Thursday, June 7, 2018

Some Heartflow Document Links

With minimal comment, these are some CMS document links regarding Heartflow as of 6/2018.

___

Judicial Proceedings 2016-2017
2016
August 12, 2016 Department Appeals  Board here.
    Sustains determination of MAC that Heartflow could not be enrolled as an IDTF; affirmed by judge.

2017
April 5, 2017 Department Appeals Board here.
    Heartflow appealed the 2016 ruling, and a panel of judges sustained the adverse ruling.
  • For my earlier June 2017 blog (from when Heartflow was still "outside the gates") see here.
  • For hospital outpatient purposes, CMS classified Heartflow as a payable service in November 2017.   For my April 2018 blog, here.   
The remainder of this blog provides access to documentation, screen shots, and links relative to the Heartflow service against different aspects of the CMS policy system.


Category III Code Text (4 codes)
The actual January 2018 new AMA codes 0501T-0504T can be read online here or in Appendix C.

Hospital Outpatient Rulemaking

The hospital outpatient rulemaking regarding these codes (determining they are "payable" in principle, and at what APC in the outpatient setting) was 92 FR 52356, November 13, 2017, hereSee Heartflow's issue at pages 52422-5.

Public Comments Influenced Rule Outcome
There were 3333 public comments on the entire rule (loads slowly).  Click on "comments" and then "show all comments" to get a search box where you can search for comments on 0501T or fractional flow reserve.

I identified 5 comments by fractional flow reserve.  Heartflow's own fall 2017 comment letter is here and is critical to understanding why CMS changed the code status to payable.  A zip file with 4 of the 5 public comments is here.  (Regulations.gov asserted there were 5 comments but one was a download error.  The zip file of 4 comments ncludes the Heartflow detailed legal memorandum and also comments by 3 hospital systems.)

Proposed Rule Merely Flagged Unpayable Status in a Table
The above November rule built on the July proposed rule; see 82 FR 33558, July 20, 2017, hereThere was no actual proposed comment on the Heartflow codes in July; CMS simply listed them in an appendix of new codes with the tabulation, "M" = not payable, not billable (p. 52422 of November rule).   The fact the codes were listed as status "M" was enough to allow CMS to consider the range of comments submitted; see prior paragraph. Note that the rule did not specify why the new AMA codes were nonpayable status "M."  Merely reading the AMA code text alone would have given CMS little data to go on for a coding judgement of that type.

Heartflow Worked with CMS From 2015 to Late 2017
But the comment authors clearly have had meetings with CMS that allowed them to make granular rebuttal to specific points and phrases of Medicare law and policy being asserted by CMS.  In fact, you can glean this from the public record: the FR reveals that Heartflow had applied for an outpatient new technology code more than a year earlier, in March 2016, which was denied by CMS because it was packaged image guidance (p.52423, first column).  Negative arguments from CMS at that time would have been the basis for detailed provider comment to CMS (rebutting CMS positioning) in September 2017.

Heartflow has had numerous publications; for an open access review, Kueh et al. 2017, here.  CMS also cited to the FDA De Novo 510(k) review, November 2013, 15pp, here.

Aside: Comparing ALJ Cases and CMS Outpatient Rulemaking
I won't attempt a full analysis, but in a nutshell.
  • The ALJ cases hinged on Noridian's assertion that FFR was not payable, because all digital analysis for a report was included in the base CT code 75574.  And lacking a payable service on offer, Heartflow could not be enrolled as an IDTF with Medicare, although it could get an NPI number classed as IDTF by the NPI enumeration system.
  • The hospital policy case began with the CMS assertion that (whether or not FFR was bundled inside CPT code 75574 in Part B), all digital analysis would be bundled inside one CPT that contained both 75574 and FFR 0501T, and that this must occur due to a written regulation 42 CFR 419.2(b)(13).   See regulation clipped as: Appendix D.


Billing for 0501T-0504T Today?

In regular Part B, these would be contractor priced PCT codes (when not done in the hospital setting, where they are APC priced codes).   Local contractors might or might not view the service as medically necessary and payable even after being classed in a (potentially payable) status in an APC by CMS.   One person familiar with CMS claims rules suggested that if the underlying CT was done in a hospital setting, then any associated claim (such as physician interpretation with a -26 modifier or a standalone supplemental interpretation such as FFR) could be billable with a hospital place of service status, and be a "service of the hospital" billed by the hospital to CMS even if under a subcontractor to an off campus digital service center.   (For these instructions, see Claims Manual, 100-04, Chapter 26:10.5). 

For hospital outpatient centers, CMS's final code statuses (Table 19, page 52425) are "M" not payable for 0501T and 0504T, N not payable for 0502T, and payable directly as APC 1516 for 0503T.  Appendix E.

For regular Part B, CMS classified AMA CPT codes 0501T-0504T as all equally status C, carrier priced, here.  None are status N not payable nor status B bundled.  It's not clear to me if all MACs view all codes as payable (e.g. 0502T data transmission might be considered overhead by some MAC; just speculating.)

Local MAC Documents on the Web

(1) Noridian Non Coverage Code Article Shows Heartflow Codes as of June 2018
As of 6/7/2018, 0501T-0504T are listed as non covered in a Noridian Non Coverage Cat III Code Article, revised 5/24/2018, A55681.  Here.  In this article, see its Group 1 codes for 0501T.

(2) Noridian Guidelines for IDTF Physicians and Staff: Do not provide Heartflow Codes as of June 2018
To my eye, Noridian would list the physician and technician IDTF requirements for the Heartflow Cat III CPT codes online here, but they don't appear to be listed as an IDTF service as of 6/2018.  It's the lack of IDTF instructions for 050XT that are interesting.

(3) Another MAC: NGS MAC (for other states) Lists Heartflow as Covered as of 1/1/2018
A different MAC - NGS - which has some upper midwestern as well as northeastern states - has an LCD for cardiac computed tomography that explicitly DOES cover the Heartflow codes.
As of 6/7/2018, 0501T is listed as COVERED in Cardiac Computed Tomography NGS LCD L33559, revised 1/1/2018. Here "Rev3: LCD revised to add coverage for CPT codes 0501T-0504T (Fractional Flow Reserve) effective for dates of service on or after January 1, 2018. Sources reviewed for this coverage were added to Sources of Information."

This NGS LCD L33559 would not apparently govern the geography where the Heartflow enbtity is located, in the SF Bay Area.   However, as a digital company it might be able to set up multiple sites of service (I don't know.)  For example, Irhythm has locations in California, Illinois, and Texas.

Fun With FDA (LOL)

I had a fun moment looking through Heartflow's 510(k) update, K161772.   They changed their indication in a minor way, from being "post processing software" (which CMS doesn't pay for!) to being "coronary physiologic simulation" software.  Wild!  Here.




___

Expired Heartflow Job Application (Health Economics & IDTF Management) here.
    Text archived below as Appendix A.

Heartflow NPI Listing (npidb.org) here.
    Text archived below as Appendix B.
__


Appendix A

Job Detail for Director of Health Economics and Reimbursement
Job Location: HeartFlow, Redwood City, CA, 94061, USA

Job Description: The Director of Health Economics and Reimbursement is responsible for all strategic and tactical elements of the process to acquire coding, coverage, and payment for HeartFlow's products and services in the U.S. This includes direct interactions with payors, providers, professional societies, and other advocates. The Director of Health Economics and Reimbursement will also help manage ongoing reimbursement efforts outside of the U.S., including Europe, Australia, and Asia. Job Responsibilities: Design and execute strategies with professional society / CMS / AMA to secure coding for HeartFlow's products. Work with senior leadership and other appropriate individuals from private and government payers and providers, in the US, to secure coverage and payment. Design and deliver communication vehicles for the economic value proposition for HeartFlow's products. Tasks may include refining economic models and value dossiers that can be used in discussions with payers. Create health economic analyses that can be translated into useful tools to be used by the commercial organization. Educate cross-functional teams including sales, marketing and technology groups on health economic and reimbursement related items that pertain specifically to HeartFlow objectives. Execute approval process for establishing HeartFlow as an IDTF. Advise product development teams on design and clinical attributes seen through a reimbursement lens. Estimated global travel of 20%

Skills Requirements Outstanding communication skills with demonstrated success in leading a cross-functional team in the development and execution of strategies for acquiring coding, coverage, and payment for new healthcare technologies. Strong team leadership skills for cross functional project groups. Ability to work with product development teams with demonstrated success in identifying features and evidence requirements to support eventual reimbursement for products in development. Ability to lead development and presentation of models that demonstrate the clinical and economic impact of adopting and/or reimbursing new medical technologies. Educational

Requirements & Work Experience: 5+ years demonstrated success in the area of health economics and reimbursement for medical devices, diagnostics, or pharmaceuticals, with strong connections to decision-making individuals and stakeholders in U.S. private and government payer organizations.

Prior experience establishing / managing IDTFs is a plus as well as experience in outcomes research.

Bachelor's degree required. Master's preferred Additional experience in non-US markets preferred.

About HeartFlow HeartFlow is an exciting, revolutionary, VC-backed, medical device software start-up in Redwood City that has received international recognition for reaching exceptional strides in healthcare innovation. We are dedicated to changing cardiovascular healthcare through improvement in the accuracy of non-invasive diagnostic imaging. HeartFlow operates a service business that processes Computed Tomographic (CT) imaging to generate 3D models of patients' coronary arteries for physicians' use. HeartFlow is a Pre-IPO company and received FDA clearance in 2014.

www.heartflow.com      HeartFlow, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer. This company does not and will not discriminate in employment and personnel practices on the basis of race, sex, age, handicap, religion, national origin or any other basis prohibited by applicable law. Hiring, transferring and promotion practices are performed without regard to the above listed items.


Appendix B

HEARTFLOW, INC.
Physiological Laboratory, (Independent Physiological Lab)
A laboratory that operates independently of a hospital and physician's office to furnish physiological diagnostic services (e.g. EEG?s , EKG?s, scans, etc.).





The above screenshots show that Heartflow (June 2018) is identified with an NPI number which is classified as IDTF for the purposes of issuing an NPI.  It does not additionally say that Heartflow is currently enrolled in Medicare or not.  (For example, as a doctor, I could have an IDTF as a physician but not be enrolled as a Medicare provider).   I have no information whether Heartflow is enrolled in Medicare (or not) and I just don't currently know where to find out.  (Medicare enrollment status is easier to find out for an MD or for a Hospital). 

An Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility is an entity that can enroll in Medicare, provide services to patients, and get paid. (To enroll in Medicare you have to be an entity legally recognized by it, such as "hospital" or "doctor" or "ambulance service" or "IDTF.")  The rules are pretty complicated (for samples see here and here and here).




Appendix C


The new HeartFlow FFRct CPT codes will become effective on January 1, 2018. They include:

0501T — Noninvasive estimated coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from coronary computed tomography angiography data using computation fluid dynamics physiologic simulation software analysis of functional data to assess the severity of coronary artery disease;
     data preparation and transmission, analysis of fluid dynamics and simulated maximal coronary hyperemia, generation of estimated FFR model, with anatomical data review in comparison with estimated FFR model to reconcile discordant data, interpretation and report

0502T — Data preparation and transmission

0503T — Analysis of fluid dynamics and simulated maximal coronary hyperemia, and generation of estimated FFR model

0504T — Anatomical data review in comparison with estimated FFR model to reconcile discordant data, interpretation and report

For more detail about the CPT codeset, see here.

Appendix D

https://ecfr.io/Title-42/se42.3.419_12
42 CFR 419.12(b)
(b) Determination of hospital outpatient prospective payment rates: Packaged costs. The prospective payment system establishes a national payment rate, standardized for geographic wage differences, that includes operating and capital-related costs that are integral, ancillary, supportive, dependent, or adjunctive to performing a procedure or furnishing a service on an outpatient basis. In general, these packaged costs may include, but are not limited to, the following items and services, the payment for which are packaged or conditionally packaged into the payment for the related procedures or services.
(13) Image guidance, processing, supervision, and interpretation services.


Appendix E
CMS OPPS Rule, November 2017, Table 19


click to enlarge

__
Author local files as
2017 CMS 0405 Heartflow DAB Denial 25pp.pdf
2016 CMS 0812 Heartflow DAB Denial 4p.pdf
2018 Noridian 0607 Heartflow Code Explanation re CAT III LCD.pdf


Sunday, May 27, 2018

Elizabeth Holmes July 2015 WSJ Op Ed Supporting FDA Review of All Lab Tests

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-usher-in-a-new-era-of-preventive-health-care-1438125343


How to Usher In a New Era of Preventive Health Care
People should be able to get any lab test on their own. Waiting for symptoms and a doctor’s order may be too late.



Laboratory tests drive 70% of all clinical decisions in health care. They’re used to determine whether a patient should start taking medication and, if so, which one. They help doctors decide whether a patient should undergo medical procedures or be admitted to the hospital. And they’re used to identify an individual’s risk of developing health conditions such as diabetes or heart disease.

Yet many of us get lab tests only when we’re showing symptoms, which means we may already be sick. And too many of us find out we’re sick when it’s too late to change the course of these conditions.

It’s time to move away from reactive health care. Individuals instead need to be empowered to be proactive, take control of their own health, and work with physicians to detect diseases early or before they take hold. This empowerment will usher in a new era of preventive health care. There are several steps that can help us get there:

All lab tests should undergo review by the Food and Drug Administration. Given the pivotal role of labs in medicine, consumers need to trust the quality and accuracy of the tests they get. The FDA sets the gold standard for quality assurance. Its review is data-driven, objective and uniquely rigorous.

I know this firsthand because Theranos, the company I founded, voluntarily committed to submit all of its lab tests for review starting in 2013. On July 2, the FDA cleared the first of those tests, for herpes simplex virus 1, and the associated finger-stick blood-test technology and underlying system on which our tests are run.

The review included an examination of the company’s systems, methods, chemistry, hardware and software. The FDA scrutinized everything from our collection devices to our analytics. It analyzed study data from more than 800 subjects and assessed our test and test system’s performance outside of clinical laboratories when subjected to a broad range of environmental influences.

This oversight should be the norm. It isn’t. Traditional medical-device manufacturers must submit their lab tests to FDA for review before selling their products. Laboratories that make their own tests aren't required to do so.

The FDA recently proposed requiring laboratories to submit their tests for review. The proposal should be adopted. And Congress should provide the agency with the funds to exercise this oversight.

Innovation needs to be unleashed. The improvements that technology and innovation could bring to health care are limited only by the imagination. But the technological progress that brought us the personal computer, the smartphone, the car was powered by consumer choice and free access to information in the market. That will be true in health care as well.

Our data shows that at least 40% of people today don’t get a lab test when a physician orders it for them, often because the patient can’t afford it. No one should have to forgo care because he can’t afford to get a lab test or can’t figure out how much it costs ahead of time.

Empowering individuals to engage in their own health, including through ordering their own lab tests, means the prices of these services will increasingly become transparent. Transparent pricing and consumer engagement allow markets to function, driving competition and innovation for higher-quality and lower-cost services.

This isn’t just an issue for consumers. Federal and state governments pay tens of billions for lab tests through Medicare and Medicaid. Reducing their costs through competition and innovation will pay big benefits for taxpayers. Accessible testing including at lower cost will also help shift the health-care paradigm to early detection and prevention.

Diagnostic information needs to be more accessible. Getting lab tests today typically requires a doctor’s order, determining insurance eligibility, sometimes multiple appointments, time off from work, and waiting for the results to come back.

Technological breakthroughs can go a long way toward removing some of these barriers. An example: On July 15 the FDA approved a waiver that allows Theranos to run its herpes simplex virus 1 test at its retail Wellness Centers, where samples can be analyzed on the spot instead of being shipped to a centralized facility, and results reported quickly.

Convenience also matters. the more accessible care locations become, and the longer hours they are open, the better people can take control of their own health.

Finally, public policy has an important role to play in furthering the goal of patient-centered health care. I recently worked with leaders in Arizona to pass a state law that allows individuals to order and pay for any laboratory test without having to justify a health concern or rely on insurance eligibility. The law also provides protections for physicians so they can work with patients in a preventive manner around direct-access tests. Individuals across the country should have the same freedom.

You have a fundamental right to access information about your own health. And you should be able to access that information when it matters most—when there is still time to change your life, and the lives of those you love, for the better.

The answers to our challenges in health care lie in the individual. By empowering individuals to engage in their own health, we can build a preventive care system in America—and a world in which fewer people have to say goodbye too soon.

___
Ms. Holmes is the founder and CEO of Theranos, a consumer health-technology and medical-laboratory-services company.



Carreyou Screen Shots: Tampa Visit to Mattis

Bad Blood 154ff



Bad Blood 157

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Carreyou Book Screen Shots: FDA Internal Documents

Supporting:
http://www.discoveriesinhealthpolicy.com/2018/05/did-fda-inappropriately-leak-pre-public.html

Bad Blood, John Carreyou, May 2018, Kindle edition.  Click to enlarge.


Theranos p 310

Theranos p 321
s
Theranos p 322



David Blaszczak May 2018 Linked In

https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-blaszczak-5b547166/

Healthcare professional with almost 20 years’ of unique experience working for state and federalgovernments, advisor to top investment firms in the U.S., and consultant to healthcare companies.Understands the policy process and the effect on the healthcare delivery system, including the financial i...

Saturday, May 19, 2018

FDA's RFA for Stakeholders & Experts in Regulatory Science (May 2018)

Originally posted as:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-FD-18-025.html


    Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
    Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
    RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
    The FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research seeks to support efforts to research, identify key issues, and convene appropriate subject matter experts to help advance regulatory science to promote the increased availability of safe and effective drugs to the public. This effort will inform regulatory science by advancing the scientific discussion of key research topics of interest to both FDA and external stakeholders such as the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare professionals, patients, and academic researchers. FDA seeks support to address research needs identified in the 2018 reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VI) and requirements under the 21st Century Cures Act. The research areas identified in PDUFA and the 21st Century Cures Act represent key scientific priorities identified by FDA, Congress, and stakeholders that, if advanced, will help expedite the development of drugs and improve efforts to assess their safety and effectiveness, thereby increasing the availability of safe and effective drugs to the public.
    More information about the research areas identified under PDUFA VI can be found at the following website:
    SPECIFIC AREAS OF RESEARCH INTEREST
    In the most recent reauthorization of PDUFA, FDA identified specific areas of research interest in consultation with drug industry representatives, patient and consumer advocates, health care professionals, and other public stakeholders.  These areas represent a wide range of new innovative initiatives related to virtually every aspect of the new drug life cycle. Advancing research, discussion, and understanding on these areas will benefit FDA's stakeholders, expedite drug development, and improve FDA, industry, and researchers' ability to assess drugs' safety and effectiveness.  These initiatives may include, but not be limited to, the following:
    • Enhancing regulatory science and expediting drug development
    • Facilitating rare disease drug development
    • Advancing the use and understanding of innovative statistical methods and trial designs
    • Advancing development of combination product review
    • Enhancing the use of real world evidence for use in regulatory decision-making
    • Enhancing regulatory decision tools to support drug development and review
    • Enhancing the Incorporation of the Patient's Voice in Drug Development and Decision-making
    • Enhancing Benefit-Risk Assessment in Regulatory decision-making
    • Advancing model-informed drug development
    • Enhancing capacity to review complex innovative designs
    • Enhancing capacity to support analysis data standards for product development and Review
    Several key areas of research interest are described in greater detail below:
    Enhancing the Incorporation of the Patient's Voice in Drug Development and decision-making
    In PDUFA V, FDA conducted a series of Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) meetings with the aim to more systematically gather patients' perspectives on their condition and available therapies to treat their condition. Under PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to build on these efforts to bridge from PFDD meetings to fit-for-purpose tools to collect meaningful patient input that can be incorporated into regulatory review and used by all stakeholders to assess drugs' benefit to patients. The field is constantly evolving and this work cannot be done in isolation. Many professional groups and research teams around the world have developed and are developing templates, checklists, and guidelines for different aspects of gathering and interpreting patient experience data, and many such documents already exist for patient reported outcomes. FDA seeks to identify the challenges and opportunities within the current collection and use of patient input.  Advancing research in this area will help ensure that drug development is more responsive to patients' input and needs.
    Structured Approaches to Enhancing FDA’s Assessment of Benefits and Risks in Human Drugs
    FDA’s qualitative Benefit-Risk (B-R) Framework serves as the foundational element of CDER’s and CBER’s structured benefit-risk assessment. With implementation of the B-R Framework gaining solid ground within FDA’s drug review, there is now an opportunity to systematically explore and advance the use of more technical approaches within the qualitative framework to inform benefit-risk assessment in targeted cases. These may include structured techniques to characterize underlying judgments and uncertainties inherent in the assessment, methods to compare and/or weigh benefits and risks, and other qualitative and quantitative approaches aiming to improve the quality of the decision-making process in some cases. FDA recognizes that the agency’s efforts to develop a more structured approach to benefit-risk assessment could be complemented by further engagement of stakeholders and other parties, providing an opportunity to share challenges and lessons learned in applying a more structured approach to benefit-risk decision-making.  Such research would benefit FDA, drug manufacturers, health policy analysts, and others who make decisions about the benefits and risks of drugs.
    APPROACH
    Achieving these research objectives requires bringing together input from a wide range of relevant external subject matter experts and other interested public stakeholders. In addition, this input process should be timely, well-informed, candid, thoughtful, thorough, and well-documented.  FDA is therefore seeking to establish a cooperative agreement with a qualified awardee with experience in the conduct of the needed research, workshops and other meetings, and related work.
    The goal of this collaboration is to advance research in several key areas of interest to FDA and external stakeholders by convening stakeholders with diverse expertise, and to inform and support the advancement of regulatory science priorities, particularly those identified in PDUFA VI and the 21st Century Cures Act. Through a series of meetings, workshops, webinars, and/or workgroups, the awardee would provide effective opportunities for engagement of these stakeholders to pursue research on these topics. In addition to gathering input from selected stakeholder groups, the awardee will  conduct background research prior to expert engagement, use input gathered to develop white papers and research reports, and communicate updates on the progress of its regulatory science research to broader audiences. Specific objectives of this collaboration would include:
    • Working collaboratively with FDA to identify and prioritize pressing research issues related to the key areas of interest identified in PDUFA VI and the 21st Century Cures Act
    • Conducting research and reviews of relevant literature to plan the focus of sessions in which experts are convened to provide critical input on regulatory science issues;
    • Convening expert stakeholders in focused, substantive discussions of these issues, and identify and explore potential strategies for resolving them
    • Developing reports that summarize the background research and discussion at each meeting, and posting these reports for public access to promote external interest and advance public understanding of key research issues; and
    • Helping to make research results and reports actionable by FDA, industry, and other stakeholders.
    The timeframe of the project is five years. Conducting this research will require a multi-year effort, involving a variety of topics, stakeholder groups, and issue specific activities. We propose to establish a five-year collaboration, aligned with the reauthorization of the PDUFA agreement, to facilitate the successful, in-depth exploration of key research topics.
    Inherent in the cooperative agreement award is substantive involvement by the awarding agency. Accordingly, FDA will have substantive involvement in the programmatic activities funded by this Cooperative Agreement. Substantive involvement includes, but is not limited, to the following:
    FDA will provide guidance, and assistance in the identification of key research objectives.