WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 25-121

Medicaid Reimbursement for Vagus Nerve Stimulation

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Judy Amabile and 16 co-sponsors

Medicaid would reimburse facilities 60% of VNS device costs initially (rising to 75% by 2029) for drug-resistant epilepsy patients, in addition to surgical payments.

House Committee on Health & Human Services Postpone Indefinitely
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 25-121

SB 25-121 — Medicaid Reimbursement for Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Status: Postponed indefinitely by the House Committee on Health & Human Services (April 28, 2025)
Introduced: February 4, 2025 · Sponsors: Sen. Iman Jodeh, Rep. Lindsay Gilchrist (primary) and multiple cosponsors

Purpose

To change Medicaid (Health First Colorado) reimbursement for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy so that facilities that acquire and implant VNS devices for members with drug‑resistant epilepsy receive higher payment for the device itself (in addition to surgical/procedure payments).

Key provisions

  • Requires the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) to seek federal authorization (State Plan Amendment) to reimburse acute care hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers for acquiring VNS devices provided to members diagnosed with drug‑resistant epilepsy.
  • As amended: phase‑in of device acquisition reimbursement — 60% of the device acquisition cost initially, increasing to 75% beginning January 1, 2029. (Earlier draft versions proposed immediate 75% reimbursement.)
  • The device reimbursement is explicitly in addition to — and does not supplant — reimbursement for any necessary surgical procedure to implant the device.
  • HCPF is directed to adopt rules necessary to implement the program.

Eligibility and clinical background

  • Targets Medicaid members diagnosed with drug‑resistant epilepsy (Colorado’s existing VNS benefit applies to patients >12 years old with partial‑onset seizures resistant to at least three antiepileptic drugs for ≥12 months).
  • VNS devices are implanted subcutaneously; batteries typically last 5–7 years and require replacement.

Fiscal impact (per Legislative Council fiscal notes)

  • Implementation depends on federal approval; CMS may require broader coverage per 42 CFR 440.230, which could alter or block the narrowly targeted authorization.
  • Final fiscal estimate (reengrossed + amendment): no FY25‑26 cost; estimated increases of $178,225 (FY 2026‑27), $159,720 (FY 2027‑28), and $340,260 (FY 2029‑30). Funding mix: General Fund, HAS Cash Fund, and federal Medicaid funds.
  • Major drivers/assumptions:
    • Average provider cost to acquire a VNS device ≈ $40,000.
    • Current average Medicaid device reimbursement ≈ 39–47% (varied across notes).
    • Current coded utilization: 271 VNS device claims in FY 2023‑24, 30 coded as drug‑resistant epilepsy; an estimated 3,630 eligible members exist but utilization is currently low.
    • MMIS (claims system) update one‑time cost ≈ $98,365 (FY 2026‑27) to enable manual pricing for grouped/individual claims.
  • Early/alternate fiscal notes estimated much larger costs (e.g., ~$4.0 million) when assuming higher utilization (270 annual claims) or immediate 75% reimbursement.

Timeline & procedural notes

  • Bill language required HCPF to seek federal authorization no later than January 1, 2026; fiscal notes assumed federal approval and implementation would likely occur ~12 months after submission (estimates used Jan 1, 2027 for program start).
  • Because the bill was postponed indefinitely by the House Health & Human Services Committee on April 28, 2025, the fiscal and policy changes would not take effect.

Who would be affected

  • Primary: acute care hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers that provide VNS devices and implantation to Medicaid members.
  • Secondary: Medicaid members with drug‑resistant epilepsy (potentially increased access if higher reimbursement increases provider participation).
  • State agencies: HCPF (program administration, rulemaking, MMIS updates), possible Department of Law involvement for legal work.

Uncertainties / considerations

  • Federal CMS approval is required and may be conditioned on broader coverage across conditions; without approval HCPF would not implement the change.
  • If higher payment increases provider participation or utilization, state costs could exceed estimates and would be addressed in future budget processes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.