Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

FDA-CMS Parallel Review – a failed attempt at spurring innovation

FDA-CMS Parallel Review – a failed attempt at spurring innovation The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Parallel Review program that offers simultaneous review of the Food and Drug Administration premarket approval submissions and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) national coverage determinations (NCDs) of medical devices.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes the impact of Parallel Review on medical device innovation, focusing in particular on the causes for low popularity of the program among medical device manufacturers. Program outcomes are evaluated in the light of its intended goals.FindingsThe paper identifies four reasons for the program’s limited impact. First, few devices are eligible to participate. Second, most manufacturers prefer to seek Medicare reimbursement at the local level as less risky than the CMS NCDs. Third, participation in the Parallel Review might actually delay the marketing of the device. Fourth, the program does not address numerous obstacles that device sponsors currently encounter. While giving the appearance of support for the medical device innovation, the policy falls short on its intended goals.Originality/valueThis paper elucidates the challenges to internal reform and serves as a reminder to political economists and health care researchers that to make disruptive innovation possible, we must continue to illuminate the otherwise unseen cost of marketing delays and document the ability of emergent market mechanisms to protect consumer safety. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Enterpreneurship and Public Policy Emerald Publishing

FDA-CMS Parallel Review – a failed attempt at spurring innovation

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/fda-cms-parallel-review-a-failed-attempt-at-spurring-innovation-dybBrNvq30
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
2045-2101
DOI
10.1108/jepp-d-18-00059
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Parallel Review program that offers simultaneous review of the Food and Drug Administration premarket approval submissions and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) national coverage determinations (NCDs) of medical devices.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes the impact of Parallel Review on medical device innovation, focusing in particular on the causes for low popularity of the program among medical device manufacturers. Program outcomes are evaluated in the light of its intended goals.FindingsThe paper identifies four reasons for the program’s limited impact. First, few devices are eligible to participate. Second, most manufacturers prefer to seek Medicare reimbursement at the local level as less risky than the CMS NCDs. Third, participation in the Parallel Review might actually delay the marketing of the device. Fourth, the program does not address numerous obstacles that device sponsors currently encounter. While giving the appearance of support for the medical device innovation, the policy falls short on its intended goals.Originality/valueThis paper elucidates the challenges to internal reform and serves as a reminder to political economists and health care researchers that to make disruptive innovation possible, we must continue to illuminate the otherwise unseen cost of marketing delays and document the ability of emergent market mechanisms to protect consumer safety.

Journal

Journal of Enterpreneurship and Public Policy – Emerald Publishing

Published: Nov 18, 2019

Keywords: Pilot program for Parallel Review of medical products; Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Medical devices; Premarket approval; National coverage determinations; Local coverage determinations; Innovation; H75; I18

References

  • Did Medicare induce pharmaceutical innovation?
    Acemoglu, D.; Cutler, D.; Finkelstein, A.; Linn, J.
  • Bedside bureaucrats: why Medicare Reform hasn’t worked
    Bagley, N.
  • Market size and innovation: effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development
    Blume-Kohout, M.E.; Sood, N.
  • Medicare Coverage Determination Process
  • National coverage determinations (NCDs) alphabetical index
  • Medicare covers the majority of FDA-approved devices and Part B drugs, but restrictions and discrepancies remain
    Chambers, J.D.; Katherine, E.M.; Peter, J.N.
  • Medicare is scrutinizing evidence more tightly for national coverage determinations
    Chambers, J.D.; Chenoweth, M.; Cangelosi, M.J.; Pyo, J.; Cohen, J.T.; Neumann, P.J.
  • Exact sciences shares plunge, questions arise for insurers, doctors
    Engel, J.
  • Exact sciences announces final national coverage determination for Cologuard®
  • The aggregate effects of health insurance: evidence from the introduction of Medicare
    Finkelstein, A.
  • Parallel Review of medical products
  • Learn if a medical device has been cleared by FDA for marketing
  • FDA approves first non-invasive DNA screening test for colorectal cancer
  • Premarket approval (PMA)
  • The FDA’s drug review process: ensuring drugs are safe and effective
  • FDA announces approval, CMS proposes coverage of first breakthrough-designated test to detect extensive number of cancer biomarkers
  • Quality-and-safety assurance: how voluntary social processes remedy their own shortcomings
    Klein, D.B.
  • FDA looks to bring payers to the table at device pre-submission meetings
    Mezher, M.
  • FDA, CMS: second Parallel Review decision ever for NGS test
    Mezher, M.
  • Medicare’s enduring struggle to define ‘reasonable and necessary’ care
    Neumann, P.J.; Chambers, J.D.
  • Parallel Review evolves: FDA expands from pilot to considering private payers
    Pavlovic, Y.; Halpern, B.
  • Medical Treatment, Out of Reach
    Pollack, A.
  • Technology diffusion and productivity growth in health care
    Skinner, J.; Staiger, D.
  • Reimbursement strategies for new technologies
    Stark, N.J.; Jaeger, V.
  • Cost to develop and win marketing approval for a new drug is $2.6 billion
  • Parallel Review expands. But will it get more participants?
    Weixel, N.