Medicare to cover artificial heart in research studies
Device Regulation Alert: Safety, Compliance and Reimbursement News, February 11, 2008
Since 1986, Medicare has denied coverage for artificial hearts, but on February 1, it took a step back from that position. CMS proposed covering artificial heart devices under coverage with evidence development for Medicare beneficiaries participating in FDA-approved studies subject to several requirements.
Artificial hearts still are not considered reasonable and necessary under Medicare's coverage standards, but CMS acknowledged in the proposed decision memo that evidence demonstrates the potential use of artificial hearts and justifies further research.
According to the memo, eligible studies must address at least one of these three questions:
- What is the average time to device failure?
- What are the potential outcomes of using artificial hearts in larger numbers of patients?
- What unique circumstances or patient conditions affect outcomes?
The decision memo also lists 14 criteria that must be met for the study to qualify for coverage of the artificial heart. Among other things, the study must:
- Be an FDA approved study
- Be intended to determine if a particular "intervention" improves patient health
- Be supported by sufficient medical information or attempt to prove outcomes of existing interventions
- Not duplicate existing studies
- Comply with all federal regulations protecting human subjects
- Be sponsored by an organization or individual that can successfully conduct the study
- Involve patients who have life-threatening conditions and no other options
- Be registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before subjects are enrolled
- Have a protocol requiring public release of results reporting within specified time frames
Comments
0 comments on “Medicare to cover artificial heart in research studies ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
