Thursday, July 1, 2021

Very Brief Blog: AMA Updates PLA Codes Through July 1, 2021; Plus, New Cat III Codes.

AMA takes applications for PLA proprietary lab codes quarterly, and posts the final codes at the end of the quarter.   So, the April PLA applications have now been finalizing and posted by the AMA as a July 1, 2021, update.   

Separately, see AMA update of Category III codes too, including several in digital health - here.

____

PLA web page here:

https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-pla-codes

Current July 1, 2021 update PDF here:

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/cpt-pla-codes-long.pdf

AMA posts a "running total" of codes since the last AMA annual book.   So the July 1 list of PLA codes includes all those that have been finalized since the January 2021 annual book.  For example, the current new PLA PDF includes a number of August 2020 PLA codes for COVID, because they missed the deadline for the January 2021 book.  Entirely new codes, first released July 1, start with 0255U and run up to 0284U.

AMA notes the current revisions include:

  • Revision of 0051U; deletion of 0139U, 0168U, and addition of codes 0255U-0284U.



Nerd Tidbit

These PLA codes were submitted to AMA around April 1, released in draft for comment in mid April, and finalized by AMA at the early May AMA CPT meeting.   With release on the AMA website on July 1.  However, for each spring quarter the AMA release on July 1 is always anticlimactic, because the same PLA codes entered the CMS summer pricing process and were published by CMS around May 25.

Very Brief Blog: CMS Posts 238-page Slide Deck from Annual Lab Meeting, Pricing, Public Comment

Earlier, I posted an unofficial full-length transcript of the June 24, 2021, CMS Annual Lab Meeting, which was a day of public comment on new lab test pricing.   My blog here.

Here's a newly released link to the 238 page slide deck comprising all public comments.

The CMS version is 120 mb, I downsampled the PDF file to 4 mb which seems to look about the same, and put in my own cloud link here.

CMS version:

https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cms-clfs-alm-6-24-21-slide-set.pdf



Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Very Brief Blog: Medicare Updates Its "COVID SNAPSHOT" Public Data

Medicare periodically updates its 15- to 20-page PDF of data around COVID.   Much of it is normalized to cases per 100K based on race, Dual-Beneficiary status, and geography.   A new file has been released based on data through April 24, as received by May 21:

https://www.cms.gov/files/document/medicare-covid-19-data-snapshot-fact-sheet.pdf

The death rate among all hospitalized Medicare COVID patients was 17%. 

___

On a separate note, I stumbled across some data where I live, Los Angeles County, that current COVID cases (including Delta) are enormously concentrated in a few cities out on the northern, high-desert, rim of LA County.  Notes here.   As has been true throughout the pandemic, cases are very sparse in upscale areas of LA County like Santa Monica.   (Palmdale, two weeks, 209 cases; Santa Monica, two weeks, 16.)



Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Very Brief Blog: Is United Healthcare's Policy Listing a Great Source for MolDx Policies?

A few months ago, Xifin published a blog that United Healthcare would begin using MolDx Z-codes (here), presumably through a licensed arrangement.   (United had announced a separate, non-Z-code test registry last summer - here).   I was googling for any updates to the MolDx/UHC relationship, and I hit a number of articles bringing UHC and MolDx together.   (I didn't any updates, besides that Xifin article, on Moldx and UHC).


UHC Provides Long Tables of Hyperlinked MolDx Articles

UHC has a 21-page document and a 52-page document that, in general, provide hotlinked libraries of related MolDx policies, for example, the policies published under separate index numbers by Palmetto, Noridian, WPS, and CGS.   

  • See UHC Genetic Testing here.
  • See UHC Molecular Pathology here.
For example, for blood group molecular typing, the Genetic Testing article gives you a nice row with the Palmetto, Noridian, CGS, and WPS articles on that topic nicely in a row.  (Noridian usually has 2 article numbers, one for CA/HI/NV and one for the Mountain states).  In those cases where there is a related LCD from the non-MolDx MACs, they will also be listed.  

Handy to know, and especially handy the codes are all hyperlinked.


You'll notice some quirks where Noridian has coverage documents on the same topic but they are LCDs in other MolDx MACs and a long "article" with the same text in the Noridian MAC.   (My insight, as far as I have one, here.)




  

Very Brief Blog: CMS Prices Cat III Codes for OPPS (Outpatient) Setting, July 2021

 I don't always mention, but CMS issues frequent updates to hospital outpatient coding and pricing, as new codes are creating.  Sometimes these are worth tracking.  For example, CMS may place new CPT codes, especially new Category III CPT codes by crosswalking them to outpatient pricing tiers ("APC" pricing), well ahead of the time CMS Part B assigns conventional RVUs.

For example, in CR12316 here, CMS provides rapid APC pricing for Cat III codes 0640T-0670T.   Sometimes MACs find and use this APC pricing as an index towards their local pricing of Cat III codes.



Very Brief Blog: FDA Posts Still More Aduhelm Documents

 A week ago, FDA posted some internal review documents on the home page for aducanumab (Aduhelm).   At that time there were three; now there are a total of six.   

These include the full-length review of clinical pharmacology and of statistics.  (Pretty long versions were presented at the November 2020 Ad Comm meeting; but these are the "full, final" versions as of June 2021.)

Article at Endpoints here.  The FDA home page for ADU is here.  

The released FDA documents are these:

 FDA Application Review Files

Monday, June 28, 2021

HHS: July 19: Meeting on "Implications Posed by Aducanumab" for Alzheimer's; PLUS "Closed-Door" Meeting at Duke


Update - A rough computer generated transcript is in the cloud, here.


####

HHS First Meeting on Aduhelm  - July 19, 2021

The Department of Health and Human Services has a longstanding Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services.

The Council will meet to discuss "the implications and opportunities presented by the approval of aducanumab [Aduhelm] on July 19, 2021.   A very brief meeting announcement has been posted in the Federal Register.

  • See the home page for the Council here.
  • See the agenda page for all meetings, here.
  • The last meeting was on May 5, 2021 here.
  • See the placeholder webpage for the new July 19 meeting here.
  • See the Federal Register webpage for the meeting announcement, here.
  • The prepublication PDF is here, the Federal Register paginated announcement is to appear June 29.
The meeting will be held on July 19, 2021 from 12:30pm to 4:30pm EST.  The meeting will be virtual, streaming live at www.hhs.gov/live.  Public comments will be allowed (2 minutes) from 4 to 4:30 pm.  Register to comment by emailing NAPA@hhs.gov.  Please submit your written copy of oral comments by July 20.   Alternatively, submit written comments only to the same email.

As stated above, the only remark on Aduhelm is a brief phrase, "the implications and opportunities presented by the approval of aducanumab" will be considered.


Headline:
"Duke to host private meeting with payers and biopharma on how to pay for Alzheimer's drugs"

Separately, Endpoints reports that "at the request of the FDA" the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy will hold a "closed door meeting" to discuss "to convene public and private payers, clinicians, academics, patient groups, and industry" to discuss "coverage and evidence challenges" for A-beta drugs as a class.   It's unusual for FDA to go very far in convening meetings on "coverage" and they usually take themselves to be their own gold standard for "evidence."  Article here.







Saturday, June 26, 2021

Very Brief Blog: Reducing Hereditary Cancer Act Introduced by Congr. Wasserman-Schultz

One of the major quirks of Medicare policy is that the agency feels it can pay for hereditary cancer risk testing only if a patient has already been diagnosed with cancer.   For example, a woman who is a Medicare beneficiary with three close relatives with breast cancer does not qualify for BRCA testing, but a woman with three close relatives with breast cancer can be tested after SHE personally develops breast cancer.   

This is unique to Medicare; woman in commercial health plans would qualify for BRCA testing based on USPSTF and HHS guidelines for implementing required preventive services.

  • On June 23, 2021, legislation to correct this was introduced into Congress by Representative Wasserman-Schultz of Florida.   It's bill HR 4110 in the current 117th Congress.   Read it here.  
    • Note: I've posted the link; the legislation text wasn't visible online yet as of June 26.
  • Press release, dateline June 23, at Wasserman-Schultz website here.
  • See discussion at the website of FORCE, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered - here.  
  • The Medicare benefit would be linked to major clinical guidelines, such as NCCN.

