Quantcast
Channel: BruceDocumentBlog
Viewing all 814 articles
Browse latest View live

MolDX Approved Genetic Tests (Table) M00041 V16 (1/27/2016)

$
0
0

Approved Gene Testing (M00041, V16)

After a review of the current available literature, the MolDX Program has determined that testing for the following genes/gene components meets the Medicare criteria for a covered service. This listing has been updated with 2016 CPT codes.
#
CPT Code
Description
1.     
81162
BRCA1, BRCA2, fgs cdup_del
2.     
81170
ABL1, ga
3.     
81206
BCR_ABL1, majbp qual quant (p210)
4.     
81207
BCR_ABL1, minbp qual quant (p190)
5.     
81208
BCR_ABL1, other bp qual quant
6.     
81210
BRAF, V600E
7.     
81211
BRCA1, BRCA2, fgs cdup_del
8.     
81212
BRCA1, BRCA2, 185delAG, 5385insC, 6174delT
9.     
81213
BRCA1, BRCA2, uncom dup_del
10.  
81214
BRCA1, fgs cdup_del
11.  
81215
BRCA1, fgs, kfv
12.  
81216
BRCA2, fgs
13.  
81217
BRCA2, kfv
14.  
81218
CEBPA, fgs
15.  
81225
CYP2C19, cv
16.  
81226
CYP2D6, cv
17.  
81235
EGFR, cv
18.  
81245
FLT3, ITD
19.  
81246
FLT3, TKD
20.  
81256
HFE, cv
21.  
81261
IGH, amp
22.  
81262
IGH, dp
23.  
81263
IGH, var reg
24.  
81264
IGK, gr
25.  
81265
STR
26.  
81266
STR add  (for transplants)
27.  
81267
Chimerism, no cell
28.  
81268
Chimerism, with cell
29.  
81270
JAK2, V617F
30.  
81272
KIT, tsa
31.  
81273
KIT,  D816
32.  
81275
KRAS, codons 12 and 13
33.  
81276
KRAS, addvar
34.  
81287
MGMT, ma
35.  
81288
MLH1, ma
36.  
81292
MLH1, fgs
37.  
81293
MLH1, kfv
38.  
81294
MLH1, dup_del
39.  
81295
MSH2, fgs
40.  
81296
MSH2, kfv
41.  
81297
MSH2, dup_del
42.  
81298
MSH6, fgs
43.  
81299
MSH6, kfv
44.  
81300
MSH6, dup_del
45.  
81301
MSI
46.  
81310
NPM1, exon 12
47.  
81311
NRAS, ex 2-3
48.  
81313
PCA3
49.  
81314
PDGFRA, tsa
50.  
81315
PML_RAR, cbp
51.  
81316
PML_RAR, sbp
52.  
81317
PMS2, fgs
53.  
81318
PMS2, kfv
54.  
81319
PMS2, dup_del
55.  
81321
PTEN, fgs
56.  
81322
PTEN, kfv
57.  
81323
PTEN, dup_del
58.  
81332
SERPINA, cv
59.  
81340
TRB, beta
60.  
81341
TRB, dp
61.  
81342
TRG, gamma
62.  
81370
HLA I-II, lr ant
63.  
81371
HLA I-II, lr verification
64.  
81372
HLA I, lr complete
65.  
81373
HLA I, lr locus ea
66.  
81374
HLA I, lr 1 ant.
67.  
81375
HLA II, lr DRB1/3/4/5, DQB1
68.  
81376
HLA II, lr locus ea
69.  
81377
HLA II, lr antigen ea
70.  
81378
HLA I-II, hr A, B, C, DRB1
71.  
81379
HLA I, hr complete
72.  
81380
HLA I, hr locus ea
73.  
81381
HLA I, hr allele ea
74.  
81382
HLA II, hr locus ea
75.  
81383
HLA II, hr allele ea
76.  
81400
ACE, idv
77.  
81400
F13B, V34L
78.  
81400
F2, 1199G>A
79.  
81400
F5, HR2
80.  
81400
F7, R353Q
81.  
81400
FGB, -455G>A
82.  
81400
HPA-1
83.  
81400
HPA-2
84.  
81400
HPA-3
85.  
81400
HPA-4
86.  
81400
HPA-5
87.  
81400
HPA-6
88.  
81400
HPA-15
89.  
81400
IL28B, rs12979860
90.  
81400
SERPINE1, 4G
91.  
81401
ABL1, T315I
92.  
81401
CBFB_MYH11, cv
93.  
81401
CCND1_IGH, ta majbp qual qual
94.  
81401
E2A_PBX1, ta qual quan,
95.  
81401
EML4_ALK, ta
96.  
81401
ETV6_RUNX1, ta qual quan
97.  
81401
EWSR1_ERG, ta qual quan
98.  
81401
EWSR1_FLI1, ta qual quan
99.  
81401
EWSR1_WT1, ta qual quan
100.            
81401
F11, cv
101.            
81401
FIP1L1_PDGFR, qual quan
102.            
81401
FOXO1_PAX3, ta, qual quan
103.            
81401
FOXO1_PAX7, ta, qual quan
104.            
81401
IGH/BCL2, sbp
105.            
81401
MUTYH, cv
106.             
81401
PAX8_PPARG, ta
107.              
81401
RUNX1_RUNX1T1, ta qual quan
108.              
81401
TPMT, cv
109.             
81401
TYMS
110.             
81401
VWF, cv
111.              
81402
IGH_BCL2, majbpr_mcrbp qul_qun
112.              
81402
KIT, cv
113.              
81403
EPCAM, kfv
114.              
81403
F8, intron 1 and 22a
115.              
81403
HEA, gs
116.              
81403
IDH1, exon 4
117.             
81403
IDH2, exon 4
118.             
81403
JAK2, exon 12 and 13
119.             
81403
MUTYH, kfv
120.             
81403
RET, kfv
121.            
81403
VHL, dup_del
122.             
81403
VWF, tsa 2A, 2B, 2M
123.             
81404
CDKN2A, fgs
124.             
81404
NRAS, exon 1, 2
125.             
81404
PRSS1, fgs
126.            
81404
RET, cv
127.             
81404
VHL, fgs
128.             
81405
MEN1, fgs
129.             
81405
RET, tsa
130.             
81405
VWF, tsa 2N
131.             
81406
RET, fgs
132.             
81432
HereditaryCA panel
133.     
81445
Tsa panel, solid organ neoplasm, 5-50 genes
134.      
81450
Tsa panel, hematolymphoid neoplasm, 5-50 genes
135.        
81455
Tsa panel, solid organ or hematolymphoid neoplasm, 51 or >
136.           
81479
ALK
137.            
81479
BCR_ABL1, 210 + 190
138.             
81479
BCR_ABL1, 210 + 190 +other
139.            
81479
CYP2D6, CYP2C19
140.            
81479
ERBB2
141.             
81479
ERCC1
142.             
81479
FLT3, ITD + TKD
143.            
81479
HER2
144.            
81479
IGH, IGK
145.            
81479
MLH1 panel, (fgs + d_d)
146.             
81479
MSH2, panel (fgs + d_d)
147.             
81479
MSH6, panel (fgs + d_d)
148.            
81479
MYD88, L265P
149.             
81479
NRAS, 2,3,4
150.             
81479
RET/PTC
151.             
81479
ROS1
152.             
81479
TRB/TRG
The following tests have completed the MolDX Technical Assessment Process and limited coverage has been established. Please review the companion policy and/or article for test specific information.
#
Proprietary Test Name
Manufacturer
Effective Date
CPT
MCD #
MolDX Article #
1.  
Afirma
Veracyte
1/1/2012
81545
A53098
M00015
2.  
Allomap
XDx
2/28/2012
81595
A53099
M00016
3. 
Avise PG
Exagen Diagnostics
5/1/2012
84999
A53100
M00026
4. 
BRACAnalysis® Rearrangement Test (BART)
Myriad Genetics
12/1/2006
81213
L36082
 
