LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/CMS Ending Automatic Coverage for “Breakthrough Devices”? Really?!
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

CMS Ending Automatic Coverage for “Breakthrough Devices”? Really?!

October 29, 2021 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Secondary#medicare#cms#fdabreakthroughdevice

CMS wants to stop automatically paying for medical devices that have been designated as a “Breakthrough Device” by the FDA.

Under current rules, FDA designation automatically brings Medicare coverage for the device. Receiving the “breakthrough” designation is a big two-fer: 1) the FDA declares your device worthy of special treatment and, 2) Medicare coverage for up to four years beginning as early as the date of the FDA’s market authorization.

The final payment rule requiring coverage came on January 14, 2021, the very end of the Trump Administration. The new administration ordered a review of all federal rules that were passed in the last days of the Trump Administration, but, had not yet been finalized.

“Breakthrough” V “Reasonable” and “Necessary”

After the review, CMS decided that automatically paying for devices designated by the FDA as “breakthrough” didn’t necessarily jive with their requirement of “reasonable” and “necessary.” In March, CMS delayed the effective date of the rule and opened a new comment period. The effective date was later delayed to December 15, 2021.

A breakthrough device, noted the agency, may only be beneficial for a specific subset of the Medicare population, or when used by clinicians with specific training. As a result, writes Robert Wanerman of the law firm Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. in the September issue of the National Law Review, “without sufficient evidence to clarify when those breakthrough devices will result in good outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries, CMS would lack the evidence that it needs to determine if the device is reasonable and necessary.

No Focus on Medicare Population

Wanerman added the agency pointed out that under the FDA’s criteria, “a manufacturer is not required to present data regarding the use of that device in the Medicare population in order to obtain approval or clearance, and that the relevant data might never be collected. CMS was not convinced that voluntary evidence development by manufacturers would be sufficient to enable it to make final coverage determinations.”

Advertisement

CMS had a related concern that if Medicare coverage for a breakthrough device was guaranteed based on the FDA’s designation and marketing authorization, providers and suppliers would have an incentive to use or prescribe that device instead of alternatives that may be more beneficial to their patients. “This,” wrote Wanerman, “could result in the breakthrough device becoming a standard of care, crowding out alternative treatments without regard to outcomes, and give the first-to-market product an unfair economic advantage that could suppress competition and innovation.”

The agency was careful to note that it would not bar Medicare coverage for breakthrough devices, and that its existing pathways for coverage would still apply.

Speak Up

This is a big deal. Over the past year we have seen many company announcements touting their breakthrough device and accompanying Medicare coverage. This was a shot of adrenalin for new devices making their way through regulatory hurdles and into the marketplace.

CMS wants to hear from you about this, but the comment period was only open until October 15, 2021. If you want to comment electronically refer to file code CMS–3372–P2 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy