Share
Nope. I was wrong and I stand corrected.
The inclusion sentence I referenced was a bit misleading. Here inclusion actually means exclusion.
"... If the draft LCD was first published in June, why did Pacific Edge only
notify the NZX and ASX and call a trading halt on Friday 29 July 2022?
In June the draft proposals did not appear to affect Pacific Edge since there
was no indication that coverage for Cxbladder under its existing LCD was
changing. Additionally, Cxbladder was not explicitly mentioned in the
proposed LCD. However, on Friday morning on 29 July 2022 (NZT), the company
became aware that the latest revision of the draft explicitly excluded
Cxbladder from reimbursement. In consultation with the NZX, Pacific Edge
decided a trading halt was appropriate because there was information in the
public domain that needed clarification and context. Given the time
differences between New Zealand and the United States, where the subject
matter experts are based, and the complexity of the proposals, a full and
complete response was not able to be completed within a reasonable time,
resulting in a request for a trading halt. ..."
This now sounds potentially pretty bad, but as the company indicates, it has to be regarded as a move that will be pretty unpopular with everyone in the field. As such it will more than likely be ditched before it gets enacted.
Think about it. We have test that is well accepted and well established as being accurate and efficacious, and demonstrably provides all the benefits we are all familiar with. These are benefits to both patients, physicians, clinical centres, and funders alike. How likely is it that a draft policy that effectively excludes this test from the arsenal of tools for medics is going to be accepted by that collective body? How likely is it that dozens of similar tests with similar benefits are all going to be sidelined by what seems basically to be an administrative nicety? I think the chance of this happening is small.
