Privacy considerations have been front and center for U.S. federal government agencies for more than two decades, but several states have jumped into the privacy arena with their own legislative imperatives. While companies in the medical device industry would like to see a less imposing thicket of related enforcement requirements, Nancy Perkins of Arnold & Porter LLP said there is little prospect that Congress will relieve the predicament with anything resembles preemptive legislation.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a unique role in enforcement of medical product communication even though the department shares oversight of medical product promotions with the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed a number of policies related to corporate misconduct over the past couple of decades, some of which were stood up only to be reversed a short time later.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has moved decisively in the area of mergers and acquisitions recently, but the agency also has a footprint in the enforcement space for health data disclosure. The FTC’s Ronnie Solomon said in a Dec. 1 public meeting that the agency will begin “thinking outside the box about what health information is in the 21st Century,” adding that the FTC is eyeing a more stringent enforcement regime regarding personal health data disclosures in the coming new year.
The U.S. FDA’s regulation of commercial speech under the First Amendment has been controversial and has handed the agency several losses in court, but Arun Rao of the U.S. Department of Justice let it be known that DOJ is still keen on commercial speech enforcement. Rao said the case of Gonzalez v. Google, which will be heard by the Supreme Court, is an example of potentially precedent-setting litigation, and that manufacturers of drugs and devices may experience an uptick in enforcement depending on where the Supreme Court lands in Gonzalez.
The U.S. FDA’s regulation of commercial speech under the First Amendment has been controversial and has handed the agency several losses in court, but Arun Rao of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) let it be known that DOJ is still keen on commercial speech enforcement. Rao said the case of Gonzalez v. Google, which will be heard by the Supreme Court, is an example of potentially precedent-setting litigation, and that manufacturers of drugs and devices may experience an uptick in enforcement depending on where the Supreme Court lands in Gonzalez.
The U.S. FDA may be the most advanced regulatory agency when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), but developers of these products still have little in the way of FDA guidance to work with in many instances. Cassie Scherer of Dublin-based Medtronic plc, told attendees at this year’s Food and Drug Law Institute annual conference that they should have a product change control protocol ready to go despite the absence of FDA guidance on the subject, an effort that will increase time to market but pay eventually big dividends.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has kept a close eye on medical technology for a number of years, but the department’s consumer protection branch has often lagged behind other DOJ offices where enforcement is concerned.
Regulatory harmonization for medical technology often seems more the stuff of gauzy dreams than bare-knuckle reality, but the Medical Device Single Review Program (MDSRP) is at the top of the list for a lot of device makers. Jeff Shuren, director of the U.S. FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) device center, told an audience at this year’s annual meeting of the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) that while the agency is very keen on the MDSRP concept, the agency would need help from Congress with the statute in order to take part, and thus the FDA will not be taking part in the MDSRP effort for now.
U.S. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf offered the keynote address at this year’s annual meeting of the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI), revisiting recent events that have roiled the agency’s staff and reputation. Califf made a point of emphasizing the need for new statutory authorities in connection with the supply chains for FDA-regulated products, and remarked that his return to the agency will not be a reversion to the norm in this context.