Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Vns Therapy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Med‑tech maker urges higher Medicaid implant payments for VNS therapy, cites cost‑savings

3717515 · May 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

LivaNova, maker of VNS Therapy, told the Senate Medicaid subcommittee a modest payment increase for the implant could improve access for Ohio Medicaid members with drug‑resistant epilepsy and said a five‑year budget model could yield state net savings.

Tim Sweeney, representing LivaNova, a manufacturer of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy, told the Senate Medicaid subcommittee that increasing Medicaid hospital payments for the implant procedure could expand access for Ohioans with drug‑resistant epilepsy and produce net savings to the Medicaid program.

Sweeney described VNS therapy as an implantable neuromodulation treatment for people whose seizures are not controlled by medications. He said some patients who access VNS use fewer antiseizure medications, have fewer hospitalizations and improved quality of life.

"A modest increase in the payment occurred in 2020. However, providers stated it did not alleviate the access to care issues sufficiently," Sweeney said, arguing that higher hospital payment rates for implants would reduce access barriers.

Sweeney provided a five‑year budget impact model LivaNova prepared that assumed an annual implant average of 77 Ohio Medicaid members; the model projected $5,000,000 in net cost savings to Medicaid over five years when accounting for reduced utilization and downstream costs. He said current payments to hospitals average "40 to 50% of the hospital cost for a VNS implant" and that other states had modified payment systems to increase access.

Senators asked clarifying technical questions about prevalence and pathway to specialty care. No legislative action was taken; Sweeney said he would be available for follow‑up and for providing the budget model to the Department of Medicaid or committee staff.