BioWorld. Link to homepage.

Clarivate
  • BioWorld
  • BioWorld MedTech
  • BioWorld Asia
  • BioWorld Science
  • Data Snapshots
    • BioWorld
    • BioWorld MedTech
  • Special reports
    • Aging
    • Biosimilars
      • Artificial intelligence
    • Coronavirus
    • Israel
    • IVDs on the rise
    • Radiopharmaceuticals
    • Rise of obesity
    • Science '22 in Review
    • Top Biopharma Trends of 2022
    • Top Med-tech Trends of 2022
    • Premium reports
      • BioWorld Financings Reports
      • Disease Incidence & Prevalence Summaries

BioWorld. Link to homepage.

  • sign in
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Subscribe
BioWorld - Monday, December 11, 2023
Home » Blogs » BioWorld MedTech Perspectives » Government, industry and crossed wires

BioWorld MedTech Perspectives
BioWorld MedTech Perspectives RSS FeedRSS

BioWorld MedTech

Government, industry and crossed wires

Sep. 13, 2013
By Mark McCarty
No Comments

These two had serious issues with communication. Sound familiar?The playwright George Bernard Shaw is credited with having said, “the single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place,” a remark device makers might apply to their interactions with FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Those two agencies might have similar observations about device makers, too.

Still, we’ve all discovered it’s not always easy to communicate clearly, especially when complex matters are at hand. So let’s dig into the story behind a recent development at FDA and a long-standing communication hurdle between CMS and device makers.

FDA recently issued a draft standard operating procedure for its communiqués with device makers regarding how recent evidence might affect the agency’s expectations of device applications. The draft SOP is interesting in two ways.

One of these is that it is a re-draft of a 2011 version that described two types of communications, the notice-to-industry (NTI) letter and the immediately-in-effect (IIE) letter.

The NTI letter – which would have functioned to communicate an emerging consideration rather than an immediate change – does not appear in this latest draft. To make matters more interesting, the agency does not explain the omission. Will FDA take up the NTI letter in a separate draft SOP? It’s not clear.

What we do know, however, is that FDA will use the IIE letter to let industry know when the existing standards for safety and/or efficacy for a device/indication simply don’t cut it. Industry would have 60 days to argue, but the terms of the IIE letter would go into force 90 days after the comment period closes.

The second reason this new draft SOP is interesting is that the often-contentious relationship between industry and agency makes one wonder why FDA opted to let the NTI letter slide, especially since it’s a vehicle for giving device makers the heads-up when such changes might be in the offing.

As matters stand, the net effect is that FDA has restricted its options to an 11th-hour approach to informing device makers that the regulatory standards for device applications have changed – to the complete exclusion of something more proactive.

Defining your terms; substantial clinical improvement

The new technology add-on payment mechanism has been in play at CMS for nearly a decade, and device makers generally like the program because it gives them a reason to innovate, including when that innovation carries a higher price tag than the current standard of care. The benefit for patients is that they have access to devices that do the job a lot better than that standard of care. One of the things a device maker has to demonstrate to qualify for a new tech add-on payment is that the offering renders “substantial clinical improvement” over the current suite of offerings.

Device makers will say this term of art is sufficiently fuzzy that it’s tough to plan trials around it. So a device maker might ask why there’s no standard metric for “substantial clinical improvement.”

We might assume there are a couple of obvious reasons for this. One is that poorly met needs will always draw more leniency from both FDA and CMS. The same goes for patients in dire straits.

Another problem is that it’s no mean feat to come up with a rubric that works across device types and across disease states. There’s also this question of a “level playing field.” By that I mean device makers might react badly if CMS told industry that one device type has to offer a 15% reduction in morbidity (to pick a number out of thin air), then propose an entirely different standard for another device type.

Like it or not, CMS and industry are stuck with the task of making up the meaning of “substantial clinical improvement” as they go along. It’s ugly and messy, but it’s probably the least obnoxious of their options.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Popular Stories

  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld
    BioWorld briefs for Dec. 8, 2023.
  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld MedTech
    BioWorld MedTech briefs for December 8, 2023.
  • Coronavirus, mRNA and syringe

    Off-target immune response from modified mRNA impacts future development

    BioWorld
    The Nobel Prize-winning modification that prevents the innate immune system from recognizing injected mRNA as foreign and blocking transcription of the protein it...
  • Stock chart with falling red arrow

    ‘Ridiculous’ site-based hitches mar Biovie phase III in Alzheimer’s

    BioWorld
    For the second time this week, a contract research organization has come under fire for trial-conduct issues – criticism leveled most recently by Biovie Inc.,...
  • Feet and scale

    Waging the losing battle: Altimmune takes on challengers as Pfizer falls back

    BioWorld
    Altimmune Inc.’s peptide-based glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon dual receptor agonist pemvidutide hiccupped in a phase I study earlier this year but has bounced...
black cortellis ad

BioWorld Premium

Enjoy extended coverage for the most complete market view with BioWorld, BioWorld MedTech, and BioWorld Asia in a single, easy to access subscription.

Subscribe
  • BioWorld
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld MedTech
    • Today's news
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Asia
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Australia
    • China
    • Clinical
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Science
    • Today's news
    • Biomarkers
    • Cancer
    • Conferences
    • Endocrine/Metabolic
    • Immune
    • Infection
    • Neurology/Psychiatric
    • Patents
  • More
    • About
    • Advertise with BioWorld
    • Archives
    • Article reprints and permissions
    • Contact us
    • Cookie policy
    • Copyright notice
    • Data methodology
    • Podcasts
    • Privacy policy
    • Share your news with BioWorld
    • Staff
    • Terms of use
    • Topic alerts
Follow Us

Copyright ©2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing