Georgia Medicare NTAP 2026 Guide

When a Georgia Medicare patient gets Yescarta CAR-T therapy at Emory, the standard DRG payment for that hospital stay falls far short of what the treatment costs. The drug acquisition and administration cost dwarfs the DRG, and without an additional Medicare payment source, no hospital could sustainably offer CAR-T therapy to Medicare beneficiaries at all. The provision that makes the math work is the Medicare New Technology Add-On Payment (NTAP), authorized at Section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the Social Security Act and codified through Section 533(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA, Public Law 106-554).

NTAP provides supplemental Medicare payment above the standard DRG payment for inpatient hospital services involving new medical services and technologies. The standard NTAP payment is 65 percent of eligible charges, with a higher 75 percent rate for FDA Breakthrough Devices and Qualified Infectious Disease Products approved through the alternative pathway. NTAP adds substantial supplemental Medicare payment above the standard DRG, bringing total Medicare payment close to or above hospital cost for eligible cases. Emory's CAR-T program, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta's Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center pediatric CAR-T program, AU Medical Center's cancer services, Memorial Health Savannah's cancer services, and other Georgia advanced cancer centers all depend on NTAP to make CAR-T and other cutting-edge therapies financially sustainable.

The NTAP three-part eligibility test, codified at Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii) and implemented at 42 CFR 412.87, requires that the new technology meet criteria for newness (typically 2-3 years from FDA approval and market entry), cost (the technology must exceed 50 percent of the DRG-specific average standardized amount, or 75 percent for certain antimicrobials), and substantial clinical improvement (the technology must reduce mortality, reduce hospitalization, decrease recovery time, improve functional capacity, reduce pain, or meet another specified clinical benefit standard). Documentation requirements are substantial. CMS reviews applications annually as part of the IPPS final rule process and lists approved NTAPs in the August final rule effective October 1.

The FY 2020 IPPS rulemaking added an alternative pathway for FDA Breakthrough Devices designated under 21 USC 360e-3 (added by the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016), Qualified Infectious Disease Products (QIDPs) designated under Section 505E of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD) drugs designated under Section 506(h) FDCA. The alternative pathway streamlines NTAP eligibility for these specifically designated FDA approvals, presuming substantial clinical improvement and providing the higher 75 percent payment rate. The pathway recognizes that FDA's breakthrough designations themselves indicate the unmet medical need and clinical benefit that justify enhanced NTAP treatment.

This Brevy guide walks through the entire Medicare NTAP framework. We cover Section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the SSA, Section 533(b) of BIPA 2000, Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii) three-part eligibility test, 42 CFR 412.87 substantial clinical improvement and eligibility, 42 CFR 412.88 payment calculation, the 65 percent of eligible charges standard payment, the alternative pathway for FDA Breakthrough Devices, the QIDP and LPAD designations, the 75 percent payment rate, the 2-3 year newness period, the annual IPPS final rule NTAP application process, the FDA approval/clearance requirement, the CAR-T therapy NTAP treatment with specific examples (Yescarta, Kymriah, Tecartus, Breyanzi, Carvykti, Abecma), the historical NTAP approvals across multiple categories (drugs, devices, procedures), the cost report Worksheet E NTAP reporting, the Palmetto GBA MAC NTAP pricing implementation, the NTAP phase-out at end of newness period and transition to standard DRG payment, the 340B drug pricing program interaction with NTAP, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board appeals process, six worked examples through major Georgia hospitals including Emory CAR-T and CHOA pediatric CAR-T, 14 compliance and operational considerations, a 25-question accordion FAQ, beneficiary access implications, and a CTA with 16 contact resources.

The Statutory Foundation: Section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the Social Security Act

Section 1886(d)(5)(K) of the Social Security Act is the statutory authority for the Medicare New Technology Add-On Payment. The provision is part of the broader Section 1886(d)(5) framework that governs adjustments and special payments under the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS).

The statutory text directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide additional payment for IPPS-paid services involving new medical services and technologies that meet specific eligibility criteria. The Secretary has delegated detailed regulation to CMS, which implements the framework through 42 CFR 412.87 and 42 CFR 412.88 and through annual IPPS rulemaking.

Section 1886(d)(5)(K) operates as an exception to the general IPPS principle of paying hospitals a fixed DRG payment regardless of actual case-specific costs. The general principle works well when patient cases are reasonably homogeneous within DRGs. But when a truly novel and high-cost technology is introduced, the existing DRG payment may be substantially below the case cost, creating a payment-cost mismatch that would discourage hospital adoption of beneficial new technologies.

NTAP addresses this mismatch by providing a separate add-on payment above the DRG. The add-on partially (but not fully) compensates the hospital for the additional cost of the new technology, smoothing the financial transition until the DRG can be reweighted to reflect the new technology cost in the regular DRG payment.

Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii) specifies the three-part eligibility test that defines which technologies qualify for NTAP. The test ensures that NTAP is reserved for genuinely new technologies offering substantial clinical improvement that would not be adequately covered under standard DRG payments.

Section 533(b) of BIPA 2000: Establishing the NTAP Framework

Section 533(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA, Public Law 106-554) is the statutory provision that established the NTAP framework. BIPA was a year-end omnibus Medicare bill enacted in December 2000 that addressed numerous Medicare provisions.

Section 533(b) amended Section 1886 of the Social Security Act to add the NTAP authority. The provision became effective for federal fiscal year 2001 (October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001).

The legislative history reflects bipartisan support for the NTAP concept. Medicare beneficiaries should have access to new and beneficial technologies; hospitals adopting those technologies should not face systematic financial losses; and the regular DRG reweighting process is too slow to capture truly novel high-cost technologies in real time. NTAP was the bridge between rapid technology innovation and slower DRG reweighting cycles.

Since enactment, NTAP has supported access to hundreds of new technologies across multiple categories. Drugs, biologics, medical devices, surgical procedures, and other technologies have received NTAP designation. The cumulative impact on patient access has been substantial; many therapies that are now standard care would have faced delayed hospital adoption without NTAP support during the newness period.

The framework has been refined through subsequent rulemaking and statutory changes. The FY 2020 alternative pathway is the most significant recent change, providing streamlined NTAP treatment for FDA-designated breakthrough technologies.

Throughout its operational history, NTAP has demonstrated value in three principal contexts: high-cost cellular and gene therapies, breakthrough medical devices addressing serious conditions, and antimicrobial drugs for resistant infections. Each context illustrates a different policy rationale supporting the NTAP framework. Cellular therapies represent product cost so extreme that standard DRG payment cannot accommodate them. Breakthrough devices represent technology so promising that policy supports accelerated adoption. Antimicrobials represent an area of market failure where development incentives are insufficient without supplemental payment support. NTAP responds to each context through tailored eligibility and payment provisions.

The Three-Part Eligibility Test

Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(ii) and 42 CFR 412.87 establish the three-part eligibility test for NTAP. All three elements must be demonstrated; failure of any one results in NTAP denial.

Element 1: Newness

The technology must be within the newness period, typically 2 to 3 years from the date of FDA approval/clearance and entry into the market. The specific newness period determination involves:

• Date of FDA approval, clearance, or licensure
• Date of first commercial use
• Date of widespread availability

The newness period is the window during which NTAP eligibility is possible. After the newness period ends, the technology transitions to standard DRG payment and is no longer NTAP-eligible.

The 2-3 year newness period reflects the policy judgment that new technologies need temporary supplemental payment until the regular DRG reweighting process can incorporate the new technology cost. Reweighting requires multiple years of claims data; the newness period provides bridge funding during that interval.

Element 2: Cost

The technology must exceed a cost threshold relative to the DRG-specific average standardized amount. The standard threshold is 50 percent: the eligible charges for the new technology must exceed 50 percent of the average DRG-specific standardized amount for cases involving the technology.

For certain antimicrobials, the threshold is increased to 75 percent. The higher threshold reflects specific policy considerations for antimicrobial new technologies.

The cost threshold calculation uses:

• DRG-specific average standardized amount for relevant DRGs
• Charges for the new technology in actual cases
• Comparison to determine threshold satisfaction

The cost threshold ensures NTAP is reserved for genuinely high-cost technologies. Less expensive new technologies do not need NTAP because the standard DRG payment is adequate.

The cost threshold is technology-specific and DRG-specific. A technology used across multiple DRGs requires analysis of each relevant DRG's standardized amount. The cost methodology accounts for both the direct technology cost (drug acquisition, device purchase, procedural cost) and reasonable associated costs (administration, monitoring, related supplies). CMS reviews the cost submission to confirm methodological rigor and consistency with prior NTAP applications.

The 75 percent threshold modification for certain antimicrobials reflects congressional policy recognition that antimicrobial development faces unique market challenges, with high development costs and constrained markets due to antimicrobial stewardship limiting use. The lower effective cost threshold (75 percent of DRG amount rather than 50 percent, meaning the antimicrobial does not need to exceed as high a cost differential) supports antimicrobial NTAP eligibility even for products with moderate cost impacts.

Element 3: Substantial Clinical Improvement (SCI)

The technology must demonstrate substantial clinical improvement over existing technologies. The 42 CFR 412.87 regulation specifies criteria including:

• Reduces mortality: technology reduces death rates compared to existing treatments
• Reduces hospitalization: technology reduces hospital admissions
• Reduces future hospitalization: technology reduces subsequent admissions
• Reduces use of health care resources: technology reduces overall resource utilization
• Decreases recovery time: technology shortens recovery period
• Improves functional capacity: technology improves patient functional outcomes
• Reduces pain: technology reduces patient pain

One or more criteria must be demonstrated. The demonstration typically involves clinical trial data, observational evidence, or other documented clinical benefits.

SCI is the most rigorously reviewed element. CMS reviews applications carefully to ensure that the SCI demonstration is supported by adequate clinical evidence.

The SCI evaluation considers the totality of evidence relative to existing standards of care. For a new oncology agent, the relevant comparator is current standard chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or other established treatments, not historical or outdated therapies. For a new cardiac device, the comparator is the prevailing device class or surgical alternative. CMS evaluates whether the new technology delivers meaningful patient benefit beyond what current alternatives provide. The agency has historically resisted approving NTAP for technologies offering only incremental improvements over existing options, focusing the framework on genuinely transformative innovations.

The SCI standard creates a meaningful filter on the NTAP framework. Many technologies that satisfy the newness and cost criteria fail the SCI test because they do not demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement over existing alternatives. Applicants must invest considerable effort in compiling clinical evidence, sometimes including head-to-head comparative trials, meta-analyses, or real-world evidence demonstrating superior outcomes. The SCI evaluation often becomes the central focus of CMS review and public comment.

