[Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4586-4589]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja06-57]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
[CMS-3144-FN]
0938-ZA49
Medicare Program; Approval of Adjustment in Payment Amounts for
New Technology Intraocular Lenses Furnished by Ambulatory Surgical
Centers
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final notice we respond to public comments on our
September 30, 2005 notice with comment period and announce our decision
concerning an application submitted by Advanced Medical Optics (AMO) to
adjust the Medicare payment amounts for certain intraocular lenses
(IOLs) on the basis that they are new technology intraocular lenses
(NTIOLs).
This is the third of three statutorily required Federal Register
documents. On May 27, 2005, we published a notice in the Federal
Register entitled ``Medicare Program; Calendar Year 2005 Review of the
Appropriateness of Payment Amounts for New Technology Intraocular
Lenses (NTIOLs) Furnished by Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs)'' (70
FR 30731) that solicited interested parties to submit requests for
review of the appropriateness of the payment amount for an IOL
furnished by an ambulatory surgical center. On September 30, 2005, we
published a notice with comment period entitled ``Medicare Program;
Calendar Year 2005 Review of the Appropriateness of Payment Amounts for
New Technology Intraocular Lenses (NTIOLs) Furnished by Ambulatory
Surgical Centers (ASCs)'' (70 FR 57297) acknowledging timely receipt of
one application. In this final notice, we announce our decision to
approve the NTIOL application submitted by Advanced Medical Optics
(AMO) for Tecnis[supreg] (model numbers Z9000, Z9001, and Z9003).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is effective on February 27, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Lyman, (410) 786-6938.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 31, 1994, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
(SSAA 1994) (Pub. L. 103-432) were enacted. Section 141(b)(1) of SSAA
1994 required us to develop and implement
[[Page 4587]]
a process under which interested parties may request a review of the
appropriateness of the payment amount for intraocular lenses furnished
by ASCs under section 1833(i)(2)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act
(the Act) on the basis that those lenses constitute a class of new
technology intraocular lenses.
On June 16, 1999, we published a final rule in the Federal Register
entitled ``Adjustment in Payment Amounts for New Technology Intraocular
Lenses Furnished by Ambulatory Surgical Centers'' (64 FR 32198), which
added subpart F to 42 CFR part 416. The June 16, 1999 final rule
established a process for adjusting payment amounts for NTIOLs
furnished by ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), defined the terms
relevant to the process, and established an initial flat rate payment
adjustment of $50 for IOLs that we determine are NTIOLs. The payment
adjustment applies for a 5-year period that begins when we recognize a
payment adjustment for the first IOL in a new class of technology, as
explained below. Any subsequent IOLs having the same characteristics as
the first IOL recognized for a payment adjustment will receive the same
adjustment for the remainder of the 5-year period established by the
first recognized NTIOL. In accordance with the payment review process
specified in Sec. 416.185, after July 16, 2002, the $50 adjustment
amount can be modified through proposed and final rulemaking in
connection with ASC services. To date, we have made no changes to the
payment amount and have opted not to change the adjustment for calendar
year 2005 (CY 2005).
II. NTIOL Applications Submitted for Calendar Year 2005
On May 27, 2005 we published a notice in the Federal Register
entitled ``Medicare Program; Calendar Year 2005 Review of the
Appropriateness of Payment Amounts for New Technology Intraocular
Lenses (NTIOLs) Furnished by Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs)'' (70
FR 30731) that solicited interested parties to submit requests for
review of the appropriateness of the payment amount for an IOL
furnished by an ambulatory surgical center. In response to the May 27,
2005 notice, we received one timely request for review:
1. Manufacturer: Advanced Medical Optics (AMO); Model Numbers:
Tecnis[supreg] (model numbers Z9000, Z9001, and Z9003). Tecnis[supreg]
Models Z9000 and Z9001 are made from silicone material. The
Tecnis[supreg] Model Z9003 is made from acrylic material. All three
lenses provide the same functionality, differing only in material.
Accordingly, we are treating these lenses as the same lens.
