Improving Healthcare Delivery: The FDA and CMS Policy Alignment for Cardiovascular Devices

By HEOR Staff Writer

November 2, 2023

FDA and CMS Policy Alignment

Navigating the FDA and CMS Policy Alignment

Two of the most important pillars supporting the healthcare sector are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA is in charge of ensuring that medical devices are both safe and effective. The coverage and benefits that are provided to CMS’s beneficiaries are decided by CMS. Because of the different legislative authorities held by these two agencies, the regulatory environment that medical device manufacturers must operate in is quite complicated.

One such program run by the FDA is called the Breakthrough Devices Program, or BDP for short. Its purpose is to encourage innovation by bestowing Breakthrough designations early on in the process of device development in order to speed up the approval process for market release. This strategy is flexible enough to accommodate a higher degree of ambiguity regarding the benefits and risks involved, provided sufficient postmarket evidence is gathered.

 

The BDP’s Impact on Healthcare Costs and Innovation

The healthcare sector has been profoundly affected as a result of the BDP’s initiatives. Since the year 2020, devices that have been given the Breakthrough designation have, in effect, automatically qualified to receive supplementary Medicare reimbursement. This change came about as a result of CMS’s decision to relax a long-standing requirement that medical devices demonstrate “substantial clinical improvement” for the people they serve (the beneficiaries).

However, the BDP’s strategy has not been without of difficulties throughout its history. The BDP might make it possible for the FDA to grant approval based on evidence that isn’t quite as stringent, including single-arm trials that focus on surrogate end goals and only have short-term follow-up. Because of this strategy, several medical devices have been granted approval based on evidence that may not be typical of Medicare recipients as a whole.

There is a significant opportunity for the BDP to serve as a catalyst for innovation in the healthcare sector. On the other hand, this raises a number of issues in terms of ensuring that the highest quality evidence is provided to guide clinical care. In order to maintain this equilibrium, the FDA and CMS will need to continue to collaborate on the improvement of their respective rules and procedures.

Reference url

Recent Posts

Joint Scientific Consultation EU
Joint Scientific Consultation EU Strategies for Medical Device Companies

By João L. Carapinha

June 19, 2026

The EU Joint Scientific Consultation gives medical device developers a voluntary route to obtain targeted feedback on clinical evidence plans well before formal Joint Clinical Assessment and national reimbursement decisions. Manufacturers of select high-risk technologies can align their developme...
EU Joint Clinical Assessment
Insights on EU Joint Clinical Assessment for High-Risk Medical Devices

By João L. Carapinha

June 19, 2026

EU Joint Clinical Assessment is a distinct, harmonised process that operates separately from CE marking. It produces comparative clinical evidence on selected high-risk devices to support more consistent national reimbursement decisions across EU member states. Insights from the
LesionAttn Skin Cancer AI
LesionAttn Skin Cancer AI Enhances Fairness in Dermatological Diagnostics

By João L. Carapinha

June 19, 2026

LesionAttn Skin Cancer AI tackles a critical flaw in current skin cancer detection tools: models that unconsciously rely on background skin features differing between men and women, producing unequal accuracy across genders. By steering neural networks to focus on the actual lesion instead of the...