Regulatory harmonization is perhaps highest on the regulatory wish list of medical device manufacturers, but the FDA’s device center has tamped down expectations of a medical device single review program. Jeff Shuren, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) said the agency will release a strategic plan later this year for regulatory harmonization, but declined to offer any details other than to state that differences in risk classification schema are not as significant a source of drag on harmonization as may commonly be believed.
The Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) has led the policy charge for smaller medical device manufacturers for decades, but each year brings its own unique set of hazards and opportunities. In an interview with BioWorld, MDMA President and CEO Mark Leahey said that while the Medicare policy for coverage of breakthrough devices has gone through some unanticipated twists and turns, that policy is not yet fixed and thus there is still some prospect that such a policy will not devolve into a stew of leftovers drawn from existing coverage mechanisms.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has once again waded into the question of whether medical devices should be included in the agency’s right-to-repair discussion, most recently in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking ostensibly titled for energy labeling. The Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance (MITA) pushed back on the proposal by pointing to the draft’s required disclosure of proprietary information about a medical device system, a provision MITA said might detract from patient safety.
The U.S. House of Representatives has resurrected the Pre-approval Information Exchange (PIE) Act, a bill that would bolster the prospects for drugs and devices by improving communications with payers prior to U.S. FDA clearance or approval of the product.
The U.S. House of Representatives has resurrected the Pre-approval Information Exchange (PIE) Act, a bill that would bolster the prospects for drugs and devices by improving communications with payers prior to U.S. FDA clearance or approval of the product. The supporters of the legislation, a bipartisan group of members of the House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Committee, see the legislation as essential as a means of overcoming some of the ambiguities in a 2018 FDA guidance pertaining to communications between manufacturers and payers, and thus a replay of one of the more interesting methods of critiquing an FDA guidance.
The U.S. CMS has finalized the physician fee rule for calendar year 2023, a document that imposes an across-the-board pay cut of approximately 4.5% for physician Medicare services. However, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) blasted the final rule’s failure to provide what they believe are appropriate rates for cardiac ablation services, a position backed by two med-tech trade associations in their comments to the docket for the draft rule.
Medical device manufacturers have railed against payers’ prior authorization practices for years, but the U.S. Congress seems poised to finally address the issue, at least in the context of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The House of Representatives has passed the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, a development that drew the applause of both the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) and the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), a clear display of the broad support enjoyed by the legislation.
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 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.
