The MACs are private insurers responsible a particular...

The MACs are private insurers responsible a particular geographic region, though their decisions are made in consultation with contractors. They take advice from stakeholders (including companies and doctors) when making a decision.

The LCDs can be MAC initiated or initiated by a company. In this case it’s weird as there seems to be a version which was initiated by MACs and one that was initiated by Glaukos (yet the LCDs themselves seem identical). Not sure what’s going on their…

It’s pretty clear Glaukos has been pushing this a bit though. Pretty obvious the reason is because of a shift from stents and towards procedures like ours. Nonetheless, I don’t think they will have much of a force here. This proposal is not just impacting us, but many other companies as well. So combined, the force of all non-implant companies is quite powerful. Glaukos is alone, as no doctor will support them in pushing a policy which removes what is effectively a more profitable procedure for them (ie canaloplasty). All companies (including EYE, I would assume) have made submissions either through the open meetings or public comment periods (in fact I even made a comment to the MACs myself lol!). These tend to highlight the flaws in the arguments made by the MACs and the fact that removing coverage would be detrimental for patients. The great thing though is that we don’t have to even rely on our own evidence. They are not proposing to remove coverage for individual devices, so even if there isn’t sufficient evidence for iTrack (there is), we would still continue to have coverage so long as another device (eg Omni) has sufficient data.