_________

There are two arguments in play more generally in this area.   

One argument today is that persons with high familial risk should have testing (as per USTPF for example) for management of their risk, their schedule of colonoscopy or mammography, etc.   This management should be able to commence before a personal history of cancer.

A different argument, and it's separate, is when, whom, what to test after a diagnosis of cancer.  There have been multiple large studies (here) that after a diagnosis or breast or colon cancer, the risk of finding actionable genetics is just not much different with or without a high family history of cancer.  Therefore, the argument goes, it would be more rationale to predicate this testing on the patient's personal history of cancer, even if a family history is not present in the available data.   

___

And yet another twist in the field is that in some cancers, like colorectal cancer, testing of the cancer may include mismatch repair genes (MMR genes) which cause microsatellite instability (MSI) which is medically necessary testing for some types of treatment selection.   

The MMR/MSI findings may be of germline or somatic origin, but are used to guide present therapy choices, so hereditary risk is not invoked as "the" reason for testing the same hereditary risk genes.   Another way of reaching the same point is to argue that germline testing (including hereditary oncogenes) is necessary to properly interpret the results and actions following comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of the tumor tissue.

___

Readers may have notice that a woman who is 64 with three breast cancer relatives is covered for BRCA testing now, per national preventive benefits under the ACA and USPSTF, and should get it now, because she won't be covered when she turns 65 next year and flips into Medicare coverage.

___

I've summarized what I think I understand, below.  

Current 

A:  Medicare covers genetic risk screening for patients with a personal history of cancer AND a family risk history.

B:  USPSTF/ACA covers women without breast cancer but with a high risk family history, for BRCA testing (here). This applies to commercial insurance under the ACA but doesn't apply to Medicare.

C:  FORCE bill, newly proposed, provides CMS hereditary gene coverage based on preventive guidelines, e.g. NCCN.

D:  Some currently argue that patients with cancer, but with or without a family history on the record, all have enough genetic risk to justify genetic testing.  Data for genetic findings "in guidelines" and "outside" guidelines justify this.   In fact, it's become dated to refer to this testing as "outside guidelines" in that at least one major guideline already now includes women with breast cancer with or without family history (here, here).

E:  Some argue for population-wide screening of certain risk genes, e.g. BRCA, regardless of family history or personal cancer history.

click to enlarge



Unofficial PDF Transcript of June 24, 2021 CMS Annual Lab Meeting (Pricing New Lab Tests)

On June 24, 2021, CMS held an all-day public comment meeting on the pricing of some 100 new lab test codes for 2022.  

  • Find a unique unofficial transcript of the publicly streamed meeting - 
    • CLOUD TRANSCRIPT here.
    • 89 pp.
    • Update: DECK OF MEETING HERE.
  • Find the CMS home page for the meeting day, here.
  • CMS will host an expert panel on the same topic, July 28-29, find it here.



Friday, June 25, 2021

Very Brief Blog: BMJ Publishes Data on US Life Expectancy, COVID, Race

There is endless data on the impact of COVID on minority and economically disadvantaged groups in the US; I put up one blog showing data from CMS's own public website (December 2020; here).

See a June 24, 2021 paper in BMJ on the impact of COVID on life expectancy on US populations.  

A key graphic shows -3.88YR life expectancy loss for Hispanics and a -3.25YR life expectancy loss for African Americans, comparing 2020 to historical data for 2018.  (The US average life expectancy loss was -1.9YR.)  BMJ op ed here.



Although Google serves up some news hits for this story, it seemed fairly thin (an ABC News article here.)

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Very Brief Blog: The Washington Post's Correlation of Vax Rate and Covid Cases

On June 14, 2021, the WaPo ran an article headlined, "Coronavirus infections are dropping where people are vaccinated, rising where they are not," here.  

Is that true overall, and statistically significant?  Yes.  Figure here:

Cases tend toward upper left, lower right

States tend to map out toward the upper left and lower right, following the commonsense rule, more vax, less COVID.   

