Funding of evidence included within public comments submitted to inform Medicare national coverage determinations.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on public comments submitted in response to proposed national coverage determinations to assist the agency in determining the coverage of items and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In a cross-sectional study, we characterized the cited evidence and what funding supported the cited evidence submitted in public comments to CMS for all therapeutic medical device national coverage determinations finalized between June 2019 and June 2022. Of 681 public comments, 159 (23%) cited at least 1 identifiable published scientific journal article. Within these 159 public comments, 198 unique articles were cited, 170 (86%) of which included funding statements or author disclosures. Among these, 96 (56%) disclosed funding from manufacturers that would benefit from Medicare coverage and/or were written by author(s) who received funding from these manufacturers. In summary, most public commenters for national coverage determinations did not cite published scientific journal articles to support their positions. Among those who did, more than half of articles were directly funded by manufacturers that would benefit from coverage. Greater funding of independent, non-industry-supported research may help provide unbiased evaluations of benefits and harms to support Medicare coverage decisions.

Physicians' Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey.

Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.

A Critical Examination of Independent Medical Review Decision-making for Cardiovascular Procedures Shows Low Rate of Evidence Citation in Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The California Independent Medical Review (IMR) program was created in 2001 to provide an independent, external evaluation of insurers' denials of coverage of health services. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the quality and comprehensiveness of data used to support IMR decision-making between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: Of the 159 cases submitted to IMR regarding denials of cardiovascular procedures, 52% of these denials were overturned by IMR, thus restoring coverage. Despite a state-wide requirement that specific references to medical and scientific evidence should be provided in IMR reviews, fewer than a quarter of reviews cited any evidence to support decision-making. Slightly more than one third of IMR review decisions were inconsistent with recommendations from professional societies and peer-reviewed evidence; the primary reason for these inconsistencies was that invasive interventions were often recommended by reviewers before utilizing guideline-directed medical or less invasive therapies. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight an opportunity for improvement in the quality of IMR decision-making through a more consistent use of available scientific evidence to guide clinical reasoning.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Public Comments on Medicare National Coverage Determinations of Medical Devices.

This study reviewed public comments for all Medicare National Coverage Determinations between June 2019 and 2022 on select pulmonary and cardiac devices to determine whether financial conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The accelerated approval decision was controversial due to concerns about the use of an unvalidated surrogate measure, beta-amyloid, as the basis for approval and a lack of clinical outcome benefit. Between October 2021 and September 2022, we conducted a survey of a nationally representative group of internists, medical oncologists, and cardiologists to understand perspectives around aducanumab's approval and how this FDA decision may influence trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program. Among 214 physician respondents familiar with the accelerated approval of aducanumab, 184 (86%) would not prescribe or recommend aducanumab. Further, 143 (67%) physicians reported losing trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program due to the FDA's decision with aducanumab. As a growing number of similar novel Alzheimer's disease treatments are on the horizon, the first of which, lecanemab, already has received accelerated approval in January 2023, our survey findings provide insight into the impact of the FDA's regulatory decisions on the perspectives and prescribing behavior of physicians concerning these novel drug treatments.

Analysis of Patient-Focused Information About Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion on US Hospital Web Pages.

This cross-sectional study examines information provided about left atrial appendage occlusion, particularly use of the Watchman device, on publicly available US hospital web pages.