FDA Approval/Clearance

The technology must have FDA approval, clearance, or licensure. The specific FDA pathway varies by technology type:

• 510(k) clearance for many medical devices
• Premarket Approval (PMA) for high-risk devices
• Biologics License Application (BLA) for biologics including CAR-T
• New Drug Application (NDA) for drugs
• Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) for rare disease devices

FDA approval/clearance is a prerequisite; without it, the technology is not eligible for NTAP regardless of other characteristics.

42 CFR 412.87 Substantial Clinical Improvement Implementing Regulation

42 CFR 412.87 implements the substantial clinical improvement criteria and broader NTAP eligibility framework. The regulation specifies:

• The three-part eligibility test in operational detail
• The substantial clinical improvement criteria and documentation requirements
• The newness period determination methodology
• The cost threshold calculation methodology
• Application submission requirements and review procedures

SCI Documentation Requirements

Applicants must provide documentation supporting the SCI demonstration:

• Clinical trial data (when available)
• Observational studies
• Published literature
• Real-world evidence
• Expert clinical opinion

CMS reviews the evidence to determine whether SCI is demonstrated. The threshold for SCI demonstration is rigorous; many applications are denied for inadequate SCI evidence.

Specific SCI Considerations

CMS applies several specific considerations in SCI review:

• Comparison to current standard of care
• Magnitude of clinical improvement
• Patient population affected
• Generalizability of evidence
• Quality of evidence

The review is qualitative and judgmental, not strictly quantitative. CMS evaluates the totality of evidence supporting the SCI claim.

42 CFR 412.88 NTAP Payment Calculation Regulation

42 CFR 412.88 specifies the NTAP payment calculation methodology. The regulation establishes:

• The 65 percent of eligible charges standard payment rate
• The 75 percent rate for alternative pathway technologies (FDA Breakthrough Devices, QIDPs, LPAD drugs)
• The eligible charges definition
• The payment cap methodology
• The annual application process

Payment Calculation Steps

The NTAP payment calculation involves:

1. Determine eligible charges for the new technology
2. Apply the 65 percent (or 75 percent) factor
3. Apply the payment cap for the technology
4. Add the result to the standard DRG payment

The eligible charges are case-specific, reflecting actual charges for the new technology in each case. The payment cap, set in the IPPS final rule, limits the maximum NTAP payment per case.

Payment Cap

Each NTAP-approved technology has a specific payment cap set in the IPPS final rule. The cap is based on:

• Average cost of the technology
• Expected case volume
• Budget considerations
• Specific characteristics of the technology

For CAR-T therapies, the payment caps are substantial (hundreds of thousands of dollars per case), reflecting the high cost of CAR-T products.

Add-On Structure

NTAP is structured as an add-on to the standard DRG payment, not a replacement. A hospital receiving NTAP-eligible services collects:

• The standard DRG payment for the underlying admission
• Plus the NTAP add-on payment for the new technology
• Plus DSH, IME, capital, outlier adjustments as applicable

The total Medicare payment combines the standard IPPS framework with the NTAP supplement.

The Alternative Pathway

The FY 2020 IPPS final rule established an alternative pathway for NTAP eligibility, streamlining the process for technologies designated by FDA as breakthrough devices, QIDPs, or LPAD drugs.

FDA Breakthrough Device Designation

21 USC 360e-3, added by the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, established the FDA Breakthrough Device designation. Breakthrough devices are those that:

• Treat or diagnose life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions, AND
• Represent breakthrough technologies, treat conditions for which no approved alternatives exist, offer significant advantages over existing approved alternatives, or device availability is in patient interest

The Breakthrough Device designation provides FDA-prioritized review and other regulatory benefits. The FY 2020 alternative pathway extended NTAP advantages to Breakthrough Devices.

Qualified Infectious Disease Products (QIDPs)

Section 505E of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act establishes the QIDP designation for antibacterial and antifungal drugs treating serious or life-threatening infections. QIDP designation provides FDA review prioritization and extended market exclusivity.

The alternative pathway includes QIDPs based on their critical importance for antimicrobial development. Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health concern, and policy supports incentivizing new antibiotic development.

Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD)

Section 506(h) FDCA establishes the LPAD pathway for antibacterial and antifungal drugs developed for limited populations of patients. LPAD enables FDA approval based on more limited efficacy and safety data than standard approval pathways, recognizing the limited patient populations.

LPAD drugs are similarly included in the alternative pathway.

Alternative Pathway Benefits

Technologies qualifying through the alternative pathway receive:

• Streamlined NTAP eligibility (substantial clinical improvement presumed based on FDA designation)
• Higher 75 percent payment rate (vs 65 percent standard)
• Simplified application process

The alternative pathway recognizes that FDA's breakthrough designations themselves indicate the unmet medical need and clinical benefit that justify enhanced NTAP treatment. The pathway has accelerated NTAP access for many cutting-edge therapies.

CAR-T Therapy NTAP

CAR-T (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell) therapy is the most dramatic example of NTAP's role in supporting cutting-edge therapy access. CAR-T involves genetically modifying a patient's own T cells to recognize and attack cancer cells. The therapy is highly personalized and extraordinarily expensive, with product costs alone approaching $400,000 to $500,000 per treatment.