However, there's also a lot of noise; OK and TN share weak Vax rates with WY and NV, but the OK and TN have much lower COVID incidence. (The Y-axis is cases per 100K per day, the range currently around 1 to 10).

Update: New York Times Data

I was looking at today's NYT online data of similar rates, and put them into Excel for the 50 states and DC and PR.   I got a simple Excel correlation of -0.5 (negative zero point five), which is surely statistically significant but still leaves a broad "cloud" of data points.  See the screen shot below.  

States with a favorable case rate of 1 or 2 can come in anywhere from 35% to 65% vaccinated.  Some states with well above average vaccination rates (OR, WA around 55%) come in far above average in cases (at 6).  

Excel; Cloud link

Last Fall's Peak and Plummet in Dakotas

I remember being struck by COVID data last fall of a colossal rise in case rates in the Dakotas, followed by a rapid drop (around Oct/Nov), despite a reluctance to change most local laws.   And then California had a skyrocketing rate last December/January, still rising well into January, despite a new and severe lockdown starting in mid-November (you literally couldn't sit by yourself outside a Starbucks, let alone inside, and masking in our big wide-open city parks was essentially 100%).   

We Went Through Drastic Differences in School Rules

I saw a chart very recently that 30-40% of U.S. kids remained in school this school year just ended (I believe mostly in Southern states) all year, whereas schools around Los Angeles where I live were locked out from March 2020 right through til May/June this year.  Very different norms from place to place. 

Covid in the Air: Breathing vs Talking vs Singing

There was a very interesting paper by Bazant and Bush in PNAS this spring suggesting that breathing transmits very little COVID, much higher with speaking, and much much higher with singing (or, of course, coughing - here; graphic below).   Essayist Holman Jenkins remarked in WSJ, "in a state that weeks ago successfully vaccinated its 50-plus population, I saw an elderly couple driving alone in their car masked up like they were venturing into a Yunnan bat cave."  (NPR on bat caves last week.)  He was making the point we badly need better COVID public education; I'm often left wondering that doesn't fully sink in how much we probably still don't know.

Bazant 2021; Singing (top), quiet breathing (bottom)

Will Different Covid Rates Impact Behavior, Or Will We Just Live With Them?

If we develop a situation with high Delta Covid rates in low-vax regions, will that spur behavior change?   The final real-world proof?   It's not clear what will happen, or, how we'll react.   Scott Gottlieb argues June 27 that we may see harsh pockets of Delta outbreaks in low-vaccinated areas (here).   That's both possible and may be likely, but I'd just say, we don't know for sure.   If that happens, what will  happen next?  Will it be the smoking gun that causes behavior change?   Again, maybe or maybe not.   Witness that we roll on for decades with lung cancer rates 3-4X higher in some states than others, for example.  We just live with that.  Could we see the same for Covid, with some sharply identified areas just rolling on with low vax and high Delta?   Maybe, but my main point is, it's hard to know.   

Lung cancer deaths: From 15 in Utah to 80 in WV




____

[*]
Footnote.
This chart was designed to show the reader the rise in school attendance in the second half of the year (blue line). But living in a near-zero-school state, I was struck to be reminded by the "yellow line" that 30-40% of kids nationally were always in school this academic year - here.


Local to Los Angeles County, where I live, we have a current epidemic that is far, far higher in several northern cities, Santa Clarita, Palmdale, Lancaster.  For example, Palmdale had 209 cases the past 2 weeks, whereas Santa Monica and Pacific Palisades, upscale Westside neighborhoods with roughly similar population, had only 16 cases.  I made notes and some graphics here.


Very Brief Blog: VALID Act for Regulating LDTs Is Re-Introduced

In May, Rand Paul re-introduced his VITAL Act, which builds a wall around the FDA preventing it from regulating LDTs.  AMP, Association of Pathology Chairs, and others voiced support - here.

On June 24, 2021, Burr, Bennet, DeGette, and Bucshon, representing both House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats, re-introduced the VALID Act, which would reform FDA regulation of both IVD's and LDTs to a considerable extent, while introducing risk-based FDA oversight of LDTs.

