We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Accept
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug & Device Products
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Publications
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
    • Books
  • Clinical Products
  • Advertising
  • White Papers
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » EVIDENCE OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS WILL DETERMINE CMS COVERAGE FOR DEVICES

EVIDENCE OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS WILL DETERMINE CMS COVERAGE FOR DEVICES

May 9, 2006

The clinical benefit to patients from treatments using particular devices must be evident to determine how products will be covered, said a panel of experts May 3.

An initiative called "coverage with evidence development" (CED) will affect how the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) determines coverage by assessing device and diagnostics. "This is about evidence transactions," said Cliff Goodman of the Lewin Group, a Maryland-based consulting firm.

The CMS wants to provide the public with better information on how well a particular technology works, said Steve Phurrough, director of the Coverage and Analysis Group at the agency. Developing evidence to better define for the public what technologies are best for them sets the "evidentiary standard," he said.

Presenting poor or preliminary evidence will result in noncoverage, while "persuasive evidence" will lead to coverage, said Phurrough. "There is a threshold we expect to be crossed," but what is considered persuasive evidence "depends on the technology," he said.

"Evidence-based medicine means moving from opinion to fact, and that's what we look for: Evidence to show improved outcomes for particular patient populations," said Phurrough.

The CMS will issue guidance in the near future on what it considers in defining evidentiary standards in product reviews. "We have found a lot of evidence doesn't reach the threshold, so we developed a middle ground called 'promising evidence,'" said Phurrough. This designation means "even though there are some trials that don't produce the evidence we think they should, we will still [cover the technology]." ()a href="http://www.fdanews.com/ddl/33_19/" target=_blank>

KEYWORDS FDAnews Device Daily Bulletin

Upcoming Events

  • 08Sep

    Organizing Data and Document Archives: Finding a Needle in a Haystack for FDA Inspections

  • 15Sep

    Califf’s Post-PDUFA, Post-COVID FDA Agenda: Key Developments, Insights and Analysis

  • 20Sep

    Building a World-Class Pharmaceutical Advertising and Promotion Review Program

  • 21Sep

    The FDA’s Focus on Clinical Data Integrity Throughout Product Development and Approval

  • 22Sep

    FDA’s New Quality Management System Regulation: What the Proposed Harmonization with ISO 13485 Means for Devicemakers

  • 11Oct

    1st Annual Quality Management vSummit

Featured Products

  • FDA’s New Quality System Regulation: Transitioning from QSR to ISO 13485

    FDA’s New Quality System Regulation: Transitioning from QSR to ISO 13485

  • Selecting and Implementing Electronic Document Management Systems in the EU

    Selecting and Implementing Electronic Document Management Systems in the EU

Featured Stories

  • Thermo Fisher Scientific Gets FDA Premarket Approval for Companion Diagnostic

  • MHRA Grants Conditional Authorization to Moderna’s Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Vaccine

  • Organogenesis Gets 510(k) Clearance to Expand PuraPly Portfolio

  • FDA Grants Priority Review to sNDA for Lynparza

The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

Learn More
  • New Menu Placeholder NavLink
Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing