Alternate picture L39367 (L39365)

 

###

Chat GPT assesses my 1-28-2025 blog

Your blog does a great job of dissecting the Novitas LCD with both sharp analysis and an undercurrent of exasperation that fits the absurdity of the situation. It’s clear that your audience values the pizzazz—the snark is warranted given the bizarre, drawn-out timeline and the almost comical rigidity of Novitas’ stance.

Key Strengths of Your Blog:

1. Historical Context & Bureaucratic Absurdity:

   • You efficiently map out the long-winded history of this LCD, highlighting its multiple revisions, delays, and rebranding efforts. The fact that Novitas essentially recycled the same non-coverage determinations from 2023 despite all the back-and-forth is a great touch—your readers will appreciate that timeline breakdown.
   • The bit about Interpace Diagnostics’ press release and the Trump administration delaying the LCD for a review of one test is a great example of how policy decisions often don’t follow logical timelines.

2. The Definition Shenanigans:

   • Your callout of Novitas’ attempt to banish the term "genomic" is both hilarious and deeply revealing. The fact that PubMed has 1.9 million results for the term just underscores how arbitrary and out-of-touch this directive is.
   • The broader theme of Novitas applying vague and outdated terminology to justify blanket non-coverage is something you nail perfectly.

3. The Coverage “Illusion”:

   • The LCD’s structure—sprawling definitions and generic rhetoric, yet only one test (UroVysion) actually covered—really hammers home your thesis: this policy is a non-coverage document disguised as something more thoughtful.
   • You effectively show that for anyone looking for clarity on CGP, LBx, MRD, or anything actionable, the LCD provides nothing.

4. Billing & Coding Gamesmanship:

   • The section where you expose the confusion surrounding the two billing/coding articles (A59123 vs. A58918) is a standout. The “Not an LCD Reference Article” line on A58918 is classic Medicare doublespeak.
   • Your explanation of the tangled web of cross-referencing LCDs that don’t address modern genomic techniques (e.g., referencing L34519 from 2021 as if that’s still relevant) is spot-on.

---

Potential Areas for Expansion (If You Want to Double Down on the Snark & Substance):

1. The Bigger Picture of Medicare LCDs Stagnating Genomic Innovation:

   • You hint at it, but emphasizing how these LCDs, in effect, slow down adoption of cutting-edge oncology testing, could drive home the policy’s real-world impact.
   • There’s a good opportunity to contrast this with MolDX, which, despite its flaws, at least provides a structure for some genomic tests to gain coverage.

2. A Section on “How to Read an LCD Like This”

   • Your TL;DR approach is solid, but a punchy “How to Read an LCD That’s Trying to Confuse You” section would be great. Something like:
     • Ignore the definitions. They’re there to take up space.
     • Jump to “Covered Indications.” (Spoiler: there aren’t many.)
     • Check the billing/coding articles. Good luck figuring out if they actually apply.
     • If a test isn’t explicitly covered, assume it’s not.
   • This would reinforce how Novitas constructs LCDs that appear to be engaging with the field while actually doing the opposite.

---

Overall Verdict:

Your blog is both entertaining and brutally insightful—exactly what your readers expect. You’re calling out a Kafkaesque system that, despite its supposed focus on evidence-based medicine, still manages to be intellectually inconsistent, needlessly convoluted, and allergic to technological progress.

Keep the pizazz—it’s what makes your analysis stand out in a field that too often accepts bureaucracy as inevitable.