Key result
CED-approved studies had more robust designs (67% vs 13% RCTs), larger enrollment (median 1,000 vs 125), and more frequent inclusion of US patients (93% vs 44%) than non-CED-approved studies.
Why the study?
To evaluate the evidence base supporting CMS coverage reconsideration decisions under the coverage with evidence development program.
Do CED-approved studies differ in quality and representativeness compared to non-CED-approved studies cited by CMS for coverage reconsiderations?
Observational (n=235)
Do CED-approved studies differ in quality and representativeness compared to non-CED-approved studies cited by CMS for coverage reconsiderations?
CMS relies heavily on non-CED-approved studies for coverage reconsiderations, despite CED-approved studies being of higher quality and more representative of US Medicare beneficiaries.
CED may enhance evidence quality for coverage decisions; leaves open effects on outcomes and policy adoption.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage with evidence development (CED) program provides coverage for items and services not meeting Medicare's "reasonable and necessary" standard while requiring participation in clinical studies. As additional evidence is available, CMS may reconsider CED decisions. Of twenty-six items and services in the CED program since its 2005 inception, CMS has reconsidered coverage for ten (38 percent). Of 235 publications that CMS cited as evidence supporting reconsideration, 57 (24 percent) were CED-approved studies, and 116 (49 percent) were non-CED-approved studies. Compared with non-CED-approved studies, CED-approved studies had more robust designs (67 percent versus 13 percent randomized clinical trials), larger enrollment (median sample size of 1,000 versus 125), and more frequent inclusion of US patients (93 percent versus 44 percent). CMS's reliance on non-CED-approved studies for CED reconsiderations, despite CED-approved studies being higher quality and more representative of Medicare beneficiaries, highlights opportunities to strengthen the CED program.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mooghali et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Medicare coverage with evidence development program (n=235). CED-approved studies vs. Non-CED-approved studies was evaluated on Study characteristics (design robustness, sample size, inclusion of US patients). CED-approved studies had more robust designs (67% vs 13% RCTs), larger enrollment (median 1,000 vs 125), and more frequent inclusion of US patients (93% vs 44%) than non-CED-approved studies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: