible professional group for the HSST programme will provide a route to consultant level posts for Biomedical Scientists and recognises the breadth and depth of experience and clinical skills that exist within the profession. This new training route will improve patient pathways by the addition can you buy celebrex over the counter of experienced clinical experts to the currently stretched consultant capacity. This is tremendous news for Biomedical Scientists and healthcare in the UK.If you have any questions after reading the statement please contact can you buy celebrex over the counter us via. Website@ibms.orgRead the statement and new eligibility criteria in full (or download) below:Joint Statement on HSST EligibilitySignificant scientific workforce shortages at senior levels have been identified in several Life Science specialties, which have been further highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Higher Specialist Scientific Training (HSST) Programme trains Healthcare Scientists to consultant level, however HSST is currently not open to all individual scientists with the potential to develop and take on the role of a consultant scientist.The National School of Healthcare Science in Health Education England, Academy for Healthcare Science, Institute can you buy celebrex over the counter of Biomedical Science (IBMS), Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) and Manchester Academy of Healthcare Scientist Education are pleased to announce a widening of the of the eligibility criteria for HSST. The new criteria will allow appropriately qualified senior Biomedical Scientists, who can demonstrate ability to work at Level 7 via academic and professional qualifications, to apply to join the programme. Both Biomedical Scientists can you buy celebrex over the counter and Clinical Scientists will be subject to the same HSST interview process to determine suitability and readiness. The qualifications to confer eligibility will include:1) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and relevant MSc2) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and IBMS Higher Specialist Diploma or IBMS 2-part Fellowship Special Exam3) HCPC Registration as a Biomedical Scientist, IBMS Specialist Diploma and IBMS Diploma of Expert PracticeEligible individuals will also need to meet the requirements of the Universities to commence a doctoral level programme, including a First or 2:1 Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in a relevant subject area or evidence of having written at that standard, and a minimum of four years working in a professional role.

In addition, can you buy celebrex over the counter training departments will need to achieve HSST training accreditation through the NSHCS to be successful in the commissioning rounds. This includes demonstration of suitable workplace and research can you buy celebrex over the counter supervision at doctoral level, access to training to meet the specialism curriculum and HSS Standards of Proficiency, and senior level trust support.All Life Science HSSTs must obtain Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists during the programme in order to complete HSST, in addition to the academic qualification and evidence of their workplace training. These requirements of the programme are identical for Clinical Scientists and Biomedical Scientists on HSST.This revised admission criteria to HSST is endorsed by NHS Education for Scotland - Healthcare Science. We look forward to working with all agencies concerned with the development of the next generation of consultant-level healthcare scientists.All scientists who successfully complete the HSST programme or equivalence are eligible to join the Academy for Healthcare Science HSS Register and become a Fellow.This change to the HSST eligibility criteria can you buy celebrex over the counter will apply from 2021 entry to the HSST programme.7 September 2020 The four day digital event will feature content aimed at all IBMS members and will be free to attend SAVE THE DATE - 16-19th NovemberOur new, virtual CPD event, The Biomedical Scientist Live, will feature a packed line up of knowledge sharing sessions including.

Workshops, seminars, discussions and demonstrations. The dedicated event website will be live soon and will include more information on how to sign up, free for IBMS members, and can you buy celebrex over the counter the programme of talks. Members will be notified once live..

Back To Top