On September 30, 2005 we published in the Federal Register a notice
with comment period entitled ``Medicare Program; Calendar Year 2005
Review of the Appropriateness of Payment Amounts for New Technology
Intraocular Lenses Furnished by Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs)''
(70 FR 57297) acknowledging timely receipt of one application.
III. Criteria and Process for NTIOL Determination
We will classify an IOL as an NTIOL if the lens meets the
definition of a ``new technology IOL'' in Sec. 416.180, which
incorporates section 141(b)(2) of SSAA 1994. Under that section, a
``new technology IOL'' is defined as ``an IOL that CMS determines has
been approved by the FDA for use in labeling and advertising the IOL's
claims of specific clinical advantages and superiority over existing
IOLs with regard to reduced risk of intraoperative or postoperative
complication or trauma, accelerated postoperative recovery, reduced
induced astigmatism, improved postoperative visual acuity, more stable
postoperative vision, or other comparable clinical advantages.''
The process we use for evaluating requests for NTIOL designation
and reviewing the appropriateness of the payment amount for a NTIOL
furnished by ASCs is described in our regulations at part 416, subpart
F and in the September 30, 2005 Federal Register notice.
This process includes--
Publishing a public notice in the Federal Register
identifying requirements and the deadline for submitting a request;
Processing requests to review the appropriateness of the
payment amount for an IOL;
Compiling a list of the requests we receive that identify
the IOL manufacturer, IOL model number under review, name of the
requester, and a summary of the request for review of the
appropriateness of the IOL payment amount;
Publishing an annual public notice in the Federal Register
that lists the requests and provides for a public comment period;
Reviewing the information submitted with the applicant's
request for review, and requesting confirmation from the FDA about
labeling applications that have been approved on the IOL model under
review. We also request the FDA's recommendations as to whether or not
the IOL model submitted represents a new class of technology that sets
it apart from other IOLs. Using a baseline of the date of the last
determination of a new class of IOLs, the FDA states an opinion based
on proof of superiority over existing lenses of the same type of
material or over lenses providing specific clinical advantages and
superiority over existing IOLs as described in the preceding paragraph;
Determining which lenses meet the criteria to qualify for
the payment adjustment based on clinical data and evidence submitted
for review, the FDA's analysis, public comments on the lenses, and
other available information;
Designating a type of material or a predominant
characteristic of an NTIOL that sets it apart from other IOLs to
establish a new class;
Publishing a notice in the Federal Register announcing the
IOLs that we have determined are ``new technology'' IOLs. These NTIOLs
qualify for a $50 payment adjustment (or other amount announced through
notice and comment rulemaking); and
Adjusting payments effective 30 days after the publication
of the final notice announcing our determinations described in the
preceding paragraph of this section.
In accordance with our NTIOL application review procedures, we
asked the FDA to review the AMO application to determine whether the
manufacturer's claims of specific clinical advantages and superiority
over existing IOLs had been approved for labeling and advertising
purposes. Our regulations require the FDA's approval of a requestor's
claims for advertising and labeling in order for an IOL to be
classified as a NTIOL.
IV. Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments
We received 12 timely public comments in response to the September
30, 2005 notice with comment period on the NTIOLs under review. Eleven
were from ophthalmologists in support of NTIOL status for the
Tecnis[supreg] lenses. One comment was received from another
manufacturer who makes an IOL with similar aspheric optic design
characteristics. The comments we received and our responses are as
follows:
Comments: The commenting ophthalmologists strongly supported NTIOL
designation for the Tecnis[supreg] lenses. Most of these commenters
reported positive experiences from patients in whom they implanted the
Tecnis[supreg] lenses during cataract surgery. The commenters reported
improved contrast vision, reduced overall ocular spherical aberration,
improved
[[Page 4588]]
functional vision, and significantly better contrast sensitivity and
contrast acuity. One stated that surgeons should not use substandard
lenses when better lenses are available. Another commenter provided a
research article concluding the Tecnis[supreg] lens provided improved
visual acuity and functional acuity contrast testing compared to
conventional spherical silicone and acrylic IOLs. This article had been
previously submitted by AMO in its 2004 and 2005 calendar year NTIOL
submissions.
