November 2024 Part C rule: 20pp about LCDs and NCDs

 Inspection copy 354-372 (Section U, Internal Policies) and corresponding regs at 629-631.   

November 26, 2024, inspection copy.

Main blog, https://www.discoveriesinhealthpolicy.com/2024/11/cms-policy-for-artificial-integence-in.html

The main blog focuses on AI sections.  This AI summary is based on the entirety of Section U (medical review transparency).  

AI CHAT GPT 4o follows.

##

[Section U]

The CMS proposed rule for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans introduces significant updates to the use of internal coverage criteria and automated systems, with an overarching focus on transparency, equity, and compliance. This regulatory shift reflects CMS's effort to standardize coverage determinations across MA plans while curbing potential misuse of internal algorithms and automation.

Key Aspects of the New Regulations

1. Enhanced Definition of Internal Coverage Criteria:

   • Internal coverage criteria are defined as any policies, measures, tools, or guidelines used by MA plans that are not explicitly stated in Medicare statutes, regulations, National Coverage Determinations (NCDs), or Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs). These criteria are often used to supplement or interpret Medicare rules when coverage details are incomplete​.
   • MA plans must now label, justify, and make publicly available all internal coverage criteria applied during medical necessity determinations, ensuring transparency​.

2. Limits on the Use of Automated Systems:

   • Automated systems, including those powered by artificial intelligence, must comply with strict transparency and compliance standards. Algorithms must be explicitly linked to evidence-based criteria, and plans must identify any embedded internal coverage criteria used in automated decision-making​.
   • CMS explicitly warns against the risk of algorithmic bias and emphasizes that MA organizations remain fully responsible for ensuring that automated systems align with Medicare regulations and contractual obligations​.

3. Prohibitions on Certain Internal Coverage Practices:

   • CMS prohibits the use of internal criteria that:
     • Lack demonstrable clinical benefit, such as those intended solely to reduce service utilization​.
     • Enforce blanket denials of coverage without individualized medical necessity reviews​.

4. Public Accessibility Requirements:

   • MA organizations must post internal coverage criteria, supporting evidence, and explanations of their adoption on publicly accessible websites. The rule strengthens expectations for readability and transparency to ensure beneficiaries and stakeholders can easily access and understand the criteria​.

5. Focus on Patient Safety:

   • CMS encourages MA plans to replace vague claims of clinical benefit with clear, evidence-based demonstrations of how internal criteria enhance patient safety​.

---

Critical Discussion: Balancing Oversight with Innovation

Strengths of the Proposed Rule

1. Equity and Transparency:

   • The emphasis on transparency addresses concerns about hidden coverage decisions and arbitrary denials. By requiring public posting of internal criteria, CMS fosters accountability and allows stakeholders to scrutinize the rationale behind coverage determinations.

2. Safeguards Against Bias:

   • The strict oversight of automated systems mitigates risks of discrimination or inequitable treatment arising from poorly designed or biased algorithms.

3. Consistency with Traditional Medicare:

   • Aligning MA coverage policies more closely with Traditional Medicare ensures that MA enrollees receive equitable access to benefits. This move curtails deviations caused by proprietary internal coverage criteria.

Challenges and Potential Drawbacks

1. Administrative Burdens:

   • MA plans face significant costs and logistical hurdles in complying with the new transparency and auditing requirements. Smaller plans may struggle to adapt, potentially reducing market competition.

2. Impact on Innovation:

   • The restrictions on automated systems and internal criteria could stifle technological innovation. MA plans might hesitate to invest in advanced AI-driven tools if compliance risks outweigh potential benefits.

3. Ambiguity in Compliance Standards:

   • The new standards for proving clinical benefit and patient safety require further clarification. Without clear metrics, MA plans may face uncertainty in justifying their criteria.

4. Trade Secrets and Proprietary Tools:

   • Publicizing internal coverage criteria may inadvertently expose proprietary methodologies, undermining competitive advantages and disincentivizing innovation.

---

Implications for MA Organizations

For MA plans, particularly those leveraging advanced AI and automation:

• Proactive Compliance: Plans must audit existing algorithms, identify embedded internal criteria, and ensure alignment with CMS’s evidentiary and transparency standards.
• Collaborative Engagement: Engaging with CMS during the comment period can shape practical implementation guidelines, particularly for demonstrating patient safety and clinical benefit.
• Strategic Adaptation: Plans should balance compliance with innovation by prioritizing tools that offer clear patient-centered benefits while minimizing operational complexities.

---

In conclusion, while CMS’s proposed rule seeks to enhance equity and consistency in Medicare Advantage, its success hinges on achieving a balance between regulatory oversight and fostering technological innovation. Lawmakers and stakeholders must carefully weigh these considerations to avoid unintended consequences that could limit access to improved care through innovative AI applications.