Compare

    Two terms, side by side

    Pick any two terms to see definitions, context, pitfalls, and sources in parallel.

    Curated comparison tables

    In-depth, attribute-by-attribute tables for the most common MedTech term pairs. Each row is sourced from the linked term pages.

    Reimbursement

    New Technology Add-On Payment(NTAP)

    In one line
    Supplemental Medicare payment for inpatient use of qualifying new technologies.
    Definition
    NTAP provides up to 65% additional payment (75% for some categories) above the MS-DRG rate to hospitals using qualifying new technologies. Eligibility requires FDA marketing authorization, newness (typically <3 years), substantial clinical improvement, and inadequate MS-DRG payment. NTAP applications are due in the fall for the next fiscal year and are reviewed in the IPPS proposed and final rules. Breakthrough Devices and certain antimicrobial products follow an alternative pathway that does not require proving substantial clinical improvement. NTAP status generally lasts two to three years, after which the cost should be reflected in DRG data.
    Why it matters
    NTAP bridges the gap while CMS gathers utilization data to update DRG weights. Time-limited (2–3 years). Critical for high-cost devices used inpatient.
    Common pitfalls
    • •A common pitfall is failing to secure timely FDA marketing authorization, which is a prerequisite for NTAP consideration.
    • •Misinterpreting the "newness" criterion can lead to missed application windows, as technologies typically qualify for a limited period, often three years.
    • •Overlooking the requirement for "substantial clinical improvement" can result in rejection, as mere incremental advancements may not be sufficient.
    • •Failing to demonstrate that the existing Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) payment is inadequate to cover the technology's costs is a frequent pitfall.
    • •Companies sometimes assume NTAP is a permanent solution rather than a transitional payment mechanism while CMS updates DRG weights.
    Open full page
    Select term B to compare.

    Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

    MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

    Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

    Common comparison patterns

    How to use this tool

    Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

    MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.