Close Menu
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • AI/Machine Learning
    • CT
    • Fluoroscopy/C-Arm
    • General Radiology
    • Interventional Radiology
    • MRI
    • Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging
    • PACS/RIS/Informatics
    • Radiation Oncology
    • Radiology Management
    • Reimbursement & Coding
    • Research News
    • Ultrasound
    • Women’s Imaging
  • E-Newsletter
  • Education
    • ARMRIT Annual Meeting
    • MRI Books
    • Webinars
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Resources
    • Product Directories
    • Resource Listing
    • Reprints
    • Writers’ Guidelines

Join Our Email List

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Trending
  • The Other Clouds: Dose Reduction and Workflow
  • CT Screening Can Reduce Lung Cancer Deaths; Now What?
  • Can Incidental CT Scans Predict Heart Disease?
  • Study: Pay-for-Performance Programs Improve Radiology Report Turnaround Times
  • Hospitals Running Medical Practices
  • Challenges Facing Radiology Directors
  • Threats and Opportunities
  • More Than Just Study Data
Wednesday, June 17
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Gift Shop
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Radiology Today MagazineRadiology Today Magazine
Subscribe
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • AI/Machine Learning
    • CT
    • Fluoroscopy/C-Arm
    • General Radiology
    • Interventional Radiology
    • MRI
    • Nuclear Medicine/Molecular Imaging
    • PACS/RIS/Informatics
    • Radiation Oncology
    • Radiology Management
    • Reimbursement & Coding
    • Research News
    • Ultrasound
    • Women’s Imaging
  • E-Newsletter
  • Education
    • ARMRIT Annual Meeting
    • MRI Books
    • Webinars
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Resources
    • Product Directories
    • Resource Listing
    • Reprints
    • Writers’ Guidelines
Radiology Today MagazineRadiology Today Magazine
Home»E-News Exclusive»Is Safe and Effective Still the Standard?

Is Safe and Effective Still the Standard?

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Threads Bluesky Copy Link

By Jim Knaub

In July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced its proposal to reimburse beta-amyloid PET imaging only under coverage with evidence development programs that enroll patients in clinical trials addressing the value of these scans for diagnosing Alzheimer’s or other neurological disorders. Florbetapir F18 injection (marketed by Eli Lilly under the trade name Amyvid) was approved earlier this year for imaging amyloid plaque density in patients being evaluated for Alzheimer’s disease.

While the comment period on the July proposal is closed, the final rule has not yet been published. If it reflects the proposal, an FDA-approved agent would not be covered under Medicare and Medicaid programs outside of clinical trials.

It’s also possible that reimbursement status for florbetatir F18 could change from July’s proposal, like it did this past June when the CMS announced it would cover up to three FDG-PET scans for treatment planning—an increase from its earlier proposal to cover just one such scan (and exclude prostate cancer as a covered indication). The CMS also eliminated the requirement for FDG-PET scan recipients to participate in the National Oncology PET Registry to receive reimbursement in most cancer cases, The PET registry rule was to coverage with evidence development but not as restrictive because it only required submitting to the registry, not clinical trial participation. Presumably, as data supporting PET’s role grew, the CMS eased the restrictions for its reimbursable use.

Still, the July proposal shows that the path from FDA approval to routine reimbursement and broad clinical acceptance seems to have become an increasingly winding road. While florbetapir F18 is approved to image plaques, a positive scan for those plaques does not establish an Alzheimer’s diagnosis. Those plaques also have not been proven to predict the development of dementia or other neurologic conditions or monitor the response to therapy.

While many researchers believe the imaging agent is useful for developing a diagnosis for Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders—and could help in the development of a treatment—that value really hasn’t been proven yet. Broader coverage could speed imaging research to provide that evidence, but to what extent should Medicare and other insurers pay for an approved imaging agent before its value at affecting changing outcomes is proven? That’s a fair question to which I don’t know the answer. The coverage with evidence develoment requirement in the CMS’ florebetatir proposal tries to address that question. Insurers, researchers, manufacturers, clinicians, and patients have differing views on whether that requirement helps or hinders development in diagnosing and treating Alzheimer’s.

It’s also my opinion that in better economic times with less focus on health care’s growing cost, the CMS might see things differently. But we live in a time when cost pressures are intensifying. Consideration of new therapies increasingly will be looked at through the economic prism and the project number of potential Alzheimer’s evaluations is very large. Reimbursement for health care innovation is augmenting the safe and effective designation with a modified version: safe, effective, and cost-effective.

— Jim Knaub is editor of Radiology Today.

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

Related Posts

Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Induces Remission in Pancreatic Cancer Model

May 15, 2026

Ultrasound Facilitates Light-Based Treatments

April 15, 2026

Practice Guidance for Chronic Pelvic Pain Treatment

March 15, 2026
  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

E-Newsletters

A trusted resource for industry professionals, Radiology Today reports the latest news and information that matters to radiologists, radiology administrators, and technologists.

1721 Valley Forge Road #486, Valley Forge, PA 19481
Phone: 800-278-4400 or 610-948-9500
Subscriptions: 833-790-6897

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn

Subscribe

  • Home
  • Subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
© 2026 Radiology Today Magazine. All rights reserved.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.