A committee of the U.S. House of Representatives met to review the Medicare coverage procedure for innovative drugs and devices, an event that seemed to gin up support for legislation that would help to streamline those processes. The problem for drug and device makers, however, may be that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
continues to labor under a flat appropriations picture that is eroding daily thanks to inflation.
The False Claims Act (FCA) has generated billions of dollars in fines each year in the U.S., and Atlanta-based Nextgen Healthcare Inc., is the latest to find itself on the wrong end of a whistleblower lawsuit based on the FCA. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that Nextgen will hand over $31 million to settle allegations that the vendor of electronic health records (EHR) not only misrepresented the capabilities of its software, but also paid kickbacks to physician providers to use its software, a pair of violations that have dinged the company’s finances and its reputation.
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 recent final guidance for clinical decision support (CDS) software has drawn a second citizen’s petition for withdrawal, this time from a law professor at the University of Florida (UF). Barbara Evans of the UF School of Law asserted that the CDS final “raises constitutional issues” that are of sufficient importance to warrant an investigation led by the FDA commissioner’s office because of what she argues is a disregard for the First Amendment encoded in the guidance.
The U.S. CMS is proposing to expand coverage of angioplasty and stenting for the carotid arteries to include patients who currently cannot receive this treatment for carotid artery stenosis outside of a clinical trial, generally a cause for celebration among device makers. However, Silk Road Medical Inc. is one possible exception to the overall picture as utilization of its transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) system may suffer as a result.
Much of U.S. patent law jurisprudence still revolves around subject matter eligibility, but a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisits the question of what constitutes obviousness in patent applications. The court remanded the case between Irvine, Calif.-based Axonics Inc. and Dublin-based Medtronic plc to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) after determining that the PTAB judge’s understanding of obviousness is “doubly infected by error” in a decision that seems to offer some much-needed clarity where obviousness is concerned.
The U.S. FDA reported July 11 a class I recall for patient return electrodes used during electrosurgical procedures that may burn the patient with sufficient severity to induce a third-degree burn. More than 21,000 of the electrodes, made by Raritan, N.J.-based Ethicon Inc.’s Megadyne division, are subject to the recall, although the agency said the manufacturer is still conducting a root cause analysis of the issue.
Five long years after the publication of the now-notorious Katsanos paper, the U.S. FDA has issued a final determination about whether devices indicated for treatment of peripheral artery disease carry the threat of excess mortality when using paclitaxel as an antiproliferative.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for patient-matched guides for orthopedic surgical implants is presumably a much-needed document for makers of these guides, and bench testing may suffice for many such applications. However, the draft states that clinical testing may be required when a manufacturer intends to claim that their guides could reduce surgical times.
Device makers are often cited in U.S. FDA warning letters for making claims not seen in the approved labeling, but the authors of a recent review of artificial intelligence (AI) products cleared by the FDA suggest that FDA documents and marketing materials should disclose the presence of AI in these products. The authors of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association said that only about 80.6% of the products were represented with accurate statements about the presence of AI, although FDA regulation does not require that marketing materials make such disclosures.