5. 
BRCA1 Analysis
Myriad Genetics
12/1/2006
81214
L36082
 
6. 
BRCA1/2
Ambry
3/1/2014
81162
L36082
 
7. 
BRACAnalysis CDx
Myriad Genetics
12/19/14
81479
L36082
M00120
8. 
BRCAssureSM
LabCorp
3/1/2014
81162
L36082
 
9. 
BRCAvantage, Comprehensive
Quest
3/1/2014
81162
L36082
 
10.
Breast Cancer Index
BioTheranostics
11/4/2014
81479
L35631
 
11.
Cancer26
MUSC
10/3/2013
81445
NA
 
12.
CellSearch
Veridex
5/1/2012
86152 OR 86153
L35071
 
13.
cobas BRAF
Roche
9/7/2012
81210-22
A54018
M00111
14.
cobas EGFR
Roche
9/5/2013
81235-22
A54021
M00110
15.
cobas KRAS
Roche
5/7/2015
81275-22
A54472
M00121
16.
Comprehensive BRACAnalysis®
Myriad Genetics
12/1/2006
81211
L36082
 
17.
Confirm MDx
MDx Health
11/4/2014
81479
L35632
 
18.
Corus CAD
CardioDx
7/30/2012
81493
A53102
M00009
19.
CTID
BioTheranostics
12/27/2011
81540
A53101
M00027
21.
FoundationOne®
Foundation One
10/01/2015
81479
L36143
 
22.
GeneSight
Assurex Health
10/27/2014
81479
L35633
 
23.
HERmark
LabCorp
12/9/2011
81479
A53103
M00028
24.
Integrated BRAC Analysis®
Myriad Genetics
12/1/2006
81162
L36082
 
25.
Mammaprint
Agendia
11/16/2009
81479
A53104
M00029
26.
OncotoypeDx Colon
Genomic Health
9/27/2011
81525
A53106
M00002
27.
OncotypeDX Breast
Genomic Health
3/26/2012
81479
A53105
M00003
28.
PreciseType™ HEA Bead
Immucor
6/22/2015
81403
L36074
 
29.
Progensa
Gen Probe
9/6/2012
81313
A53107
M00013
30.
Prolaris
Myriad Genetics
3/2/15
81479
L35869
 
31.
Prosigna
Nanostring
10/01/2015
0008M
L36125
 
32.
therascreen EGFR
Qiagen
9/5/2013
81235-22
A54021
M00110
33.
therascreen-Kras
Qiagen
4/30/2013
81275-22
A54472
M00121
34.
ThxID™ BRAF V600E/K Test
bioMerieux, Inc.
1/9/2014
81210-22
A54018
M00111
35.
Tissue of Origin
ResponseDx
12/22/2011
81504
A53108
M00034
36.
TRofile DNA
LabCorp
5/5/2012
87999
 
 
37.
Trofile
LabCorp
5/15/2012
87999
A53528
M00042
38.
Ventana ALK Assay
Roche
6/12/15
88342
A54656
M00122
39.
Vectra-DA
Crescendo
6/30/2012
81490
A53110
M00031
40.
Vysis
Abbott
10/2/2012
88374 OR 88377
A54656
M00122

MolDX Excluded Tests Excel Excludes 81433

$
0
0
https://www.palmettogba.com/palmetto/MolDX.nsf/DocsCat/MolDx%20Website~MolDx~Browse%20By%20Topic~Excluded%20Tests~9E8NBK5152?open





Abbott and Cyanogen

$
0
0
http://www.mdcreativegroup.com/cynogen-pages-37.php

November 4, 2017

CYNOGEN

Following our successful work on AthoGen, another Abbott-owned laboratory, Abbott Molecular engaged us to support the launch of CYNOGEN, a specialized molecular laboratory offering tests that aid in the detection and identification of certain cancers. MDCG developed the laboratory’s name, branding, tagline, website, extensive print collateral and trade show booths. As the lab continues to grow and evolve, offering newly approved FDA-approved tests, we are still at work on targeted promotional materials, packaging, website updates, and sales training support. CYNOGEN is building its business coast to coast. www.cynogen.com



MolDX FAQ M00086 V18

$
0
0
https://www.palmettogba.com/palmetto/MolDX.nsf/docscat/MolDx%20Website~MolDx~Browse%20By%20Topic~Frequently%20Asked%20Questions~Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20(M00086%20V18)

Frequently Asked Questions (M00086, V18)

