Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6848

Bill Overview

Title: Medicare Demonstration of Coverage for Low Vision Devices Act of 2022

Description: 2022 This bill requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to carry out a demonstration project to evaluate the fiscal impact of covering low-vision devices under Medicare in the same manner as Medicare coverage is provided for durable medical equipment. The bill defines low-vision device to mean a physician-prescribed device that magnifies, enhances, or otherwise augments or interprets visual images; the term does not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses. The bill appropriates $2.5 million for FY2022 and each of the next four fiscal years for the CMS to carry out the project.

Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]

Target Audience

Population: People with low vision requiring specialty devices for enhanced sight

Estimated Size: 2500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Retired teacher (Florida)

Age: 70 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy would greatly improve my ability to read and write.
  • I'm concerned that not everyone who needs devices will get them due to budget limits.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 4
Year 2 7 3
Year 3 7 3
Year 5 8 2
Year 10 8 2
Year 20 6 1

Retired nurse (California)

Age: 78 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy would provide necessary support for people like me.
  • I'm hopeful that more funding could be secured in the future.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 6 2
Year 20 5 2

Graphic designer (New York)

Age: 61 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I might not qualify for the demonstration as I'm not yet 65.
  • The policy could help others with more severe needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Retired librarian (Texas)

Age: 86 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Low vision devices could help me a lot.
  • Access to these technologies seems critical for my independence.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 3
Year 2 6 2
Year 3 7 2
Year 5 7 1
Year 10 7 1
Year 20 6 1

IT specialist (Ohio)

Age: 52 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The demonstration doesn't seem to apply to me right now.
  • I appreciate the focus on specific needs, though.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Retired accountant (Michigan)

Age: 72 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I fear I'll be overlooked due to the project's size.
  • Being able to see better would help me regain some independence.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 5 2
Year 10 4 2
Year 20 3 1

Retired engineer (New Jersey)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could help improve my quality of life.
  • It's a step in the right direction, despite budget constraints.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 3
Year 10 5 3
Year 20 4 2

Retired professor (Illinois)

Age: 80 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 2

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The availability of these devices would significantly improve my daily life.
  • I hope the program can be extended to reach everyone in need.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 2
Year 2 5 2
Year 3 5 2
Year 5 6 1
Year 10 5 1
Year 20 4 1

Stay-at-home spouse (Georgia)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy won't directly affect me right now.
  • It's important work that could mature into broader coverage.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Retired mechanic (Arizona)

Age: 73 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The project would greatly help in maintaining my independence.
  • I worry about the limited scope missing some individuals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 3
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 6 2
Year 10 5 2
Year 20 4 2

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $2500000)

Key Considerations