TPT and NT-APC: What MedTech Innovators Often Miss

June, September, December, April: Upcoming deadlines for separate payment applications for new tech under Medicare.

Every year, medtech companies download the CMS applications for Transitional Pass-Through (TPT) payment or New Technology APC (NT-APC) assignment and have the same initial reaction:

“This doesn’t look that complicated.”

The forms themselves are not particularly intimidating. They ask reasonable questions:

- What does the technology do?
- What is the FDA status?
- What does it cost?
- Why is it different from existing options?
- Why is existing payment inadequate?

The application may look straightforward. But CMS is not simply evaluating the form itself. It is evaluating whether the technology can function within the realities of Medicare payment systems.

That distinction changes everything. For innovators unfamiliar with the mechanics, TPT and NT-APCs are temporary Medicare payment mechanisms designed to bridge the gap between innovation and the slower-moving reimbursement infrastructure that surrounds it.

TPT applies primarily in the outpatient hospital setting under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). It provides temporary separate payment for qualifying new devices, drugs, and biologics whose costs are not adequately reflected in existing payment rates. The idea is straightforward: hospitals should not be financially penalized for adopting innovative technologies before CMS has enough claims data to incorporate those costs into future payment system recalibration.

NT-APCs solve a slightly different problem. They are used when a new outpatient procedure or service does not yet fit neatly into an existing payment group because CMS lacks sufficient claims history to determine appropriate payment. Instead of assigning the procedure to an existing payment group immediately, CMS places it into a temporary cost-band payment grouping while utilization and claims data mature.

Both pathways are intended to accelerate patient access to innovation, but their success depends heavily on the mechanics of Medicare payment systems, complexity that is not obvious from the application itself. The companies that tend to struggle are often not the ones with weak technologies. In many cases, they are companies that approached the application as a documentation exercise rather than a reimbursement systems exercise. They answered the application questions correctly but underestimated the broader reimbursement infrastructure.

One of the clearest examples is status indicators. TPT payment does not have an “on/off” switch where approval automatically guarantees separate reimbursement in all circumstances. The status indicator assigned to the associated procedure can materially influence how pass-through payment functions operationally.

As a result, a device may technically qualify for pass-through payment yet still face commercial friction if the companion procedure falls within a comprehensive payment grouping, where packaging dynamics shape how hospitals experience reimbursement economics in practice. A technology may look financially attractive in reimbursement models, only for real-world billing edits, bundling logic, or charge capture challenges to dilute those economics at the provider level. To CMS, these are not secondary operational details. They are fundamental components of the payment architecture itself.

The same is true for pricing strategy.

Many companies think about pricing primarily from a commercial perspective:

- What will the market bear?
- How does this compare to competitors?
- What margin profile do we need?

But pricing decisions also shape reimbursement outcomes. For TPT, pricing too low can create problems because the device may fail the cost significance thresholds required for pass-through eligibility. Pricing too high, meanwhile, can create adoption resistance even if separate payment for a narrow segment of the total patient population (Medicare patients) is approved.

For NT-APCs, pricing and charge capture become even more interconnected. CMS relies heavily on claims data and hospital charges to estimate procedure costs and ultimately determine APC placement. If hospitals are not capturing the full procedural resource cost appropriately, the resulting payment assignment may be lower than the real economics of the service warrant. Once a technology enters the system underpaid, correcting that trajectory can become difficult.

Consider two very different recent CMS pass-through outcomes.

In calendar year (CY) 2025, Boston Scientific successfully secured TPT payment for the AGENT™ Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheter. On the surface, the application involved the standard elements: FDA authorization, clinical rationale, and cost data. But much of the real complexity sat underneath the form itself. CMS evaluated whether the technology was already adequately described by an existing pass-through category, analyzed companion procedure APC assignments, and worked through detailed cost-threshold calculations tied to existing thresholds for device costs within broader payment amounts. Boston Scientific also benefited from Breakthrough Device designation, which streamlined portions of the substantial clinical improvement analysis. The approval reflected not just a strong technology, but a sophisticated understanding of how the technology fit within OPPS payment architecture.

Contrast that with CMS’s CY 2023 denial of pass-through payment for the BrainScope Ahead 500 traumatic brain injury assessment technology. In that case, CMS never even reached the questions of clinical improvement or cost significance. Instead, the application failed at the threshold eligibility stage because CMS determined portions of the system constituted reusable capital equipment and that the disposable component did not satisfy OPPS device eligibility definitions under the pass-through regulations.

The contrast between these two cases is important.

Both involved innovative technologies. Both likely involved substantial preparation and investment. But the differentiator was not simply the clinical story or the quality of the application narrative itself.

The differentiator was understanding how CMS defines devices, evaluates payment categories, interprets billing structures, applies status indicator logic, and operationalizes reimbursement policy inside the Medicare payment system. Most of that complexity is invisible when you first open the online application.

The strongest TPT and NT-APC applications are usually built long before the submission deadline approaches. The most successful innovators are typically doing reimbursement strategy work upstream, often while clinical development is still underway. They are evaluating coding pathways, mapping companion procedures, modeling payment grouping interactions, validating provider workflows, stress-testing pricing assumptions, analyzing claims visibility, and planning for the post-transitional reimbursement environment before the application is ever drafted.

Because ultimately, CMS is not simply asking: “Is this technology innovative?”

CMS is asking something more complicated: “Can this technology be integrated into the Medicare payment system in a way that is clinically meaningful, operationally workable, and financially rational?”

And it is why the companies that succeed in separate payment strategy are rarely the ones that simply complete the application well. They are the ones that understand not just the application itself, but the reimbursement system it must ultimately function within.

Do you have U.S. commercialization questions?

Whether it's how the multiple payer landscape works in the U.S., how to validate device or procedure coding, timelines associated with product uptake - we're happy to answer them.

Schedule and introductory call: https://calendly.com/nicolecoustier/introductions