Select the category of questions you would like to view:
MolDX General Questions
1. What is the purpose of the MolDX program?To identify tests, determine coverage, and determine reimbursement.
2. How does this program help claim adjudication?Once the required information is received and a DEX Z-Code™ identifier is assigned, Palmetto MolDX can determine coverage and payment without documentation review. This process removes the need for the provider to submit large amounts of additional information with every claim and expedites claim payment.
3. What laboratories will be affected?All private, reference, and hospital laboratories that perform molecular diagnostic testing and submit claims to Medicare in JE, JF, JM, J15, J5, or J8 on forms CMS 1500 (Part B), UB04 (Part A) or electronic claims on a 5010-837P (Part B) or 837I (Part A) are affected by this program. (Please reference the specific jurisdiction MDT policy for effective dates.)
4. What molecular diagnostic assays/tests are included in MolDX?Tests that meet the description for CPT codes 81161-81383, Tier 2 CPT codes, 81400-81408, Genomic Sequencing Procedures and Other Molecular Multianalyte Assays (MAA), 81410-81471, MAA with Algorithmic Analyses, 81490-81599, Immunology (86152-86153), Microbiology (87505-87507), 87631-87633, 87149-87150), PLA (* All codes), Proprietary MAA, 0001M-0009M , and not otherwise classified CPT codes (NOC), 81479, 81599, 84999, 85999, 86849, 87999, 88199, 88299, 88399, and 89398. For more information review MolDX Molecular Test Registration and Claims Submission. Submit questions about specific tests/assays not described in this chart, to MolDX@PalmettoGBA.com.
5. Is the MolDX Program national in scope?The MolDX Program currently covers JE (American Samoa, CA, Guam, HI, NV, North Mariana Islands), JF (AK, AZ, ID, MT, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY), JM (NC, SC, VA, WV), J15 (KY, OH), J5 (IA, MO, KS, NE), and J8 (MI, IN). The role of JJ by Palmetto GBA begins in early 2018. Labs that perform services for patients in those states have been notified to begin DEX Z-Code registration. Claims submitted after June 1, 2018, must have a Z-Code. 
6. Will this project align with the AMA effort to publish CPT codes for MDT?The AMA efforts and the MolDX program are not related or interdependent.
7. How does a lab register a test?  Review MolDX Molecular Test Registration and Claims Submission for instructions.
8. What is McKesson’s, now Change Healthcare, involvement in the MolDX program?McKesson, now Change Healthcare, is the contracted technology provider for the MolDX program. MolDX will leverage the Diagnostics Exchange™ (DEX), the online test registry and technical assessment components of the MolDX program. DEX is a web-based service designed to identify tests and help establish transparency in the evidence-based coverage of them. This tool enables labs to confidentially share test information with MolDX online.
9. What information will be made available to the public?MolDX information collected for the registry will only be available to those labs electing to submit a DEX Z-Code™ identifier application and is consistent with the public/private indications therein.
10. Will the MolDX Program expand to other jurisdictions?At this time CMS has not determined how MolDX will be expanded. Palmetto GBA will continue to administer active LCDs and articles, among the designated MolDX partner jurisdictions. 
MolDX Registration (Z-Code applications)
1. Should the manufacturer or the performing lab register an FDA-approved, in vitro diagnostic test that utilizes a kit?The manufacturer and the performing labs should submit an application. The MolDX team will review each submission for accuracy and assign each performing lab that reports the test without modifications the same code. The lab must submit an application in order to obtain a DEX Z-Code™ identifier for submission. Without the application information, MolDX cannot determine the kit is unmodified and the labs that intend to use the kit.
2. Should the manufacturer also register for Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR's) that have not been FDA approved?No.
3. If multiple tests may be performed and billed within one assay, is the lab required to register each test within the assay?A DEX Z-Code™ identifier application is required for a single assay that may involve multiple tests in order to produce a single result.
4. Is a unique identifier application required for each specimen source, i.e. blood and bone marrow, for the same test? No.
5. In addition to the unique identifier application, should labs send peer-reviewed articles to ensure MolDX has enough information to make a positive coverage determination?
No. Peer-reviewed literature used in coverage determination is  required only during the Technical Assessment (TA) process.
6. Is a unique identifier application required for an FDA-approved test?Yes. The FDA approval process ensures only the clinical and analytical validity of the test. The FDA does not include clinical utility in their review, which is required to establish Medicare coverage.
7. Is a new unique identifier required for updated tests or a test expansion?
If the updated or expanded test is substantively different, you will need to submit an application and a new identifier will be assigned.
8. After a test is granted a unique identifier, can a hospital bill their respective MAC directly for the test using the assigned DEX Z-Code™ identifier? Yes. Effective March 1, 2017, hospitals must add the DEX Z-Code™ identifier in block 80 of the UB04 claim form or on line SV202-7 of the 837I electronic claim. Effective December 1, 2017, Part A claims submitted without a Z-code will be rejected.
9. Is a unique identifier required for tests billed with a NOC code?Yes. Review MolDX Molecular Test Registration and Claims Submission.
10. Are labs expected to register tests sent to another lab to perform?You are NOT expected to submit those tests for Z-Codes; only tests you perform in-house. You are required to register your organization in the DEX Diagnostics Exchange if you plan to submit claims to jurisdictions that implement MolDX. You will “Request Sharing” in DEX, from your reference lab, to get access to the Z-Code for billing purposes.
11. If a lab performs the same exact test from two different locations, operating under two different CLIA numbers, will the lab be required to submit both tests for unique identifiers?If the test process is standardized and the same method is used to acquire the results in both locations, labs will only have to submit one application for the test. However, if there is a difference in the method, an application will be required from both locations.
12. Should labs that provide lab products alert their lab customers about MolDX registration requirements? Yes.
13. If the kit used in an LDT is not FDA-approved, should the lab apply for a unique identifier for that kit?  
Yes.
14. How do labs identify test reagents in the MolDX unique identifier application forms?Enter the information in the 'contributing component' field.
15. Are labs required to register tests that use a code in the MolDX code range and a code that is not listed in the MolDX range of codes (i.e., CPT codes 87001-87905)?Yes. Labs must register tests that include MolDX and non-MolDX range of codes in the test panel. MolDX will map only the test(s) in the MolDX range of codes. (i.e., EGFR by molecular methodology and ROS1 and ALK by IHC)
16. When a laboratory modifies an FDA approved kit, will MolDX require a new unique identifier? 
Yes. If a lab modifies a registered test, the resulting test is considered an LDT and will require a separate application.
17.  If a California laboratory is billing for a test referred to a laboratory located outside of the jurisdiction, which lab is responsible for registering the test?It is the responsibility of the billing provider to obtain a DEX Z-Code™ identifier.
18. If multiple laboratories purchase the same test and each lab registers the test, how will MolDX notify the laboratory regarding the assigned identifier?MolDX will follow the registration process. A review of the MolDX database is performed to ensure a DEX Z-Code™ identifier has not been previously assigned. If a test has been registered, the lab will receive the DEX Z-Code™ identifier. The only difference is the identifier for that particular test has already been established prior to the current lab’s application.
19.  Are hospital labs that file institutional claims and providers that file professional claims exempt from the requirement to obtain a unique identifier?Providers submitting institutional claims are required to submit claims with DEX Z-Codes. Physicians submitting professional claims (-PC or -26) are not required to use Dex Z-Codes. 
Technical Assessment (TA)
1. What types of tests may require a TA?
  • Lab developed tests (LDT’s) performed using either established or novel technology with un-established clinical utility 
  • Molecular or genetic testing that has not been validated for clinical and analytical validity
  • Tests using modified versions of FDA registered kits
  • Tests using a new molecular or genetic technological testing platform
  • Genetic or molecular target with un-established clinical utility 
  • Tests reported with one of the following CPT codes, as well as any billing or tracking codes developed by CMS (HCPCS) or AMA CPT, such as Appendix O and PLA codes for diagnostic testing: 
Tier 2 CPT Codes 
81400-81479
Genomic Sequencing Procedures and Other  Molecular Multianalyte Assays (MAA)
81410-81471
 *MAA with Algorithmic Analyses
81500-81599
Not otherwise classified (NOC) CPT Codes
81479, 815999, 84999, 85999, 86849,87999, 88199, 88299, 88399, 89398  
2. What tests may not require a TA?
  • State of New York (NYS) certified tests that are industry accepted and have established clinical utility. However, MolDX may request the package used to determine the NYS certification to make a coverage decision. The approval letter or a copy of the NYS listing may be used to demonstrate NYS approval.
  • New tests approved under a Premarket Approval (PMA)-(which under FDA policy from the early '90s requires evidence of clinical utility) require a DEX Z-CodeTM, but not a TA. 
  • Tests that using existing or novel technology for molecular or genetic targets with established clinical utility
3. When should labs submit the clinical data dossier (TA) to MolDX? MolDX will accept a TA after a DEX Z-Code™ identifier has been assigned. MolDX will NOT accept any information prior to registration and assignment of a DEX Z-Code™ identifier. For labs that do not submit the clinical data, MolDX will prioritize according to claims data and make requests.
4. Where do I find guidance on creating a comprehensive TA dossier for submission? All guidance information for the creation of a TA dossier and the review process can be found under Technical Assessment (TA) Process (M00095) on the MolDX website.
5. Where do I find information on the level of evidence I need for a full review of my test?The Clinical Test Evaluation Process (CTEP) (M00096) outlines a process used by the Subject Matter Experts (SME) and the MolDX Executive Committee (EC) to assess new tests.
6. How do I submit my dossier to MolDX?The Technical Assessment Submission Instructions (M00115) provide the steps.
7. Why was an invalid determination issued on my TA submission?A TA must be submitted with the DEX Z-Code™ identifier in the subject line. MolDX will not initiate a TA without an ID.  Additionally, all communication regarding tests MUST have the DEX Z-Code™ identifier in the subject line. This enables the MolDX staff to accurately track test documents and avoid unnecessary delays and misplaced documents. 
