PRESS RELEASE
May 5, 2006
|
Contact: Emily Niederman
(202) 349-4260 |
ITEM Coalition Strongly Opposes Medicare
Proposal to Deny Coverage for Vision Aid Technology
[Washington D.C.] Today, the Independence Through Enhancement of Medicare and Medicaid (ITEM)
Coalition expressed strong disagreement with a proposed rule from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), under the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), that would severely restrict access to and development
of assistive technology for people with vision impairments.
On Monday, May 1, 2006, CMS issued
a proposed rule that outlines a competitive bidding program for Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS). Within the
regulation, CMS has chosen to include a section entitled "low vision aid
exclusion."
The "low vision aid
exclusion" segment of the regulation proposes that all devices,
“irrespective of their size, form, or technological features that use one or
more lens to aid vision or provide magnification of images for impaired vision”
be excluded from Medicare coverage based on the statutory “eyeglass” exclusion.
According to Mark Richert, the Director of Public Policy for
the American Foundation for the Blind, “CMS would be essentially
stating that Medicare will not cover any device, regardless of cost, that could
assist individuals with low vision from hand-held magnifiers to video
monitors.” Mr. Richert went on to state
that “because Medicare plays such a large role in the assistive device market,
this proposal could not only restrict access for those who currently have
impaired vision, but threaten the development of any new technologies that
could aid those who will experience such impairments in the future. We
encourage CMS to take greater account of the impact this overly broad exclusion
will have on an entire population of Medicare beneficiaries.”
The Medicare statue excludes
coverage for “eyeglasses” except for one pair of “conventional eyeglasses or
contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract surgery with insertion of
an intraocular lens.” However, there has
always been a level of ambiguity with regard to the Congressional intent of
this language. The rule released on Monday is proposing to revise the Medicare
regulations to state that the term “eyeglasses” is to be interpreted as any
lens used for aiding sight and, thus, excluded from coverage.
"This proposal is just
another example of the Medicare statute being interpreted in the most
restrictive way possible when it comes to assistive technology and device
coverage," stated Eva DuGoff of the Medicare Rights Center and ITEM Coalition Steering Committee
Member. "The agency
continues to ignore any fluidity in the Medicare law and the result is a lack
of access to important technology for people with disabilities.”
This proposal on low vision aids is likely motivated by a
number of appeals over the past several years that challenge Medicare denials
of video monitors and other such aids based on the eyeglass exclusion. In one case, Currier v. Thompson, No. 04-94-B-W (D. Maine May 11, 2005), the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine found that a video monitor is not excluded from Medicare
coverage based on the eyeglass exclusion and remanded the case back to the HHS Secretary
to determine if a video monitor is considered under the Medicare benefit “durable
medical equipment” or a “prosthetic device.”
However, this recently proposed regulation would invalidate this ruling.
“Over the last several years we have witnessed the
tightening of Medicare’s mobility device benefit as illustrated by the
program’s increased commitment to the 'in the home' restriction and aversion to
coverage of new mobility technology such as the iBOT Mobility System."
stated Peter W. Thomas, ITEM Coalition Steering Committee
Member. “Now, it is clear that this is not a pattern unique to the
mobility device benefit, but an approach that threatens the health and
independence of all people with disabilities who depend on any assistive technology.”
As Alaine Perry of the United Spinal Association states,
“the impact of these restrictive coverage decisions is far-reaching. Basically, Medicare is sending a message to
all device manufactures, innovators and other stakeholders that investments in
assistive technology for people with disabilities will not pay off.”
The proposed rule can be accessed at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CompetitiveAcqforDMEPOS/downloads/cms1270p_dme.pdf
and comments on the rule are due by June 30, 2006.
The ITEM Coalition was formed in 2003, and its 74 member
organizations include a diverse set of disability groups, aging organizations,
consumer groups, labor organizations, voluntary health associations, and
non-profit provider associations. The ITEM Coalition’s purpose is
to raise awareness and build support for policies that improve coverage of
assistive devices, technologies and related services for people with
disabilities of all ages. For more information on the ITEM Coalition,
please visit www.itemcoalition.org.
###
|