The question of third-party litigation funding has been front and center for life science companies in recent years, with one of the key considerations a lack of transparency as to the source of the funding behind much of this litigation. That lack of transparency was front and center in the Sept. 13 hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the tenor of the hearing made clear that some members of Congress will stand in opposition to any reforms even though the lack of transparency is widely seen as enabling meritless litigation.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system for fiscal year 2024 with a number of new and renewed new technology add-on payments (NTAPs) for the coming fiscal year. Controversially, however, the agency retained a proposal from the draft that requires that a product have received market authorization from the FDA by no later than May 1 of the prior fiscal year to qualify for NTAP payment, a provision that industry has blasted as exclusionary of products that merit an NTAP payment.
The U.S. CMS has released the draft Medicare physician fee schedule for calendar year 2024, inviting rebuttal from physician groups thanks to a proposed cut in rates of 1.25%. However, the draft’s proposed cut of roughly 2% for radiation oncology services has also provoked stakeholders who blasted the proposal as a detriment to cancer care, a particularly ironic move given the emphasis on the Biden administration’s Cancer Moonshot.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for predetermined change control plans (PCCP) is a groundbreaking document for med-tech regulation, but stakeholders see a few holes in the draft version. One of the issues for device manufacturers is that the guidance seems to exclude any possibility of inclusion of a new intended use or indication for use in a PCCP, while others seek more detail on how this policy can be applied to the device component of a combination product, two elements that may prove complicated to address in the final guidance.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for predetermined change control plans (PCCP) is a groundbreaking document for med-tech regulation, but stakeholders see a few holes in the draft version. One of the issues for device manufacturers is that the guidance seems to exclude any possibility of inclusion of a new intended use or indication for use in a PCCP, while others seek more detail on how this policy can be applied to the device component of a combination product, two elements that may prove complicated to address in the final guidance.
Sotera Health Holdings LLC has finalized a $408 million settlement for litigation over the company’s use of ethylene oxide (EtO) at a Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, Ill., although litigation is still pending in connection with sites in other U.S. states. The news comes as med-tech trade associations register their disappointment with an EPA proposed rule for EtO that both the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (Advamed) argue would crimp availability of sterilization capacity, which would in turn create shortages of medical devices and supplies that are desperately needed by patients.
U.S. Medicare coverage for breakthrough devices has been a hot topic for several years now, but industry is one step closer to making this policy dream a reality thanks to another new proposal from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The agency released a new version of the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) program that seems to satisfy most of what med-tech trade associations sought, but the catch is that manufacturers must notify CMS of their intent to take part in TCET a year before the FDA will decide whether to grant market authorization to the device.
With False Claims Act (FCA) whistle-blower lawsuits multiplying amid the complexity of regulations that often are unclear, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some clarity as to what constitutes a false claim in a unanimous opinion handed down June 1. But it’s not what the biopharma and med-tech industries were hoping for.
A subcommittee of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee met to review the status of policies for novel medical devices and drugs, but a partisan rift was immediately evident at the hearing. House Democrats were generally in favor of more drug price negotiation power for the federal government and opposed to immediate Medicare coverage of breakthrough medical devices while Republicans generally steered in the opposite direction, suggesting that drug and device makers should not expect clear legislative sailing over the course of the 118th Congress.
The U.S. FDA has finalized a guidance for class II devices for treatment of peripheral artery disease that excludes drug-coated balloons (DCBs), which are regulated as class III devices. One of the issues the med-tech industry may have with the guidance is that it fails to acknowledge that a device accessory is in some instances exempt from the requirements of the 510(k) program even though the agency has a policy specific to that consideration.