8. How long will it take to complete the TA process and receive a coverage determination? Upon submission of the dossier, there is a 30 day period to determine if the submission is complete. Once the MolDX Team has determined that the dossier is complete, a 90 day review period begins. A dossier may take 180 days or more based on questions to the lab from subject matter experts.
9. The information requested by MolDX to support analytical validity may be considered proprietary intellectual property. How will MolDX assure the security and confidentiality of that information?Only MolDX and its subject matter experts will have access to proprietary information. Subject matter experts sign confidentiality and conflict of interest documents.
10. Are there options in lieu of two published articles that support clinical utility?Review The MolDX clinical Test Evaluation Process (CTEP)-M00096
11. Who will perform the technical assessments (TA)?Subject matter experts (SME) from academia and industry will assess the scientific literature. The MolDX team will perform the assessment for all other components.
12. Will MolDX share the conclusions of one SME with other SME?No. An SME will only have access to their assigned TA. Also, each SME will only have access to the scientific literature submitted with the TA. All other components will be reviewed by the MolDX Team.  Only the MolDX Team will review proprietary information.
13. What are the conflict of interest principles that will guide MolDX in determining whether or not an SME should be permitted to conduct a technical assessment? The conflict of interest principles were developed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina and are standard for the industry.
14. What types of disclosures will be required from the SMEs in order to facilitate a conflict of interest determination?The disclosures required by the SME were developed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina for government contractors and are standard for the industry.
15. Will there be an opportunity for a laboratory to comment on a TA report before it is finalized?
Yes. Questions/concerns that surface during the TA will be communicated with the test developer.
16. Will laboratories and/or manufacturers be allowed to resubmit a coverage request after they have received a non-coverage determination?Yes. If substantive new information, not included in the initial submission, becomes available, a new request may be submitted 6 months after the initial non-coverage determination was issued.
17. What is the difference in the logistical steps to initiate a formal coverage determination and the process to initiate coverage determination with a TA? It is the same process.
18. Since the clinical and economic utility data will be reviewed as part of the coverage determination (and not during the TA), will the clinical utility evidence be sent out for subject matter expert review or will that evidence be reviewed only within MolDX? What about the economic utility evidence? If the clinical utility and economic data are in the public domain (published), SME will review it. If it is proprietary, then MolDX Team will review it.
19. Is there a difference in the expected timeline for a coverage determination and a TA?It is the same.
20. Can a lab provide services prior to the TA approval date in anticipation of a favorable determination and then submit the claims after the approval? To avoid overpayment requests, labs should freeze services until coverage is approved and appropriate billing and coding guidelines are published.
21. If a lab plans to submit a test for FDA approval, can the test be submitted for a TA first?If the test is currently in the FDA process, please hold the TA request until the FDA has completed its determination. However, if you have not submitted the test to the FDA, you may request a TA. The FDA submission should be done prior to TA request. Once you receive an FDA determination, you may submit a TA request.
22. Should labs submit applications for Research Use Only Reagents (RUO)?No.
23. Are manufacturers that provide items such as ASR or RUO used in an LDT required to register the items?No. Only the LDT developer and biller of the LDT are required to register for a DEX Z-Code™ identifier. However, an LDT developer must disclose the ASR and RUO used in the developed LDT on the application.
24. How should labs outline test reagents in the TA?  Submit the package insert for the kit with the materials.
25. When multiple large numbers of reagents are used in a test, how should labs identify the specific details for the reagents?Provide sufficient information to identify the manufacturer and the product specifications (PI).
26. Should protocols for technical evaluation be included in the TA submission?Yes.
27. Will a completed TA be made available on the MolDX website?Only an approved TA will be published. However, MolDX may publish a coverage/non-coverage article or an LCD based on the TA.
28. How should a laboratory designate proprietary information on the TA submission?MolDX will consider any information that is not publicly available to be proprietary information.
29. During the TA process, when should a laboratory submit pricing information to support a payment rate determination?Any pricing information will be requested from the laboratory after a favorable coverage determination has been made.
30. How will MolDX determine reimbursement for a test?Reimbursement is based on accurate submitted codes regardless of the cost of the platform used. For tests that are reported with an NOC code, pricing will be determined based on the information collected in the TA. Each test will be assessed on an individual basis and priced according to the most appropriate method. the MolDX Team will review the pricing method with the individual lab upon completion of the TA.
31. What is the TA process for labs performing and or submitting tests outside a MolDX jurisdiction?  The TA process is open to all lab developers and their tests regardless of geographic location. In order to receive a coverage determination, it is the responsibility of the billing laboratory to submit a TA. Claims paid for tests that do not meet the mandated reasonable and necessary criteria may be subject to overpayment requests.
32. What resources are available to help me determine the best CPT code to bill my new test?      
All test applications are reviewed for correct CPT mapping by the MolDX Team. If an error or a disparity is identified, the Team will notify the test provider for clarification. After a TA is complete, the Team will notify the test provider with the final coding, billing, coverage, and if applicable allowed fee for the test.
Billing and Coding
1. What are the effective dates of the codes ZSB01 and ZB728?DEX Z-Code™ identifiers are effective at time of assignment.
2. What action should a lab take if they believe they may have incorrectly billed for a MolDX service?If you believe your practice has made a MolDX billing/coding error, you may take the following corrective actions:
  • Complete a Self-Audit
    • Identify incorrect submissions
    • Prevent further claim submission errors
  • Consider Self-Disclosure Protocol
    • Self-disclosure guidelines available on the OIG website external link 
3. Where do I enter the assigned MolDX test identifier on my claim?If you are submitting a Part B paper claim, this information would be placed in Block 19 of the CMS 1500 claim form. For Electronic claims (5010) 837P (Physician/Professional), use the SV101-7 field adjacent to each CPT code used to report the service. This field maps to the Line item Description (This field is required for NOC codes to avoid rejection by the Common Edit Module Front end).
If you are submitting a Part A paper claim, this information would be placed in block 80 of the UB04 claim form. For Part A electronic claims, the DEX Z-Code™ identifier must be reported on line SV202-7 of the 837I (Institutional) claim.
4. If the lab submits a MolDX covered test without a unique identifier after the implementation date, will MolDX reject the claim as 'unprocessable' with no appeal rights or send a denial with a specific or new claim denial message?  Claims received without additional information required to adjudicate the claim will be rejected.
5. If a laboratory performs multiple assays/tests on a single patient on one date of service, will the lab have to split the different assays/tests into multiple claims? MolDX considers the performance of multiple molecular biomarkers, regardless of whether the test requisition lists the tests as a panel or individually, and completed on a single sample to be a 'panel' of tests. Therefore, each panel should be registered and billed with a single CPT code and a unique MolDX identifier.
6. If a CPT code appears on the claim more than once to report an additional test, is a modifier required?
Yes. Append with CPT modifier 91. See the claim example for question 8.
7. Will CCI edits continue to be in effect on MolDX services?
Yes. Because the Z-Code Identifier only acts to label the specific test and is not a code set, MolDX service providers must append CPT codes within the CCI edits with a 59 CPT modifier to indicate the CCI Column II code is a different test.
Note: The 59 CPT modifier should ONLY be appended to CCI Column II codes.
8. There is only one Box 19 on my paper claim form. How do I identify more than one test or assay on my claim? 
Due to the limitations of the paper claim, labs using this form will be limited to only one test/assay/unique identifier per claim. To bill a MolDX test on a paper claim, enter the unique DEX Z-Code™ identifier in Box 19 and then enter only the CPT code(s) for that identifier on the claim. Remember: You may only file one test per paper claim submission.
9.  I registered a single gene test performed on a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) platform that is listed on the MolDX approved gene test list. Why is my claim denied?
MolDX does NOT consider the T1 and T2 descriptions appropriate for genes interrogated on an NGS platform. Please reference the coding and billing guidelines in reference article M00130.
Reimbursement
1. Will a microarray service be reimbursed at the same rate for all microarrays or will the diagnosis differentiate payment? For example, will 1800+ genes of one array be viewed differently than an 1800+ array with a different algorithm?Diagnosis will not differentiate payment. Payment is based on the accurate CPT/HCPCS codes submitted. However, if there are less than 500 probes in an array, CPT code 83999 must be used and MolDX will price the NOC code.
2. Does the DRG segregate the CPT code to a different payment?No.
3. Will ABN’s be valid with the unique identifier? The DEX Z-Code™ identifier is only additional information, not a billing code.
4. Will MolDX pay test services provided prior to the TA approval date?All new test services will be denied as noncovered until the test completes the TA process and reasonable and necessary criteria is established. Claims submission for tests in the TA process should be suspended until a final coverage determination is made.
5. If I already have a PTI for my test, how do I switch to a Z-Code Identifier so I can use the online TA feature? 
Send a request to switch the ID to 
MolDX@PalmettoGBA.com.
6. Is the reimbursement for a flow cytometry affected by MolDX?Palmetto GBA has an active LCD for Flow Cytometry and will continue to administer coverage as published in that policy the same as any other active policy.
Coverage Issues
1. Is a confirmatory FISH test a covered benefit?Confirmatory testing is considered a quality check and is not a covered Medicare benefit.
2. If a lab needs a denial for a noncovered test in order to bill a secondary payor, should they submit the test for MolDX registration?Yes.



MolDX Authority to Reset CLFS Prices Using Mod 22 (MolDX Manual)

MoldX Test Panel Edit Alert M00101, V4 12/31/2015

$
0
0
https://www.palmettogba.com/palmetto/moldx.nsf/docscat/MolDx%20Website~MolDx~Browse%20By%20Topic~General~Molecular%20Test%20Panel%20Edit%20Alert%20(M00101%20V4)


Molecular Test Panel Edit Alert (M00101, V4)

MolDX CPT code range affected: 81161-81408
Test Panel Definition: A predetermined set of medical tests composed of individual laboratory tests, related by medical condition, specimen type, frequency ordered, methodology or types of components to aid in the diagnosis/treatment of disease.
Palmetto considers the performance of multiple molecular biomarkers, regardless of whether the test requisition lists the tests as a panel or individually, and completed on a single sample to be a 'panel' of tests. Therefore, each panel should be registered and billed with a single CPT code and a unique MolDX identifier. Based on data analysis of MolDX claims, labs are submitting multiple biomarker 'panels' as individual tests similar to the submission of the previous stacking codes.
Example: A lab receives a patient specimen and performs the following tests:
  • CPT code 81225-CYP2C19, cv
  • CPT code 81240-F2, 20210G>A
  • CPT code 81241-F5, Leiden
The panel of three tests listed above should be registered and claims submitted with CPT code 81479 and a single MolDX ID. If the lab also performs one of the three panel’s biomarkers on patient specimens, each biomarker must also be registered and receive a unique ID to submit on claims when only that biomarker is performed. Again, a single CPT code should be billed with a unique ID.
To correct this example, the lab must register four tests and receive identifiers for MolDX claim submission:
Test #
Test Name
Biomarkers
ID
CPT Code
1
Clotting Test Panel
CYP2C19, cv
F2, 20210G>A
F5, Leiden
Z1234
81479
2
CYP2C19
CYP2C19, cv
Z5678
81225
3
F2, 20210G>A
F2, 20210G>A
ZA234
81240
4
F5, Leiden
F5, Leiden
ZA567
81241
Labs should register all panels and obtain a unique MolDX identifier for each panel. If a lab does NOT perform single biomarker tests, they must notify the registry of this registration error.

2015 GAO REPORT: CMS Could Restructure MAC Contracts (44p)

$
0
0
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669947.pdf\


This is a 44 page report from GAO, 2015, on the structure of MAC contracts.


For a window into MAC contracting bids, here.


In the report above, GAO writes:

CMS selected a cost-plus-award-fee contract structure for the MACs when it initially implemented contracting reform. This is a type of cost-reimbursement contract that allows the agency to provide financial incentives for achieving specific performance goals. While CMS has made modifications to its cost-plusaward-fee structure for MAC contracts—such as revising the performance metrics included in MACs’ award fee plans and adjusting the distribution of award fees across the metrics to promote performance in areas where MACs have performed poorly in the past—the agency has not formally revisited its MAC contracting approach since the implementation of contracting reform. Moreover, its assessment of alternative contracting approaches has been limited.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states that changing circumstances may make different contracting approaches more appropriate later in the course of a series of contracts or a long-term contract than they were at the outset. Further, CMS indicated in its 2007 MAC acquisition strategy that once a baseline cost and level of effort had been established, the agency would reassess whether the cost-plus-award-fee contract structure was still appropriate for the MACs.

There are a number of other contracting approaches that could be introduced within or in addition to the cost-reimbursement structure. Without formally assessing the potential benefits and risks of alternative contracting approaches, CMS may be missing opportunities to enhance MACs’ efficiency and effectiveness.

BRCA Math 2018 at 25,000 Utilization

$
0
0










Based on CY2016 utilization (about 25,000) and CY2018 PAMA predicted prices per CPT code.

_____

Ad Hoc numbers, if of interest:

Based on ad hoc numbers, there are about 20M women in Medicare FFS, and if there are 25,000 BRCA tests, that is 1 per 1000 Medicare women. 

There are about 250,000 new cases of breast cancer in the US per year.   Let's just guess that 1/2 are Medicare age, or about 100,000.   If Medicare does 25,000 BRCA tests, and only on Medicare women with breast cancer, that would be 1 per 4 Medicare women with new breast cancer. 

These are purely back of envelope numbers; better data is probably available but these would be in rough ballparks. 

Agenda for Frontiers Health Conference, Berlin, November 2017

$
0
0
https://www.frontiershealth.co/agenda



Nerdy Deep Dive on MSK IMPACT Approval Categories

$
0
0
This is a side bar to the main article, found here.
_______

De Novo Classification

The MSK IMPACT test was approved through a 510(k) De Novo pathway, which is familiar enough.  Classification letter here.

Regulatory Category 866.6080?

The letter classifies IMPACT as Regulatory Category 21 CFR 866.6080. 

Oddly enough, this category appears to be absent at eCFR, which I think of as the categorical reference for Code of Federal Regulations.   (Here, and look for 866.6080: the official CFR stops at 866.6060.)

However, the FDA's own website has a webpage for 866.6080, here.   It says the regulation was created on April 1, 2017.   This was a Saturday, a day when the Federal Register isn't published.  FDA just lists the name of the category, not further detail.

So 21 CFR 866.6080 appears to be a sort of phantom regulatory category --  found on the FDA's "CFR" page but not on the federal CFR page, despite having a claimed creation date of April 2017, plenty of time for the two sites to sync up.

Product Category PQM versus PQZ

Oncomine Target Dx is classed as Product Class PQP, "NGS Oncology Panel, somatic or germline variant detection system."   PQP is always a PMA submission.   See FDA webpage here.    Manufacturers using Class PQM include Illumina, Foundation, Thermo Fisher; see here.

Product Category PQZ has its own webpage also, here.   This is for  "Next generation sequencing based tumor profiling test."   It's classed as 510(k) based on 21 CFR 866.6080.  It is eligible for "Third Party Review," specifically, by the New York State Department of Health.

A PowerPoint that walks through all this with screen shots is here.




A MAC Statement of Work

$
0
0
Solicitation documents and elaborate statements of work for CMS MAC's are available online, because these are publicly solicited government bids.

The website for the Jurisdiction J MAC is here, at Federal Biz Opps.gov.

I've extracted the Solicitation here and the SOW here and archived them in the cloud.

Many readers of this blog are familiar with the Palmetto MOLDX program.  It doesn't seem to have a public SOW.   I tried to FOIA it; Palmetto GBA declined to release its SOW through FOIA, and CMS has acknowledged my request but may move in glacial time, if ever.




The 2017 Biosimilar Rule Revision

$
0
0
This is a sidebar article.  For our main blog, see DiscoveriesInHealthPolicy.com

###

CMS policy for biosimilar pricing had a major revision on November 2, 2017.

For the last several years, CMS had a policy to classify all biosimilars for a particular product under one code, and pay them at the quarter average sales price of the several biosimilars.   Since we don't have many or any categories with multiple biosimilars, this event hadn't really occured yet.