CAR-T Therapies Receiving NTAP

Multiple CAR-T therapies have received NTAP designation over the years:

• Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel): approved 2017 for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Yescarta was among the first CAR-T therapies to receive NTAP, with the original NTAP payment cap reflecting the approximately $373,000 manufacturer list price plus administration costs. Yescarta has subsequently received FDA approval for additional indications including follicular lymphoma, expanding its NTAP coverage scope.
• Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel): approved 2017 for pediatric/young adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia and adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Kymriah was the first CAR-T therapy to receive FDA approval, and its pediatric indication makes it particularly significant for pediatric programs like CHOA's Aflac Cancer Center. Manufacturer list price approximately $475,000.
• Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel): approved 2020 for mantle cell lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Tecartus expanded CAR-T to additional hematologic malignancies, with NTAP supporting Georgia hospital adoption.
• Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel): approved 2021 for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Breyanzi offers an alternative CAR-T product for DLBCL, providing physicians and patients with treatment choices.
• Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel): approved 2022 for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Carvykti represents a newer wave of CAR-T targeting multiple myeloma rather than lymphoid malignancies, demonstrating CAR-T expansion beyond initial indications.
• Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel): approved 2021 for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Abecma was the first CAR-T approved for multiple myeloma, opening a new disease area for CAR-T treatment.

Each therapy has gone through the NTAP application process, with specific payment caps and eligibility criteria. The CAR-T NTAP framework has evolved over time as CMS has accumulated experience with these high-cost therapies. NTAP application files include manufacturer cost documentation, FDA approval letters, clinical trial data demonstrating substantial clinical improvement, and analysis showing the cost threshold is satisfied.

The newer CAR-T therapies (Carvykti, Abecma) have benefited from refined NTAP review processes informed by earlier CAR-T applications. The CMS staff and stakeholders have developed expertise in the NTAP evaluation of cellular therapies, allowing applications to move through the review process with somewhat greater predictability than the initial Yescarta and Kymriah applications.

CAR-T NTAP Payment Magnitude

CAR-T NTAP payments are among the largest in the NTAP framework. Payment caps for CAR-T therapies have ranged from approximately $250,000 to $350,000+ per case, depending on the specific therapy and IPPS final rule provisions.

The CAR-T NTAP payment makes the financial math work for hospital CAR-T programs. Standard DRG payment alone would be vastly inadequate for CAR-T cases; NTAP closes much (though not all) of the gap between DRG payment and CAR-T cost.

CAR-T at Emory Healthcare

Emory Healthcare's Winship Cancer Institute operates a major CAR-T program offering multiple FDA-approved CAR-T therapies. The program serves both Emory's local Atlanta-area patients and patients referred from across Georgia and the Southeast. Emory's CAR-T program receives NTAP for eligible cases, supporting program sustainability.

The Emory CAR-T program operates within a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, with the infrastructure required for cellular therapy administration including specialized cell processing facilities, intensive care capacity for cytokine release syndrome management, and a multidisciplinary team of hematologic oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, and supportive care specialists. NTAP makes this infrastructure financially viable by closing the gap between standard Medicare DRG payment and the actual cost of providing CAR-T services.

Patients referred to Emory from rural Georgia, neighboring Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and beyond travel for CAR-T evaluation and treatment. Many cases involve multi-week hospitalizations, with patients and families relocating temporarily to Atlanta. The Winship Cancer Institute coordinates with referring hospitals on patient selection, post-treatment monitoring, and long-term follow-up.

CAR-T at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

Children's Healthcare of Atlanta's Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center operates a pediatric CAR-T program offering Kymriah for pediatric and young adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The pediatric CAR-T program is one of a limited number of pediatric CAR-T centers in the Southeast, serving children with refractory leukemia from across the region.

Pediatric Medicare cases (typically children with disabilities or ESRD on Medicare) and pediatric Medicaid cases both involve NTAP-eligible services through CHOA's program.

Other Georgia CAR-T

Other Georgia hospitals offer CAR-T services through various partnerships and referral relationships. Some hospitals refer patients to Emory or CHOA for CAR-T; others have their own programs.

Augusta University Medical Center's Georgia Cancer Center has cellular therapy capabilities. Northeast Georgia Medical Center and major Atlanta health systems (Northside, Piedmont, Wellstar) typically refer CAR-T candidates to designated cellular therapy centers, although referral patterns continue to evolve as more hospitals develop in-house capabilities. The CAR-T treatment landscape in Georgia remains relatively concentrated at Emory Winship and CHOA Aflac for the foreseeable future, with NTAP supporting the financial viability of these regional referral centers.

The geographic concentration of CAR-T programs in Atlanta means rural Georgia Medicare beneficiaries face access challenges including travel, lodging, and family logistics costs even when their Medicare benefits cover the medical care. Patient navigation programs, hospital social work, and patient advocacy organizations help bridge these access gaps, but they remain meaningful barriers for many Georgia families facing complex hematologic malignancies.

Annual IPPS Final Rule NTAP Process

The annual IPPS final rule is the operational vehicle for NTAP approvals. The process follows a regular cycle:

Application Submission

Manufacturers, hospitals, or other applicants submit NTAP applications to CMS. Applications include:

• FDA approval/clearance documentation
• Cost data demonstrating the cost threshold
• Substantial clinical improvement evidence
• Anticipated case volume
• Other supporting information

Applications are typically submitted by specific deadlines for inclusion in the next fiscal year's IPPS final rule.

CMS Review

CMS reviews applications, evaluating each element of the three-part eligibility test. Reviews involve:

• Initial completeness review
• Substantive eligibility evaluation
• Public comment opportunity through the IPPS proposed rule
• Final determination in the IPPS final rule

Approved NTAP Listing

The IPPS final rule lists approved NTAPs with:

• Technology name and description
• ICD-10-PCS or other applicable codes
• Payment cap
• Effective date

NTAP-approved technologies are listed in the IPPS final rule tables and CMS guidance documents.

Continuation and Expiration

NTAP technologies typically receive 2-3 years of eligibility. The IPPS final rule each year specifies which existing NTAPs continue and which expire.

Phase-Out Transition

When NTAP eligibility ends, the technology transitions to standard DRG payment. CMS may reweight the DRG to reflect the new technology cost, though reweighting takes time and may not fully capture the cost in the immediate post-NTAP period.

NTAP Phase-Out and DRG Reweighting

The transition from NTAP to standard DRG payment creates operational and financial challenges for hospital programs offering NTAP-funded therapies.

End of Newness Period

After the 2-3 year newness period, NTAP eligibility ends. The technology is no longer "new" by NTAP standards, even if it remains relatively recent in clinical practice.

Standard DRG Payment

Without NTAP, the hospital receives only the standard DRG payment for cases involving the technology. The standard DRG may have been reweighted to reflect the new technology cost, but reweighting often lags actual costs.

Financial Cliff

The transition can create a financial cliff. A hospital running a CAR-T program may have had $250,000 in NTAP per case in the newness years; after NTAP ends, that supplemental payment disappears. The DRG reweighting may compensate partially, but a residual payment gap is common.

Hospital Strategic Responses

Hospitals respond to NTAP phase-outs through various strategies:

• Pricing negotiations with manufacturers
• 340B leverage for eligible hospitals
• Cost reduction through process improvements
• Bundling and payment model innovations
• Advocacy for DRG reweighting

The transitions illustrate the importance of NTAP as a bridge mechanism rather than a permanent payment solution.

340B Drug Pricing Program Interaction

The 340B Drug Pricing Program provides discounted drug pricing to qualifying hospitals. Many NTAP-eligible drugs are also 340B-eligible, creating complex financial interactions.

340B Drug Acquisition

340B-eligible hospitals (Disproportionate Share Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and other qualifying entities) acquire 340B-eligible drugs at substantially discounted prices, often 25-50 percent below standard prices.

NTAP Payment Based on Charges

NTAP payment is based on the hospital's charges for the new technology, not the hospital's acquired cost. A hospital acquiring a drug at $200,000 through 340B but charging $400,000 generates NTAP payment based on the $400,000 charge.

340B Revenue

The combination of 340B acquisition discount and NTAP payment based on charges can generate substantial 340B revenue for safety-net hospitals offering NTAP-funded therapies. For Emory, Grady, and other 340B-eligible Georgia hospitals, this dynamic is financially significant.

The 340B revenue from NTAP-eligible drugs supports broader safety-net mission objectives at participating Georgia hospitals. Federal 340B statute and HRSA guidance impose requirements on how 340B-eligible entities use 340B savings, generally requiring use for patient care, with substantial discretion within that broad standard. For Grady Memorial Hospital as Atlanta's primary safety-net hospital, 340B revenue from advanced therapy drug acquisitions supports the hospital's free care for uninsured patients, residency training programs, and community health initiatives. Similar dynamics apply at Emory University Hospital, Memorial Health Savannah, and other 340B-eligible Georgia hospitals.

The interaction between 340B and NTAP has attracted policy scrutiny. Some stakeholders argue that the combination over-compensates 340B hospitals relative to non-340B competitors offering the same therapies. Others argue that 340B savings are essential for safety-net hospital operations and that NTAP payments based on charges accurately reflect hospital costs and risks. CMS has periodically adjusted 340B payment rates in the OPPS (outpatient) context, with related debates ongoing in the inpatient context that affects NTAP-eligible drugs.

CMS 340B Rate Adjustments

CMS has periodically adjusted payment rates for 340B-acquired drugs to address concerns about the gap between acquired cost and payment. These adjustments have been subject to litigation and policy debate (American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 2022).

Major Georgia Hospital NTAP Participation

Emory Healthcare and Winship Cancer Institute

Emory's Winship Cancer Institute operates a major CAR-T program with multiple FDA-approved CAR-T therapies. The program serves patients from across Georgia and the Southeast, supported by NTAP for eligible cases. Emory also participates in NTAP for other advanced therapies including high-cost cardiac devices, advanced cancer drugs, and other breakthrough technologies.

Children's Healthcare of Atlanta

CHOA's Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center offers pediatric CAR-T (Kymriah) for pediatric and young adult ALL. The program is one of a limited number of pediatric CAR-T centers in the Southeast region. CHOA also participates in NTAP for other pediatric advanced therapies.

AU Medical Center

The Augusta University Medical Center cancer center offers advanced cancer therapies including potential CAR-T cases. NTAP applies to eligible cases.

Memorial Health Savannah

The Memorial Health cancer services include various NTAP-eligible therapies and procedures.

Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital

The rural Georgia hospital may offer fewer high-cost NTAP-eligible services but participates in NTAP for cases it does deliver.

Atrium Health Floyd, Wellstar, Piedmont, Northside, Northeast Georgia Medical Center

Various Georgia hospitals participate in NTAP for eligible inpatient services. The specific NTAP-eligible services vary by hospital based on clinical programs.

Grady Memorial Hospital

Grady's safety-net mission includes access to advanced therapies for the patients it serves. Grady participates in NTAP for eligible services and benefits from 340B pricing for many NTAP-eligible drugs. The combination of NTAP payment and 340B discount creates meaningful revenue for the safety-net hospital, supporting its broader mission of serving low-income and uninsured patients across metro Atlanta. Grady's residency partnerships with Emory and Morehouse School of Medicine bring academic capability to safety-net care, with NTAP-eligible services delivered within this academic-safety-net model.

Regional Referral Patterns

Georgia's NTAP landscape reflects a hub-and-spoke pattern with Emory Winship and CHOA Aflac as the major cellular therapy hubs in Atlanta, AU Medical Center serving the Augusta region, and Memorial Health Savannah serving coastal Georgia. Rural Georgia hospitals (including Phoebe Putney in Albany, smaller community hospitals across South Georgia) typically refer patients requiring CAR-T or similar advanced therapies to the regional referral centers. The IPPS framework treats each hospital independently for NTAP claims processing, but the practical referral network determines where Georgia Medicare beneficiaries actually receive NTAP-eligible care.

The North Georgia/mountain region routes through Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville or Atlanta-area systems, while the Columbus region in west Georgia may route through Piedmont Columbus Regional or Atlanta. Major Atlanta systems (Northside, Piedmont, Wellstar, Emory) compete for cancer service market share, with cellular therapy capability becoming a key differentiator. Hospital-level NTAP participation depends on the specific clinical programs each institution chooses to develop and the FDA-approved technologies available for which NTAP applies.

Worked Example 1: Emory CAR-T Program NTAP

Consider a hypothetical CAR-T case at Emory University Hospital. A 65-year-old Georgia Medicare beneficiary with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is admitted for Yescarta CAR-T cell therapy.

Hospital cost components:

• Yescarta product acquisition cost: $373,000 (approximate manufacturer list price; 340B price lower if Emory qualifies for 340B for this product)
• Administration costs (hospitalization, monitoring, related care): approximately $50,000-$100,000
• Total hospital cost: approximately $425,000-$475,000

Medicare payment components:

• Standard DRG payment (DRG 018 for CAR-T): approximately $50,000-$55,000
• NTAP payment for Yescarta: 65 percent of eligible charges, capped at the IPPS final rule amount (approximately $250,000-$300,000 per case in recent years)
• Plus DSH, IME, capital adjustments: hospital-specific amounts

Total Medicare payment: approximately $300,000-$400,000+ depending on specific parameters.

The NTAP payment is critical. Without NTAP, the standard DRG alone would be approximately $50,000, leaving the hospital with $375,000-$425,000 in uncompensated cost per CAR-T case. With NTAP, the hospital approaches break-even or modest margin on CAR-T cases, enabling the program to continue serving patients.

For 340B-eligible Emory acquisitions, the 340B discount on the Yescarta product cost adds substantial revenue (the difference between acquired cost and charges/payment), further supporting the program.

Worked Example 2: CHOA Pediatric CAR-T NTAP

Consider a pediatric CAR-T case at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. A 10-year-old with relapsed pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia is admitted for Kymriah CAR-T cell therapy.

Hospital cost components similar to adult CAR-T:

• Kymriah product cost: approximately $475,000 (manufacturer list)
• Administration costs: approximately $75,000-$125,000 (pediatric care often more intensive)
• Total hospital cost: approximately $550,000-$600,000

Medicare/Medicaid payment components:

• The patient may be on Medicaid (pediatric coverage typically through Medicaid) or Medicare (if disability-based)
• Standard DRG payment for pediatric CAR-T
• NTAP for Kymriah (Medicare; Medicaid programs may apply similar payment treatment varying by state)
• Various supplemental payments

The pediatric CAR-T case illustrates the importance of NTAP for pediatric advanced therapy access. Without NTAP support, pediatric CAR-T programs would face the same financial impossibility as adult programs. CHOA's commitment to pediatric advanced therapy depends on NTAP and related payment frameworks.

Worked Example 3: Georgia Hospital Breakthrough Device NTAP

Consider a hypothetical breakthrough device NTAP application. A new cardiac device with FDA Breakthrough Device designation receives NTAP approval through the alternative pathway:

• Device cost per case: $35,000
• Standard DRG payment for relevant DRG: $25,000
• NTAP payment: 75 percent of eligible charges (alternative pathway), capped at $20,000 per case
• Total Medicare payment: $25,000 DRG + $20,000 NTAP = $45,000

The NTAP payment supports hospital adoption of the breakthrough device, enabling Georgia hospitals (Emory, AU Medical, Memorial Savannah, Wellstar, Piedmont, others) to offer the device to Medicare beneficiaries.

Worked Example 4: NTAP Cost Threshold Calculation

Consider a NTAP application demonstrating the cost threshold:

• DRG-specific average standardized amount for relevant DRGs: $15,000
• 50 percent threshold: $7,500
• New technology cost per case: $12,000
• Cost threshold satisfied: $12,000 exceeds $7,500

The technology satisfies the cost threshold and may qualify for NTAP if the other elements (newness, SCI) are also satisfied.

For technologies in DRGs with higher average standardized amounts (such as cardiac surgery DRGs or transplant DRGs), the threshold is correspondingly higher, requiring more expensive technologies to qualify.

Worked Example 5: NTAP Payment Calculation

Consider a NTAP-approved technology with the following parameters:

• Technology cost per case (eligible charges): $50,000
• NTAP payment rate: 65 percent
• NTAP payment cap: $30,000

NTAP payment calculation:

• 65 percent × $50,000 = $32,500
• Compared to cap: $30,000
• NTAP payment per case: $30,000 (capped)

The NTAP cap limits the maximum payment, ensuring NTAP supports but does not fully cover the new technology cost. The hospital retains some financial responsibility for the new technology, encouraging careful cost management.

