Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...

CMS-1403-FC
this statutory exclusion and low vision aids), the Supreme
Court recognizes that a prior judicial construction of an
ambiguous statute does not categorically control an
agency’s contrary construction. As noted above, we
understand that some may believe a more narrow
interpretation would be appropriate in this instance. We
disagree and continue to believe we have interpreted the
Medicare statute in a way that best captures the Congress’
intent and that our interpretation is a reasonable and
permissible reading of the statutory exclusion.
Furthermore, we have followed the necessary procedures
set forth under the Administrative Procedures Act for
agencies to follow in establishing interpretive rules to
ensure that this regulatory clarification of our
longstanding Medicare policy has been given the appropriate
consideration and review.
Finally, as noted in more detail below, if an item or
service falls within a benefit category, it must not be
otherwise excluded, in order for coverage to be considered.
Thus, whether an item that falls within the scope of
statutory exclusion clarified by this regulation falls
within a defined Medicare benefit category, does not alter
the analysis as to whether the statutory exclusion for
eyeglasses may apply.
995