However, in big win for the biosimilar industry, CMS will begin categorizing each new biosimilar under its own HCPCS code from now forward (page 53348ff).
  • Under "bucket" coding for biosimilars, CMS would likely have had lower prices, due to drug-on-drug competition to create a profit margin for physicians, by one-upping each other to give the physician more margin under the CMS payment price for the quarter.  
    • For example, if a category pays $2000 for the biosimilar drug, each biosimilar would be incented to price for the physician at $1900, then $1800, then $1700, in a race to the bottom driven by competition to raise the physician's margin.
  • However, a sufficiently adverse marketplace would mean biosimilars would stand down and not enter the US marketplace at all, a genuine concern.   See RAPS, October 30, here.
  • CMS acknowledges that its change to biosimilar-specific coding will "address concerns about a stronger marketplace...encourage innovation to bring more products in the market."
    • Note that while CMS sets payment policies only for itself, it also controls all HCPCS codes.  So long as CMS staff had refused to even create unique HCPCS codes, any efforts to get a better market in other payer venues was a non-starter. 
  • Two other notes:
    • It's unusual that a change this large could be accomplished without a regulatory change.  The requisite regulation, 42 CFR 414.904(j), does require that all biosimilars that are coded together would get an average price.  414.904(j) does not say whether CMS must, or must not, issue codes that group more than 1 biosimilar together.   CMS says, basically, it was discretionary within the regulation to lump biosimilars in one HCPCS code yesterday, and it will be discretionary now to give each biosimilar its own code tomorrow.  
    • It's unusual in that the proposed policy discussion was quite short, and the final policy change and discussion was quite long.  Only in the final discussion did CMS reveal intentions and rationales in the final policy that couldn't have been guessed from the July proposal.
      • CMS used long term economic incentive thinking and found on balance it needed to encourage market entry and innovation.  
      • One might think of the legal economic analyses championed by Judge Richard Posner in many articles and books (here).
    • See July proposal, November final, and Regulation bundled together by me into one PDF file here.
These rules help with pricing of biosimilars. 

Note that in the actual market, products will try to differentiate themselves with delivery devices, apps, or other methods.   See the ENBREL special delivery device from Amgen, here.   See Amgen's special NEULASTA delivery timer pod device, here, the ONPRO injector.   The more biosimilars enter for a particular product, the more likely there is to be injector or other differentiation methods in competition to create improvements for physicians and patients.


Foundation Medicine Draft NCD (Operational Text)

$
0
0
https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-proposed-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=290&bc=ACAAAAAACAAAAA%3d%3d& 


A. General
Clinical laboratory diagnostic tests can include tests that, for example, predict the risk associated with one or more genetic variations. In addition, in vitro companion diagnostic laboratory tests provide a report of test results of genetic variations and are essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding therapeutic product. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is one technique that can measure one or more genetic variations as a laboratory diagnostic test, such as when used as a companion in vitro diagnostic test.
Patients with advanced cancer can have recurrent, metastatic, and/or stage IV disease. From results of clinical studies it has been shown that genetic variations in a patient’s cancer can, in concert with clinical factors, predict how each individual responds to specific treatments.
In application, a report of results of a diagnostic laboratory test using NGS (i.e., information on the cancer’s genetic variations) can contribute to predicting a patient’s response to a given drug: good, bad, or none at all. Applications of NGS to predict a patient’s response to treatment occurs ideally prior to initiation of the drug.
B. Nationally Covered Indications
Effective for services performed on or after [Month/XX] [Day/XX], [20XX]  CMS proposes that the evidence is sufficient to cover Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) as a diagnostic laboratory test, including the test results, when performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory and when ordered by a treating physician, and when both 1 and 2 are met.
1.  Patient has:
  1. recurrent, metastatic, or advanced stage IV cancer; and
  2. not been previously tested using the same NGS test; and
  3. decided to seek further cancer treatment (e.g., therapeutic chemotherapy)
2.  The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS meets all the following criteria:
  1. the test is an FDA-approved companion in vitro diagnostic; and
  2. the test is used in a cancer with an FDA-approved companion diagnostic indication; and
  3. the test provides an FDA-approved report of test results to the treating physician that specifies FDA-indicated treatment options for their patient’s cancer.
Results from this test must be used in the management of the patient to include guiding selection of treatments proven to improve health outcomes.
CMS proposes coverage with evidence development (CED) for NGS as a diagnostic laboratory test, including the test results, when performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory and when ordered by a treating physician and when both 1 and 2 are met.
1.  Patient has
  1. recurrent, metastatic, or advanced cancer; and
  2. not been previously tested using the same NGS test; and
  3. decided to seek further cancer treatment (e.g., therapeutic chemotherapy).
2.  The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS meets the criteria in section a or b below:
  1. The test is an FDA cleared or approved in vitro diagnostic, providing a report of test results to the treating physician who is using those results in the management of the patient’s cancer only if all the following requirements are met:

    1. The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS must be registered in the NIH Genetic Testing Registry (GTR).  All fields in the NIH GTR are required to be completed.

    2. The patient is enrolled in, and the furnishing laboratory is participating in, a prospective registry that consecutively enrolls patients, adheres to the standards of scientific integrity and relevance to the Medicare population as identified in section (B)(2)(c), and is designed to answer the following CED questions:

      • How do patient outcomes compare to either the initial clinical validation of the companion diagnostic or a cohort of controls receiving the same treatment?
      • How do the clinical characteristics of registry patients affect the clinical endpoints relative to those in initial clinical studies?

    3. The registry shall have a written executable analysis plan to address the CED questions (to appropriately address some questions, Medicare claims or other outside data may be necessary).  The registry shall make data available in a form and manner specified by CMS upon request.

    4. The registry must be able to identify the patient’s cancer type, stage, and extent of invasion and metastasis at baseline. 

    5. The registry shall track all of the following outcomes evaluated after each intervention:
      • Overall survival
      • Progression free survival
      • Objective response rate, definition must be consistent with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, including definitions of minimum size of measurable lesions, instructions on how many lesions to follow, and the use of anatomical assessments for overall evaluation of tumor burden. 
      • Patient-reported outcomes using measurement developed to evaluate symptomatic toxicity in patients on cancer clinical trials.

  2. The test is providing a report of test results to the treating physician who is using those results in the management of the patient’s cancer.  The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS is covered under CED only when all of the following requirements are met:

    1. The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS is provided to patients as a diagnostic test within an NIH-NCI National Clinical Trial Network clinical trial.  The trial shall adhere to the CED standards of scientific integrity and relevance to the Medicare population and identified in section (B)(2)(c), collect all data necessary, and have a written executable analysis plan and outcomes available in a form and manner specified by CMS upon request to address all of the following questions (to appropriately address some questions, Medicare claims or other outside data may be necessary):

      • How do patient outcomes compare to either the initial clinical validation of the companion diagnostic or a cohort of controls receiving the same treatment?
      • How do the clinical characteristics of registry patients affect the clinical endpoints relative to those in initial clinical studies?
    2. The diagnostic laboratory test using NGS must be registered in the NIH Genetic Testing Registry (GTR).  All fields in the NIH GTR are required to be completed.