  • Find the press release here.
  • Find the plain-English six-age summary here.
  • Find the legislative language here.
    • The full act weighs in at 245 pages, 46,000 words.
    • The 2020 version S3404 was only 38,000 words.
I had a chance to be a coauthor of a paper on budgetary impacts of the VALID act, under several different implementation assumptions - Huang et al., here.

Trade journal Healthcare Dive, here.

__

Redline?  How'd they get from 38,000 words to 46,000 words

I attempted to use MS Word to make a "redline" of the March 2020 version of VALID - as S.3404 - and the June 2021 release, provided in the Congressional weblink above.  The result is pretty clumsy, but if of interest, I've put in the cloud here.  I haven't made sense of it, but I did see the topline result that the S3404 March 2020 version was 38,000 words, and the new online version is 46,000 words, so something clearly was going on.




Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Very Brief Blog: FDA Releases 100 pp of Memos on Aduhelm, the New Alzheimer Drug

 When the monoclonal biological ADUHELM got accelerated approval on June 7, 2021, I provided a set of links to the higher than typical number of documents the FDA released - original blog here.

Two weeks later, on June 22, the FDA released an additional 100 pages, in 3 PDFs, of memos, data analyses, and rationales for the approval.   Stories on this topic ran in Stat and Reuters, but it was hard to find the original links. I've added the new documents as an update to the June 7 blog and I'm also posting the links here.

Update: 

  • On June 22, 2021, FDA released one 80-page PDF and two shorter PDFs about the ADU review process at FDA.  
  • Stories highlighted this at Stat and Reuters, and USNews, but didn't link to the documents.  
  • Find the new documents at the FDA home page for ADU, in the lower right, under "FDA Application Review Files."

WSJ here.  Fierce Biotech here.


Two senators have called for a hearing about Aduhelm, here.  Hill letters circulating here.

June 22, 2021: House Legislators Offer Plans for "21st Century Cures, 2.0"

In the waning December days of the Obama administration, House and Senate passed "21st Century Cures," a set of FDA modernizations (and a few CMS updates) that garnered wide praise.

On June 22, 2021, see a press release and online documents that describe a wide-ranging "21st Century Cures 2.0."  

Press here.  It's sponsored by Rep. Degette (D-CO) and Rep. Upton (R-MI).  (See also some earlier points and themees in a April 2020 webpage on 21CC, here.) 

There's more stuff.  There is a concept document for a $6B translational research and innovation agency to be called ARPA - find that by Francis Collins et al. at Science.

A 120-page version of draft legislation is here.  

A four-page highlights reel is here.


PUBLIC COMMENT:

Please send feedback/comments to Cures2@mail.house.gov by July 16. 

I've produced a separate nerdy blog, sort of a sidebar or text box, which some readers might find of interest, comparing prior breakthrough bill HR5333, the CMS MCIT regulation, and the new 21CC proposal.  Find that sidebar here.

Return of the MCIT: Requires Close Reading, Though

Section 307 sort of recreates the MCIT (Medicare Coverage for Innovative Technologies) rule that was finalized by the Trump Administration and critiqued and put on hold by the Biden administration.  However, Section 307 is quite long and takes a number of new twists not found in the MCIT rulemaking, so it will take a while to fully digest this.  (For example, there's a section that deals with new FDA breakthrough devices that are not already in any existing Medicare benefit category - wow. And a section alludes to a breakthrough lab test being paid higher than the regular crosswalk amount, but it's vague what that higher amount would be.  See some nerd notes in a side bar here.)    

Do read this with the knowledge that the proposal is only draft legislation, for comment and suggestions.   

The bill also incorporates, potentially, the PASTEUR legislation for novel antibiotics.