Worked Example 6: NTAP Phase-Out Transition

Consider a NTAP technology approaching the end of its newness period. The technology has received NTAP for 3 years; eligibility ends at the end of FY 2025.

Pre-phase-out (FY 2025):

• DRG payment: $25,000
• NTAP payment: $20,000
• Total Medicare payment: $45,000
• Hospital cost: $40,000
• Margin: $5,000

Post-phase-out (FY 2026):

• DRG payment: $28,000 (reflecting partial DRG reweighting)
• NTAP payment: $0 (NTAP ended)
• Total Medicare payment: $28,000
• Hospital cost: $38,000 (slight reduction from learning curve and pricing pressure)
• Margin: -$10,000 (loss)

The phase-out creates a $15,000 per case margin reduction. For a hospital with 100 such cases per year, the annual financial impact is $1.5 million. Hospitals must respond through cost reduction, pricing negotiation, or volume reduction. The dynamic illustrates the importance of NTAP as a bridge and the operational challenges of post-NTAP transition.

Cost Report and MAC Implementation

Palmetto GBA Implementation

Palmetto GBA, as the Medicare Administrative Contractor for Georgia, implements NTAP through claims processing. NTAP add-on payment is applied to eligible claims based on:

• ICD-10-PCS codes identifying NTAP-eligible procedures
• ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for relevant conditions
• NDC codes for NTAP-eligible drugs
• Hospital identification as NTAP-participating

Worksheet E NTAP Reporting

Annual cost report Worksheet E captures NTAP payments received. The reporting supports cost report settlement and MAC audit.

Documentation Requirements

Hospitals maintain documentation supporting NTAP eligibility for each case:

• FDA approval documentation
• Clinical use documentation
• Cost documentation
• Coding accuracy

MAC audits may review NTAP documentation; inadequate documentation can result in denials.

Beneficiary Access Implications

The NTAP framework directly affects Georgia Medicare beneficiary access to cutting-edge therapies. Understanding the implications helps families and beneficiaries make informed decisions.

Access to CAR-T

For Medicare beneficiaries needing CAR-T therapy, NTAP makes hospital programs financially viable. Without NTAP, Emory and other Georgia CAR-T centers might not be able to offer CAR-T to Medicare beneficiaries; standard DRG payments alone would create unsustainable losses.

Access to Breakthrough Devices

Breakthrough devices treating life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions become accessible to Medicare beneficiaries through NTAP-supported hospital adoption. The alternative pathway accelerates access for breakthrough technologies.

Access to Advanced Drugs

Advanced cancer drugs, gene therapies, and other high-cost drugs benefit from NTAP. Hospital inpatient access to these therapies depends on NTAP and 340B for eligible hospitals.

Geographic Access Considerations

NTAP-funded programs require specialized infrastructure. Georgia CAR-T access is concentrated at Emory and CHOA, requiring patients across Georgia to travel for treatment. Rural Georgia patients may face access challenges for the most advanced therapies.

Out-of-Pocket Costs

NTAP affects hospital payment but does not directly affect beneficiary cost-sharing. Beneficiaries still owe the Part A inpatient deductible and any applicable coinsurance regardless of NTAP payment. Beneficiaries with supplemental insurance (Medigap, Medicare Advantage, dual eligible Medicaid) may have reduced out-of-pocket exposure.

For Georgia beneficiaries facing CAR-T or other NTAP-eligible care, the financial planning conversation typically involves understanding the Part A deductible ($1,736 for 2026), potential daily coinsurance for extended hospitalizations beyond 60 days, and how supplemental coverage applies. Many CAR-T cases involve hospitalizations of two to four weeks for the initial treatment and cytokine release syndrome monitoring, generally within the no-coinsurance Part A benefit period window unless the stay extends past 60 days. Medigap Plans A through N each have specific coverage for Part A coinsurance and the Part A deductible (depending on the plan letter), and Medicare Advantage plans have plan-specific cost-sharing structures.

For dual-eligible beneficiaries with Georgia Medicaid as secondary coverage, Medicaid covers Medicare cost-sharing under federal Section 1902(n) of the Social Security Act and Georgia's State Plan, reducing or eliminating out-of-pocket exposure. The Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) program specifically covers Medicare Part A and B premiums and cost-sharing for eligible beneficiaries below specific income and asset thresholds.

Patient Navigation and Support

Georgia CAR-T programs provide patient navigation support to help beneficiaries and families understand financial implications, insurance coverage, travel logistics, and care coordination. Emory Winship Cancer Institute, CHOA Aflac Cancer Center, and other major cancer centers maintain dedicated financial counselors who help families understand expected out-of-pocket costs, identify available financial assistance programs, and coordinate insurance authorizations. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, multiple myeloma foundations, and other disease-specific patient advocacy organizations also provide financial assistance for travel, lodging, and cost-sharing not covered by insurance.