  3. All CED studies must adhere to the following standards of scientific integrity and relevance to the Medicare population:

    1. The principal purpose of the research study is to test whether a particular intervention potentially improves the participants’ health outcomes.
    2. The research study is well-supported by available scientific and medical information or it is intended to clarify or establish the health outcomes of interventions already in common clinical use.
    3. The research study does not unjustifiably duplicate existing studies.
    4. The research study design is appropriate to answer the research question being asked in the study.
    5. The research study is sponsored by an organization or individual capable of executing the proposed study successfully.
    6. The research study is in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations concerning the protection of human subjects found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 45 CFR Part 46. If a study is regulated by the FDA, it also must be in compliance with 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56.
    7. All aspects of the research study are conducted according to the appropriate standards of scientific integrity.
    8. The research study has a written protocol that clearly addresses, or incorporates by reference, the Medicare standards.
    9. The clinical research study is not designed to exclusively test toxicity or disease pathophysiology in healthy individuals. Trials of all medical technologies measuring therapeutic outcomes as one of the objectives meet this standard only if the disease or condition being studied is life-threatening as defined in 21 CFR § 312.81(a) and the patient has no other viable treatment options.
    10. The clinical research study is registered on the www.ClinicalTrials.gov website by the principal sponsor/investigator prior to the enrollment of the first study subject.
    11. The research study protocol specifies the method and timing of public release of all pre-specified outcomes to be measured including release of outcomes if outcomes are negative or study is terminated early. The results must be made public within 24 months of the end of data collection. If a report is planned to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, then that initial release may be an abstract that meets the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. However, a full report of the outcomes must be made public no later than 3 years after the end of data collection.
    12. The research study protocol must explicitly discuss subpopulations affected by the treatment under investigation, particularly traditionally underrepresented groups in clinical studies, how the inclusion and exclusion criteria affect enrollment of these populations, and a plan for the retention and reporting of said populations on the trial. If the inclusion and exclusion criteria are expected to have a negative effect on the recruitment or retention of underrepresented populations, the protocol must discuss why these criteria are necessary.
    13. The research study protocol explicitly discusses how the results are or are not expected to be generalizable to the Medicare population to infer whether Medicare patients may benefit from the intervention. Separate discussions in the protocol may be necessary for populations eligible for Medicare due to age, disability or Medicaid eligibility.
Consistent with section 1142 of the Act, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) supports clinical research studies that meet the above-listed standards and address the above-listed research questions.
C. Nationally Non-Covered Indications
CMS proposes non-coverage of NGS as a diagnostic laboratory test when patients do not have the above-noted indications for cancer or when the test does not meet the above-noted criteria.
D. Other
N/A

CMS Payments to ASSUREX in CY2015, CY2016

$
0
0
CMS has a provider-specific data set for CY2015, and has released state-specific data for CY2016.

CY2015
Using the provider-specific data, NPI 1235363052, Assurex Health, received about $21M for payments from 9,840 services for code 81479 at $2177 per service.  Presumably, this is the CMS volume and payment rate for Genesight.

CY2016
CMS has released only state-level data for 2016 so far.  (Provider level data will be released in about 05/2018).

In Ohio, providers were paid about $28M for 13,067 Genesight services at about $2,170 per service.  This is presumably almost entirely Genesight payments, but final data won't be out until about 05/2018.

See picture below; click to enlarge.

click to enlarge

FMI NCD Questions to Address


CMS Releases Quality Measures Under Consideration; Hints at New Drug Payment Systems

$
0
0
CMS releases 32 new "measures under consideration" for quality metrics; Healthcare Dive December 4, with further links to CMS, here.

Fierce Healthcare covers Seema Verma remarks on new approaches to drug pricing, Fierce Healthcare December 5, here.


2014 MOLDX Statement of Work (Part of Palmetto JM Contract)

$
0
0
In 2014, Palmetto GBA won a competitive bid for Jurisdiction M, which includes in its statement of work a special section "C.7.38" for the "Molecular Diagnostic Test Project."

The recompete document archive is online at FedBizOpps, here.

The SOW is titled, "JM J.01 AB MAC Statement of Work 07 16 14.doc".  I've put a cloud copy here, and the SOW C.7.38 is clipped below (page 181 forward).

C.7.38.1 Develop Molecular Diagnostic Test Pricing Process

The Contractor will establish/maintain a documented process to detail a pricing for complex gene/mutation panels, new technology based tests, and multi-analyte assays with algorithmic analyses (MAAAs) that are not priced nationally. The process will enable analysis, coverage, and pricing strategy recommendations for these tests.

The Contractor shall compile and maintain a file of established molecular diagnostic tests defined by AMA CPT© Tier I and Tier II molecular pathology codes that are not nationally priced. This file will identify lab developed tests (LDTs) and FDA cleared tests.  The Contractor shall provide file updates on an as needed basis to the CMS COR and/or designee.

In addition to the master file, the Contractor will establish/maintain a documented process to detail a payment methodology for complex gene/mutation panels, new technology based tests, and multi-analyte assays with algorithmic analyses (MAAAs) that are not nationally priced. The process will enable the Contractor to evaluate and provide pricing recommendations for these tests.

The Contractor will append the current MoIDx activity with the following responsibilities:
  • ·       Review/update the file on a quarterly basis
  • ·       Assist CMS in all efforts to address pricing and coverage challenges

 

C.7.38.2 Maintain Master Test Registry [aka Z codes]

Maintain a Master Test Registry with a user interface that allows test providers an avenue to register individual tests and allow stakeholders a tool to look-up registered tests.  The Master Test Registry will enable the following functions:
  • ·       Create and/or adopt, and maintain a unique identifier (code) for each unique test
  • ·       Provide an automated registration process that enables submission of all required information in a standardized, electronic format
  • ·       Maintain an online test listing resource for registered test look-up
  • ·       Safeguard required proprietary data elements

C.7.38.3 Review of Evidence

To support the efficient review of tests in light of the rapid technological advancements in the MoIDx industry, the Contractor will establish a consistent methodology which the Contractor will use for reviewing evidence for requested test indications. The methodology will use an evidence framework that is consistent with the ACCE criteria developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the evaluation of genetic tests. 

The Contractor shall consider the analyses articulated from 2009 onward in national coverage determinations (NCDs) pertaining to molecular diagnostic tests to be examples of the application of the ACCE criteria to Medicare coverage. The Contractor will establish methods to collect and analyze claims data. As requested, the Contractor will provide recommendations to CMS regarding local coverage variation and system edits.

C.7.38.4 Develop Master Edit File

The Contractor will expand the current file developed through the J1 MoIDx work [California] and prepare this file for shared system (SS) integration. Once the SS edit module is complete and activated, on a quarterly basis the Contractor will produce and submit to CMS a Master Edit File for MAC distribution. This file will include all necessary identifier/CPT/NPI crosswalks, coverage assigned and any non-fee-schedule pricing required. To develop this file the Contractor will perform the following tasks:
  • ·       Review all newly registered tests
  • ·       Establish price (non-fee schedule)/coverage by ID
  • ·       Develop a list of recommended edits including but not limited to the following as appropriate:

o   Frequency
o   ID to procedure code editing
o   ID to ICD-9-CM/ICD-10
o   LCD recommendations
  • ·       Assist CMS in the development and maintenance for Shared System (MCS/FISS) edits to utilize the MoIDx Master Edit File.

C.7.38.5 Prescribed Methodology of Evidentiary Review for Complex Molecular Tests, New Test Methodologies

The Contractor, with an established network of technical and clinical experts, will employ recognized and generally accepted technical assessment methods to perform the following tasks:

  • ·       Create a complete submission process for all supporting application documentation that includes information needed to make evidence based coverage decisions for each test. Maintain the submitted documentation in a retrievable format that supports evidence based decision making.
  • ·       Maintain appropriate evidence/administrative records connected to all coverage policies and make this information readily available to CMS upon request.
  • ·       Publish and maintain any LCDs and related articles on the Medicare Coverage Database.
  • ·       Maintain the submitted documentation in a test specific retrievable format that supports the medical review process.
  • ·       When the available evidence is insufficient to support coverage for routine use in some indications, consider whether the use of the test for beneficiaries enrolled in certain clinical studies will support beneficiary access to covered testing for one or more of those indications. Approved clinical studies would:

o   Be registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov; and
o   Have a methodologically appropriate study protocol to answer the relevant evidence questions regarding beneficiary health outcomes; and
o   Provide assurance that findings are published peer-reviewed clinical literature; and
o   Provide CMS with interim and final data as requested.
·       Provide 1st level of appeals “white papers” that support evidence based decision making for non-covered molecular assays.