Below, I've done a direct copy of the sponsors' own bullet-point highlights of 21CC 2.0:

  • Improve how Medicare covers innovative new health care technologies, making them more available to those who need them.
  • Increase diversity in clinical trials to ensure new drugs and treatments are both safe and effective for a greater majority of patients throughout the country.
  • Require FDA to expand the collection and use of Real World Evidence to aid in the development of new, patient-focused treatment approaches.
  • Provide training and educational programs for caregivers – many of whom are often family members with no prior health care experience – to help improve the quality of care patients are provided at home, between clinical visits.
  • Provide patients greater access to more health information to improve their understanding of the illness they face and make them a more integral part of the decision-making process when assessing which course of treatment is best for them.
  • Increase access to telehealth services for patients covered under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to make these services more accessible to more Americans.







New York Times Article on ADUHELM Costs is Leaky

At the New Yorker, the diligence of its fact checking has been legendary for decades (article here).

That sort of fact-checking is dead as a doornail at New York Times nowadays (a literary reference that can itself be fact-checked to page 1 of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol.")

In a New York Times headline on June 22, "New Drug Could Cost the Government as Much as It Spends on NASA," there are a number of leaky places.  It's not a toss-off piece, the authors including one of the NYT main health journalists, Margot Sanger-Katz.    But the citation trail doesn't hold up very well.

History of Ridiculous Medicare Projections

New drugs and technologies have often triggered hysterical cost projections for the Medicare program.

  • When the prostate cancer drug Provenge (sipuleucil) was approved by FDA in 2010, there was an outcry that its vast expenses would topple the Medicare program, given the prevalence of well over 1M men with prostate cancer.  
    • In fact,  Provenge sales were never surprisingly and the developer (not the Medicare program) went bankrupt.  Provenge sales ran around $200M per year, 2011-2013.
  • When heart transplants began to become practical in the 1980s, there was a groundswell of federal concern that costs would skyrocket and rapidly overwhelm the Medicare program.  (I wrote about the history in 2015 here).  
    • Never happened.  Didn't even get close.[*]
Paper Trail for NYT Figures

Today, NYT proposed $6-29B in new costs per year for Aduhelm.   The key reference is here: "Analysts expect that Medicare and its enrollees, who pay a share of their prescription drug costs, will spend $5.8 billion to $29 billion on the drug in a single year."  There are multiple references to "analysts" and the high estimate is hyperlinked to a Kaiser paper here.   

The Kaiser webpage is supported by the Arnold Foundation, which is notoriously anti-drug-cost.   Although this is given as the source of the headline high-estimate for the NYT, the Kaiser essay doesn't claim to have any actual data or serious data- and modeling-based projections of costs.  Kaiser simply remarks that "if 1Medicare beneficiaries receive Aduhelm, spending on Aduhelm would exceed $57B in a year."  

Well, yes.  If 1M people get a drug at $56K per year, that is $56B.   That's not a projection, it's basic arithmetic.  Kaiser then hyperlinks the 1M patient count as being "on the low end of Biogen's expectations."  Well, they say "it MAY be on the low end of Biogen's expectations."  That's a red flag; the 1M number is either on the low end of Biogen's expectation, or it isn't.   

Following the Kaiser hyperlink takes you to an online Biogen deck deck, specifically, dropping yo at page 26.  All that Biogen says on this page is that 1-2M patients have mild dementia, and there may be gradual uptake of patients (prescriptions), and modest revenue in 2021 may ramping up to "multi billion dollar opportunity" over several years.   

Did you see $56B?  I didn't.  Did you see that "$56B is at the low end?"  No.   The next page in the Biogen deck doesn't have any dollar expectations either, stating generally that "site infrastructure continues to scale" and "revenue [ramps] beginning in 2022."  Another page, page 30, says that Biogen expects "modest revenue" from Aduhelm in 2022, ramping thereafter.  Nowhere does Biogen say that $56 is "on the low end of its expections."  It doesn't even get near such a statement.

Conclusion

Net net, NYT attributes its high numbers to Kaiser, and Kaiser simply spitballs that 1M patients would be $56B costs, and then Kaiser attributes and hyperlinks the projections to a Biogen deck that says nothing of the sort at all.




___

[*] Back of envelope, we have about 3000 heart transplants per year, and even at $2M each, that would be $6B or 0.15% of a $3.8T health budget.