Skip to main content

TCET Pathway Could Accelerate Access to Innovating Technologies

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway to enable quicker coverage decisions for breakthrough devices needing accelerated regulatory review. As described in JAMA Health Forum, TCET allows tailored oversight based on an innovation’s specific benefits and risks.



TCET focuses on FDA Breakthrough-designated devices for serious conditions supported by limited clinical data for market authorization. By facilitating transitional coverage, TCET aims to help make cutting-edge technologies accessible to patients while additional real-world evidence is gathered to meet CMS’ “reasonable and necessary” standard. 

For developers to optimize TCET’s streamlined approach they should be sure to:

- Pursue FDA Breakthrough designation when criteria are met. This opens the TCET pathway.  

- Engage CMS early on study designs and evidence needs. Incorporate draft guidance on endpoints and real-world data.

- Enable rapid post-market product iterations while maintaining quality.

- Develop safety monitoring and launch protocols satisfying coverage safeguards. 

- Allocate resources for robust data collection and coordination with CMS under shifted evidence requirements.

This proactive, collaborative mindset allows developers to work synergistically with regulators, accelerating patient access while still demonstrating clinical value.

TCET is designed such that it may provide key advantages for AI, machine learning and other novel developments:

- Expedited coverage following truncated registries/pragmatic studies to supplement breakthrough designation data

- Flexibility to refine algorithms and update data inputs without full regulatory restarts

- Clearer expectations and endpoints for pre-market trials to meet CMS evidence needs

- Structured opportunities for manufacturer feedback on study improvements 

- Transitional coverage with “Coverage with Evidence Development” while real-world evidence is gathered

- Streamlined reviews of new data at scheduled milestones to make updated coverage determinations

By embracing TCET’s efficiency, developers can advance high-potential technologies through the pipeline with appropriate oversight. However, challenges may remain even under TCET:

- Non-breakthrough devices still face conventional regulatory burdens

- Reluctance to cover unproven categories like digital health despite clinical promise

- Real-world implementation unknowns and long-term safety monitoring needs 

- Provider training gaps and care integration difficulties

- Ongoing patient access barriers and health disparities

While a major step forward, TCET alone cannot resolve all impediments to emerging technology adoption. Still, TCET represents the type of flexible, sensible regulation needed to balance oversight and progress. As details finalize, TCET could catalyze development of transformative innovations to improve patient outcomes.

As CMS finalizes the pathway details, I’m excited to see TCET in action opening the door to cutting-edge medical breakthroughs. The alacrity of the constantly evolving medtech landscape demands regulatory nimbleness. By embracing agility through initiatives like TCET, CMS is demonstrating an impactful commitment to progress.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Selecting Therapeutic Alternatives: A Critical Perspective for Drug Manufacturers

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 instructed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to initiate drug price negotiations with manufacturers for the first time. A key component of these negotiations involves considering factors like the drug's benefits and costs to establish a "lowest maximum fair price." (MFP) For drug manufacturers, CMS’s process for making comparisons of therapeutic alternative(s) to determine the MFP raises a number of crucial questions. The IRA's guidance suggests that CMS will initially compare drugs within the same class as the negotiated drug to determine a starting point for pricing. For drug manufacturers, this approach raises concerns regarding price competition within drug classes. As new drugs are often priced in line with preexisting brand-name drugs in the same class, the negotiation process may result in downward pressure on prices for all drugs in the class. This could significantly affect the revenue and profitabi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

A recent JAMA Viewpoint article discusses how limited-supply agreements between brand name and generic drug makers could impact Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These agreements allow brand manufacturers to maintain some market exclusivity by limiting the supply of generic competitors. The article suggests these deals may increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implements the IRA's price negotiation provisions. From a business perspective, it's understandable why brand manufacturers might find limited-supply agreements preferable to having their drugs subject to Medicare negotiation. Maintaining even partial exclusivity is likely better for revenue than triggering government-dictated price reductions. However, policymakers and patients are increasingly concerned that these deals keep prices high despite generic availability. The use of limited supply agreements could also produce unintended consequences.  Balancing som...
Post a Comment
Read more