C.7.38.6 Ongoing MoIDX Program Education

To support the MoIDX Program, the Contractor will develop a robust educational program to perform the following tasks:
  • ·       Develop program launch materials
  • ·       Develop MoPath correct coding manual
  • ·       Create educational articles for MAC/CMS
  • ·       Provide MAC and Provider Community SME POCs



Foundation Medicine PMA Approval Summary (Product Group PQP)

$
0
0
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma_template.cfm?id=p170019


DeviceFoundationOne CDxClassification NameNext Generation Sequencing Oncology Panel, Somatic Or Germline Variant Detection SystemGeneric NameNext Generation Sequencing Oncology Panel, Somatic Or Germline Variant Detection SystemApplicant
Foundation Medicine, Inc.
150 Second Street, 1st Floor
Cambridge, MA 02141
PMA NumberP170019Date Received06/02/2017Decision Date11/30/2017Product Code
PQPRegistered Establishments With PQP ]

Advisory CommitteePathology

Expedited Review Granted?Yes

Combination ProductNo

Approval Order Statement 

p170019

FoundationOne CDx™ (F1CDx) is a next generation sequencing based in vitro diagnostic device for detection of substitutions, insertion and deletion alterations (indels), and copy number alterations (CNAs) in 324 genes and select gene rearrangements, as well as genomic signatures including microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) using DNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue specimens.

The test is intended as a companion diagnostic to identify patients who may benefit from treatment with the targeted therapies listed in Table 1 in accordance with the approved therapeutic product labeling.

Additionally, F1CDx is intended to provide tumor mutation profiling to be used by qualified health care professionals in accordance with professional guidelines in oncology for patients with solid malignant neoplasms. The F1CDx assay is a single-site assay performed at Foundation Medicine, Inc.

Table 1: Companion diagnostic indicationsIndication Biomarker TherapyNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) EGFR exon 19 deletions and EGFR exon 21 L858R alterations Gilotrif® (afatinib),Iressa® (gefitinib), orTarceva® (erlotinib) EGFR exon 20 T790M alterations Tagrisso® (osimertinib) ALK rearrangements Alecensa® (alectinib),Xalkori® (crizotinib), orZykadia® (ceritinib) BRAF V600E Tafinlar® (dabrafenib) in combination with Mekinist® (trametinib)Melanoma BRAF V600E Tafinlar® (dabrafenib) or Zelboraf® (vemurafenib) BRAF V600E and V600K Mekinist® (trametinib) or Cotellic® (cobimetinib) in combination with Zelboraf® (vemurafenib) Breast cancer ERBB2 (HER2) amplification Herceptin® (trastuzumab), Kadcyla® (ado-trastuzumab-emtansine), orPerjeta® (pertuzumab)Colorectal cancer KRAS wild-type (absence of mutations in codons 12 and 13) Erbitux® (cetuximab) KRAS wild-type (absence of mutations in exons 2, 3, and 4) and NRAS wild type (absence of mutations in exons 2, 3, and 4) Vectibix® (panitumumab)Ovarian cancer BRCA1/2 alterations Rubraca® (rucaparib)

How FDA Approved KEYTRUDA for All Solid Tumors based on MSI status

$
0
0
In 2017, FDA approved KEYTRUDA for all solid cancers based on LDT "MSI" status ("locally developed PCR tests for MSI-H").

Labeling here
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/125514s014lbl.pdf


Clinical study table 24, table 25, page 41.  In colorectal cancer, N=90, ORR rises from 36% to 46%.  But Duration of Responses rises from 1.6 months to 22 months.

Other cancers were studied - in total 59, of which 14 endometrial, 11 biliary, 9 gastric, etc.  Many cases were studied N of 1.  There were variable but meaningful increases in ORR but big increases in DOR.

Click to enlarge.





Consultants Corner: Successful Deck Used in Changing the CMS 14 Day Rule

$
0
0
This deck came from a July 2017 article in AXIOS by Bob Herman, here.  For some additional follow-up, here.  For my cloud copy of the deck in case the original goes away, here.

A group of industry and association stakeholders met with CMS in May 2017 to discuss long-postponed and much-needed changes to the 14 Day Rule.  Below, I use the document's pagination (large numbers on the pages).   This PPT and meeting didn't sway CMS alone; there were many other touchpoints and stakeholders involved over a couple years.   But since this deck was associated with a success, it's probably worth study.

  1. The title is "The Impact of the Date of Service 14 Day Rule."  So the "point" is "The Impact" and the "topic" is the 14DR.
  • The stakeholders were Biodesix, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Guardant Health, LUNGevity, Myriad Genetics, Veracyte.  
  • Slide 2 is a detailed OVERVIEW with three sections, about ten bullet points, and a concluding signal to the "recommendation" or ask.
    • So if you walk out after slide 2, you know everything the meeting was about.
  • Slide 3 is a detailed "history of the problem" from 2001-2017.
  • Slide 4 actually explains the whole 14DR, with a lot of text, but in a friendly "[Question]?"format.
    • Note they chose to place "the history of the problem" ahead of "what the 14DR is."  In part, they could be confident the people they were talking to knew what 14DR was.   On the other hand, and we don't know, if this was a meeting with The Administrator, rather than mid level policy staffers, you couldn't assume that content knowledge.
  • Slide 5 is clinical:"Impact on Lung Cancer Outcomes."  ("Delay in treatment can result in worse outcomes, ^tiny journal footnote.")
    • "Impact" here echoes the title of the whole deck.
  • Slide 6 is similar, but colorectal cancer.
  • Slide 7 is a fancy flow chart infographic of the whole landscape presented visually and organized L to R by time.
    • Is the message "here's how the Swiss watch works" or "This damn thing you've created is more complex than a Swiss watch! It hurts my eyes!"
  • "Consequences of These Billing Policies." Three bold categories, visual, "Inconsistent billing,""Beneficiary Access Problems,""Reduced Efficacy of Treatment" due to 14DR delay.
    • From "Impact" to "Consequences."
  • Slide is titled, "Real World Examples" but consists of a bullet description of the 7 stakeholders.  Possibly this slide was a "backdrop" for a planned discussed segment with a script for each stakeholder.
    • Make the problem real.  Tell a story.
  • "Evaluating the DOS Rule Effects."  This is actually a short description of a CMS demo (requested by Congress) in 2012-2014, reported in 2016, that had no conclusions.
    • Years go by and you CMS do nothing.  At the least, do the following, next slide:
  • ASK Recommend that CMS Solicit Comments on DOS in Proposed Regulation."   Flagged for CMS what points to request comment on.   Stakeholders, in this deck, did not tell CMS what an "edit" or "redline" should be.
  • "Additional Outreach."   Coalition has a broad swatch of Hill meetings and has previously met with CMS at different level, and with groups like OMB.  Notably, the group had already also formally asked in 2016 that CMS take public comment on 2017, the same ask that is already on record and being repeated in this deck.
  • "The Landscape of Precision Diagnostics."  Unclear why this occurs here, but it states that typical precision medicine tests are by a "lab that is unaffiliated with a hospital and specialized in one type of molecular testing."   It states that "some" ADLTs are performed by a "single laboratory" but I think all ADLTs must be sole source.
  • Landing slide; Simple "Thank you" (not an ask or other message.)
  • Viewing all 814 articles
    Browse latest View live