Compliance and Operational Best Practices

Best practices for NTAP compliance and program management include:

1. NTAP-eligible service identification: clinical and revenue cycle staff aware of NTAP-eligible services
2. Coding accuracy: precise ICD-10-PCS/CM coding for NTAP-eligible procedures and diagnoses
3. Documentation maintenance: clinical and financial documentation supporting NTAP
4. MAC engagement: communication with Palmetto GBA on NTAP claims
5. Annual IPPS rule monitoring: tracking proposed and final rule NTAP changes
6. Application participation: manufacturers, hospitals submitting NTAP applications appropriately
7. Cost report accuracy: NTAP figures properly reported on Worksheet E
8. Audit preparation: documentation maintained for MAC audit
9. Phase-out planning: financial planning for NTAP expiration
10. 340B integration: leveraging 340B for eligible NTAP drugs
11. Manufacturer negotiations: ongoing pricing discussions
12. Internal financial modeling: program-level financial analysis
13. Patient access advocacy: supporting patient access to NTAP-funded therapies
14. Staff training: regular training on NTAP requirements

Common Issues and Considerations

Common issues in NTAP implementation include:

1. Coding errors: incorrect ICD-10 codes affecting NTAP eligibility
2. Documentation gaps: inadequate clinical documentation
3. MAC interpretation differences: variation in MAC application of NTAP rules
4. Cost threshold uncertainty: edge cases on threshold satisfaction
5. Substantial clinical improvement disputes: SCI evidence challenges
6. Application timing: missing submission deadlines
7. Phase-out planning failures: inadequate preparation for NTAP expiration
8. DRG reweighting lag: gap between NTAP end and adequate DRG reweighting
9. 340B-NTAP interactions: complexity of combined financial dynamics
10. Manufacturer pricing changes: impact on cost calculations
11. PRRB appeals: process for resolving disputes
12. OIG audit findings: addressing audit issues
13. Industry advocacy: engagement with AHA, manufacturer associations
14. Patient access tracking: monitoring access outcomes

Reform Debate and Future Direction

MedPAC Analyses

MedPAC has periodically analyzed NTAP, providing recommendations for refinement. Areas of focus include:

• Cost threshold methodology
• Substantial clinical improvement standards
• Payment cap adequacy
• Alternative pathway expansion

AHA Position

The American Hospital Association supports NTAP and advocates for process improvements, payment adequacy, and access protections. The AHA's policy positions emphasize that NTAP is essential for hospital adoption of new technologies and that payment adequacy directly affects patient access. The Georgia Hospital Association similarly engages with NTAP issues at the state level, supporting Georgia hospital interests in NTAP rulemaking and implementation.

Industry Perspective

Pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology manufacturers engage actively with NTAP. Industry priorities include streamlined eligibility, adequate payment, and predictable processes.

Patient Advocacy

Patient advocacy organizations support NTAP as essential for access to cutting-edge therapies. Patient groups particularly emphasize CAR-T and other advanced cancer therapy access. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, International Myeloma Foundation, Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, and disease-specific patient advocacy networks have engaged with CMS NTAP rulemaking, emphasizing the patient access implications of payment policy decisions. Patient testimony and advocacy have influenced NTAP framework decisions, particularly the alternative pathway expansion supporting accelerated access to breakthrough technologies and antimicrobial drugs for resistant infections.

Inflation Reduction Act 2022

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 included Medicare drug price negotiation provisions (Section 6004). NTAP-eligible drugs may interact with the drug negotiation process, particularly for high-cost drugs reaching the negotiation threshold. The interaction is operationally complex and continues to evolve.

Future Trajectory

NTAP is expected to continue with annual refinements through IPPS rulemaking. The alternative pathway may expand, application processes may streamline, and the integration with broader Medicare drug pricing policy will continue to develop.

Several factors will shape NTAP's evolution. The expanding pipeline of cellular therapies, gene therapies, and other personalized medicines will continue to test the framework, as these therapies typically combine extraordinarily high cost with potentially transformative clinical benefit. CMS faces ongoing pressure to make NTAP responsive to this innovation pipeline without compromising the underlying eligibility standards.

The Inflation Reduction Act's drug price negotiation provisions create operational and policy complexity for NTAP-eligible drugs reaching negotiation eligibility. CMS guidance and rulemaking will continue clarifying how negotiated drug prices interact with NTAP payment calculations, particularly for high-cost biologics that may eventually become subject to negotiation. Industry stakeholders, patient advocacy groups, and hospital associations have all engaged with this intersection.

DRG reweighting policy after NTAP phase-out remains an ongoing concern. Hospitals operating CAR-T programs and other high-cost technologies need predictable post-NTAP payment to plan investments and sustain programs. Improved DRG reweighting methodologies that more accurately reflect post-NTAP costs would reduce the financial cliff that hospitals face when NTAP expires.

Coding considerations also shape NTAP operations. ICD-10-PCS code creation, ICD-10-CM diagnosis code updates, and NDC code coordination all influence how hospitals capture NTAP-eligible cases. The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee process, run jointly by CDC NCHS (for ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes) and CMS (for ICD-10-PCS procedure codes), develops new codes for emerging technologies and procedures. Timely code development supports accurate NTAP claims processing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Learn More

• Medicare Hospital Inpatient Benefit (Georgia)
• Medicare 340B Drug Pricing (Georgia)
• Medicare Cost Report (Georgia)
• Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (Georgia)
• Medicare Part B Drug Payment (Georgia)
• Medicare Drug Price Negotiation (Georgia)

Find personalized help understanding Medicare hospital benefits and access to cutting-edge therapies in Georgia at brevy.com.

The information on Brevy.com is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional legal, financial, or medical advice. Rules vary by state and program and change frequently. Always verify with the relevant agency or a qualified professional. Brevy is not a law firm, financial advisor, or healthcare provider.