Cable Car Capital LLC ("Cable Car") is a limited liability company with principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Cable Car is registered as an investment adviser with the state of California and may be required to register in other jurisdictions where it does business in the future. Registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission or any state securities authority does not imply a certain level of skill or training. This website is intended only for persons in jurisdictions where Cable Car is authorized to provide investment advice, and no content should be construed as an offer to provide investment advisory services in any location where such offer would be unlawful. Moreover, provision of information about Cable Car's services does not constitute an offer to provide investment advisory services. Such offer can be made only by means of a written advisory agreement. No content herein should be viewed as advice regarding the value of any securities or the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities. In particular, Cable Car is the General Partner of The Funicular Fund, LP, a private fund. Interests in The Funicular Fund, LP and the feeder fund, The Funicular Fund (BVI), Ltd. are available only to accredited investors. Cable Car may from time to time publish research reports with the aim of receiving feedback from the broader investment community. Published material in written reports and on the blog is not intended to be investment advice and should under no circumstance be considered a recommendation to take action with respect to any security or commodity interest. Cable Car, its principals, and its clients may hold positions, long or short, in such securities or commodity interests, and Cable Car may trade without informing readers. Investing involves risks and may result in the loss of some or all of the principal invested. Before investing, prospective clients should consider their investment objectives and the costs and risks associated with Cable Car's investment program. Investments are not FDIC insured and may lose value. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. The material on this website should be read only in conjunction with the disclosures in Cable Car's Brochure on Form ADV.
Disclosure: Short EXAS
As promised in my previous post, you may now download Cable Car’s public comment in response to statements made at the Public Meeting in July. Comments are normally available only through a FOIA request, but in the interest of transparency I wanted to share my views more broadly. I believe Kevin Conroy made several statements at the Public Meeting that are not accurate and deserve a public accounting. The comment letter discusses the legal basis for the reconsideration request, claims regarding compliance and cost-effectiveness, and additional cost analyses. Exact Sciences shareholders can take comfort in the fact that the company has impressive operating leverage, irrespective of the Medicare payment rate. The incremental cost per test in recent months appears to be less than $100.
Following the preliminary determination on the reconsideration request expected sometime in September, there will be an additional 30-day comment period before the 2016 fee schedule is finalized.
This morning, CMS convened the first meeting of an advisory panel on Clinical Laboratory Diagnostic Tests. Steve Phurrough, the CMS Medical Officer who asked Conroy several questions at the Public Meeting that are addressed in my letter, chairs the panel but is not a voting member.
The panel was established under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA), which is also changing the rate-setting process for the clinical lab fee schedule beginning in 2017. Since the PAMA rulemaking is not yet complete, the purpose of this initial meeting was to provide input into the new codes for 2016 that were discussed at the Public Meeting in July. The panel’s recommendations are advisory and non-binding.
The bulk of today’s debate involved highly technical, controversial determinations regarding the most comparable tests, from a methodological standpoint, to use for several new test codes. Cost-effectiveness concerns were not mentioned at all.
Disappointingly, the panel’s brief discussion (starts at 1:26:30) of code G0464 resulted in an 11-0 vote, with 1 abstention (likely the representative from the Mayo clinic) from the 12 panel members present, in favor of maintaining the current crosswalk. More accurately, there was no discussion. The panel did not discuss their reasoning at all; the only comment was from one individual who questioned why code 81315 had no connection to colon cancer and such a high reimbursement level before voting to include it in the crosswalk anyway.
The panel members are all very well-respected scientific experts, but it does not appear that they devoted much, if any, deliberation to the substance of the reconsideration request. In particular, despite asking many clarifying questions regarding the most appropriate factors to consider for other tests, in the case of G0464 there was no debate whatsoever about the appropriateness of considering a test’s purpose, rather than its methodology, in assigning a crosswalk.
It is unclear whether or not the panel had the opportunity to review the reconsideration request in full or the further comment letter. As the panel’s recommendation is non-binding, I strongly urge CMS to take all available information into account in reaching its determination.