A committee of the U.S. House of Representatives is moving forward with a bill that would extend Medicare telehealth provisions for two years after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, but the legislation lacks features to deal with fraud and abuse.
The U.S. FDA’s latest draft guidance for premarket cybersecurity considerations expands considerably on the previous edition, and suggests that the manufacturer’s cybersecurity responsibilities include security in a health care facility’s network.
The U.S. FDA’s latest draft guidance for premarket cybersecurity considerations expands considerably on the previous edition, and suggests that the manufacturer’s cybersecurity responsibilities include security in a health care facility’s network.
Physician-owned distributorships (PODs) were the subject of concern by medical device makers and members of Congress as long as a decade ago, and recent events would seem to justify some of those fears. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced July 1 that two owners of a POD have agreed to pay $1 million to settle claims that they paid kickbacks to other doctors to use medical devices supplied by the POD, the very kind of violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute that undergirded some of the earlier concerns about these business arrangements.
Medical device supply chain considerations became especially salient during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the U.S. FDA is interested in ensuring that supply chains do not hamper patient access going forward. However, Clayton Hall of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) said on a recent FDA webinar that device makers are sometimes at the mercy of their suppliers.
The attempt by the U.S. FDA to harmonize its Quality System Regulation (QSR) with ISO 13485 promises to be a difficult slog, but Jeff Shuren, director of the agency’s device center, said the agency is flexible on the proposed one-year implementation deadline. However, Shuren also noted that the draft rule would not be converted into a final rule at any point during the current calendar year, leaving device makers with an extended term of uncertainty.
The U.S. FDA’s draft device user fee agreement was months late in arriving on Capitol Hill, a fact which also delayed the public meeting on the draft, an event that finally took place April 19. The meeting kicked off with an acknowledgement by second-time FDA commissioner Robert Califf of the growing role of user fees in FDA finances, but Mark Leahey, president and CEO of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA), said that the quality of FDA reviews was at least as important as the timeliness of those reviews even though the user fee deals include many deadline-based metrics.
The FDA’s June 2021 draft guidance for remanufacturing of medical devices wades into a highly complicated area of compliance for third-party servicing organizations that may not be familiar with FDA regulations, but the draft has sparked another set of concerns. Two trade associations said the draft would seem to suggest that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must disclose confidential trade secrets to give these third parties the information needed to service these devices, a suggestion that both the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) said is clearly out of bounds.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee met April 5 to review the user fee agreements for the drug and device centers, but one member of the committee was quite vocal about the ever-growing volume of user fees. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said the pace with which user fees are increasing suggests that the FDA is growing increasingly independent of Congress.
The U.S. FDA has finally unveiled the fifth edition of the device user fee program (MDUFA V), and some of the performance measures remain unchanged from MDUFA IV, such as that the FDA will process 95% of 510(k) filings within 90 days.