We also received a comment supporting NTIOL status for the
Tecnis[supreg] lenses that suggested they be classified as ``Aspheric
Optic'' NTIOLs. The commenter also requested that one of its IOL
products having aspheric optic design characteristics, as well as an
IOL of another manufacturer, be placed in this newly created ``Aspheric
Optic'' NTIOL class.
We agree with the commenters in their support of the Tecnis[supreg]
lenses. We do not agree with the comment that the Tecnis[supreg] lenses
be classified as ``Aspheric Optic'' NTIOLs. NTIOL classes are defined
by clinical outcomes which provide benefits to Medicare beneficiaries.
The two previously created NTIOL classes are ``Multifocal'' and
``Reduction in Preexisting Astigmatism.'' We disagree with the
commenter's suggestion to create a new ``Aspheric Optic'' NTIOL class
as this class would not be based upon clinical outcome. We recommend
that the commenter who claimed that one of its IOLs has aspheric optic
design characteristics submit an application with evidence showing
clinical benefits of its lenses during the 2006 NTIOL application
period. We appreciate all commenters' interest in the NTIOL process.
V. NTIOL Decision--Approval of Advanced Medical Optics Application
AMO Tecnis[supreg] Lenses; Models Z9000, Z9001, and Z9003
In CY 2004, AMO applied for NTIOL designation for the
Tecnis[supreg] lenses. As part of the 2004 NTIOL review, CMS requested
FDA review of AMO's NTIOL application. FDA's review confirmed that the
clinical trial performed by AMO demonstrated that results under several
conditions tested were statistically significantly better with the
Tecnis[supreg] lens than with the control acrylic IOL. However, we
denied AMO's CY 2004 NTIOL application for the Tecnis[supreg] lenses
due to the lack of evidence that the Tecnis[supreg] design improvements
provided clinical benefits to patients.
AMO resubmitted its NTIOL request in CY 2005 and provided
additional information on the clinical relevance of reduced
postoperative spherical aberration and increased contrast sensitivity.
In the CY 2005 application, AMO provided additional peer-reviewed
published studies, a meta-analysis, and a justification of the choice
of comparator lens, none of which were included in the CY 2004
application. To demonstrate clinical superiority, AMO submitted journal
articles and AMO-sponsored research reporting improved functional
vision resulting from compensation for corneal spherical aberration. We
reviewed the additional literature submitted by AMO in its CY 2005
application and found it to be acceptable and supportive of our
requirements.
AMO claims the Tecnis[supreg] IOLs create a new class of IOLs
compensating for corneal spherical aberration. AMO states this improves
contrast sensitivity, functional performance, and especially safer
night driving. Based on the additional information from AMO, CMS
approves AMO's claims of clinical advantages and superiority of the
Tecnis[supreg] IOL for ocular spherical aberrations and simulated night
driving.
We find the AMO Tecnis[reg] Lenses Models Z9000, Z9001, and Z9003
meet the NTIOL definition and are to be given the new NTIOL
classification of Reduced Spherical Aberration.
VI. Collection of Information Requirements
Because the requirements referenced in this final notice will not
affect 10 or more persons on an annual basis, this notice does not
impose any information collection and record keeping requirements that
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
VII. Regulatory Impact Statement
We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by
Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review),
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-
354), section 1102(b) of the Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995(Pub. L. 104-4) and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866, (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which
merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year).
We have determined that this final notice is not a major rule. The RFA
requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small
businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most
hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities,
either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29
million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the
definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the
RFA because we have determined that this final notice will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis if a regulation may have a significant
impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural
hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604
of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a
small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Core-
Based Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not
preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have
determined that this final notice will not have a significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold
level is currently approximately $120 million. This final notice will
have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or
on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an
agency must meet when it publishes a proposed rule (and subsequent
final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State,
local, or tribal governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has
Federalism implications. Since this final notice does not impose any
costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are
not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
final notice
[[Page 4589]]
was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773,
Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare--
Supplementary Medical Insurance Program).
Dated: January 9, 2006.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. E6-1049 Filed 1-25-06; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P