Medicare's payment review credits ContaCT with faster stroke alerts

CMS found that Viz.ai ContaCT shortens time to specialist notification for large vessel occlusion stroke; in routine use the median time to notification was 4.31 minutes.

22
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Found by a court or regulator
Source information as of
Sources
2 publications
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

The median time to notification was 4.31 minutes

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Reduced Task Time

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

Organizations. People.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

ContaCT (Viz LVO algorithm with Viz Hub and Viz View)

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

The software analyzed CT angiograms of the brain and alerted specialists in parallel with the radiology read. Specialists received alerts and images through the Viz Hub and Viz View mobile tools.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

The FDA comparison used past scans, so the alerts did not reach a treating team. The routine-use data have no comparison group, and the hospital before and after comparisons do not rule out other changes to stroke care.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Measurement

Studies

Study 1: before/after. Study 2: controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Study design

Study 1: before/after. Study 2: controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measurement

Study 1: Hospital records of door-to-puncture times before and after ContaCT implementation, as reported by the applicant. Study 2: Comparison of ContaCT notification times with recorded usual-care notification times on past scans, as cited by CMS. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Setting and sample

Study 1: SkyRidge (32 patients), Wellstar (120 patients), Methodist Le Bonheur (46 patients), Mount Sinai (42 patients). Study 2: Past scans from the study submitted for FDA authorization. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measures

Study 1: Door-to-puncture time; time to specialist notification. Study 2: Time from CT angiogram to specialist notification. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Comparison

Study 1: Patients treated before ContaCT, or with occlusions that ContaCT did not flag. Study 2: Usual-care notification time. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Results

Study 1: Average door-to-puncture reductions of 24, 30 and 44 minutes; median notification 4.31 minutes in 4,763 patients. Study 2: 7.32 minutes against 58.72 minutes mean. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Additional value from AI

Study 1: Not isolated in the hospital cohorts. Study 2: About 51 minutes earlier notification. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Limitations

Study 1: Small single-site cohorts; data supplied by the applicant; CMS earlier raised confounding concerns. Study 2: Time to notification is a process measure; patient outcomes were not measured in this study. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Denominators

Study 1: Stroke patients with CT angiography at hospitals using ContaCT. Study 2: One analysis per scan. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Materials for replication

Study 1: None public. Study 2: None public. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Viz.ai, Inc. Operator: US hospitals using ContaCT, including SkyRidge Medical Center, Wellstar, Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare and Mount Sinai Health System.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: United States. Developer: United States. Operator: United States.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

A thrombectomy team is ready to act on alerts. Scans meet the device's acquisition requirements.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

3 follow-up entries. Benefit recurred: 3.

Awaiting review

Later findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0651-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Found by a regulator. Sources: two independent regulatory documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

Organizations. People.

Awaiting review

Depth

Organizations: 2. People: 2.

Awaiting review

Reasons

Organizations: Viz.ai data showed a median of 4.31 minutes from scan to specialist notification across 4,763 patients in routine use. People: Hospital comparisons reported average reductions in door-to-puncture time of 24, 30 and 44 minutes for thrombectomy patients.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Found by a regulator

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. A payment regulator's determination based on several studies and deployment data. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Healthcare.

Awaiting review

Purpose

ContaCT was built to alert a stroke specialist to a suspected large vessel occlusion in parallel with the usual radiology read. Faster notification is that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Source information as of: October 2018. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was in routine use. ContaCT was in routine hospital use from October 2018; CMS weighed six months of routine-use data. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 1d3e16864102…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Regulatory document Independent author

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System; final rule. Federal Register 85 FR 58432, 18 September 2020 (document 2020-19637).

  2. Regulatory document Independent author

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. De Novo classification request for ContaCT (DEN170073): decision summary. 13 February 2018.

Collections: Scrutiny and findings.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 1d3e16864102, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed