Medical devices that are deemed to have a moderate risk to patients generally cannot go on the market until they are cleared through the FDA 510(k) process. In recent years, individuals and organizations have expressed concern that the 510(k) process is neither making safe and effective devices available to patients nor promoting innovation in the medical-device industry. Several high-profile mass-media reports and consumer-protection groups have profiled recognized or potential problems with medical devices cleared through the 510(k) clearance process. The medical-device industry and some patients have asserted that the process has become too burdensome and is delaying or stalling the entry of important new medical devices to the market. At the request of the FDA, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined the 510(k) process. Medical Devices and the Public's Health examines the current 510(k) clearance process and whether it optimally protects patients and promotes innovation in support of public health. It also identifies legislative, regulatory, or administrative changes that will achieve the goals of the 510(k) clearance process. Medical Devices and the Public's Health recommends that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gather the information needed to develop a new regulatory framework to replace the 35-year-old 510(k) clearance process for medical devices. According to the report, the FDA's finite resources are best invested in developing an integrated premarket and postmarket regulatory framework.
On June 20, 2012, the House of Representatives passed, by voice vote and under suspension of the rules, S. 3187 (EAH), the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, as amended. This bill would reauthorize the FDA prescription drug and medical device user fee programs (which would otherwise expire on September 30, 2012), create new user fee programs for generic and biosimilar drug approvals, and make other revisions to other FDA drug and device approval processes. It reflects bicameral compromise on earlier versions of the bill (S. 3187 [ES], which passed the Senate on May 24, 2012, and H.R. 5651 [EH], which passed the House on May 30, 2012). The following CRS reports provide overview information on FDA's processes for approval and regulation of drugs: CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness, by Susan Thaul; CRS Report RL33986, FDA's Authority to Ensure That Drugs Prescribed to Children Are Safe and Effective, by Susan Thaul; CRS Report R42130, FDA Regulation of Medical Devices, by Judith A. Johnson; CRS Report R42508, The FDA Medical Device User Fee Program, by Judith A. Johnson. (Note: The rest of this report has not been updated since April 24, 2012.) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency responsible for the regulation of medical devices. These are a wide range of products that are used to diagnose, treat, monitor, or prevent a disease or condition in a patient. A company must obtain FDA's prior approval or clearance before marketing many medical devices in the United States. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) within FDA is primarily responsible for medical device review and regulation. Congress first gave FDA the authority to collect user fees from medical device companies in the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-250). The purpose of the user fee program is to help reduce the time in which FDA can review and make decisions on marketing applications. Lengthy review times affect the industry, which waits to market its products, and patients, who wait to use these products. The user fee law provides a revenue stream for FDA; in conjunction, the agency negotiates with industry to set performance goals for the premarket review of medical devices. Reauthorization of FDA's medical device user fees last occurred in 2007, just before the FDA's authority would expire, via the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007 (MDUFA II). Current authority will expire on October 1, 2012. On February 1, 2012, FDA announced that it had reached “an agreement in principle” with the medical device industry on proposed recommendations for the second reauthorization—referred to as MDUFA III. A draft MDUFA III package, composed of statutory language and the FDA industry agreement on performance goals and procedures, was posted on the FDA website on March 14, 2012, and a public meeting describing the draft was held on March 28, 2012. The 30-day comment period on the draft ended April 16, 2012. Following review of the comments, FDA may revise the recommendation and then is to submit the final package to Congress. Since medical device user fees were first collected in FY2003, they have comprised an increasing proportion of FDA's device budget. Medical device user fees have raised a number of concerns, prompting Congress to carefully consider issues such as which agency activities could use fees, how user fees can be kept from supplanting federal funding, and which companies should qualify as a small business and pay a reduced fee. Congress is also considering reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) as well as new proposals for a Generic Drug User Fee Act and a Biosimilars User Fee Act. It is likely that these three will be combined with MDUFA III along with a variety of related and unrelated issues.
The Food and Drug Admin. (FDA) is the agency responsible for the regulation of medical devices. These are a wide range of products that are used to diagnose, treat, monitor, or prevent a disease or condition in a patient. A company must obtain FDA's prior approval or clearance before marketing many medical devices in the U.S. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) within FDA is primarily responsible for medical device review and regulation. Congress first gave FDA the authority to collect user fees from medical device companies in the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFA; P.L. 107-250). The purpose of the user fee program is to help reduce the time in which FDA can review and make decisions on marketing applications. Contents of this report: Introduction; Current Law; MDUFA Impact on FDA Review Time and Budget; MDUFA III Proposal. Figures and tables. This is a print on demand report.
Rare diseases collectively affect millions of Americans of all ages, but developing drugs and medical devices to prevent, diagnose, and treat these conditions is challenging. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends implementing an integrated national strategy to promote rare diseases research and product development.
The term 'medical devices' covers a wide range of equipment essential for patient care at every level of the health service, whether at the bedside, at a health clinic or in a large specialised hospital. Yet many countries lack access to high-quality devices, particularly in developing countries where health technology assessments are rare and there is a lack of regulatory controls to prevent the use of substandard devices. This publication provides a guidance framework for countries wishing to create or modify their own regulatory systems for medical devices, based on best practice experience in other countries. Issues highlighted include: the need for harmonised regulations; and the adoption, where appropriate, of device approvals of advanced regulatory systems to avoid an unnecessary drain on scarce resources. These approaches allow emphasis to be placed on locally-assessed needs, including vendor and device registration, training and surveillance and information exchange systems.
On June 20, 2012, the House of Representatives passed, by voice vote and under suspension of the rules, S. 3187 (EAH), the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, as amended. This bill would reauthorize the FDA prescription drug and medical device user fee programs (which would otherwise expire on September 30, 2012), create new user fee programs for generic and biosimilar drug approvals, and make other revisions to other FDA drug and device approval processes. It reflects bicameral compromise on earlier versions of the bill (S. 3187 [ES], which passed the Senate on May 24, 2012, and H.R. 5651 [EH], which passed the House on May 30, 2012). The following CRS reports provide overview information on FDA's processes for approval and regulation of drugs: CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and Effectiveness, by Susan Thaul; CRS Report RL33986, FDA's Authority to Ensure That Drugs Prescribed to Children Are Safe and Effective, by Susan Thaul; CRS Report R42130, FDA Regulation of Medical Devices, by Judith A. Johnson; CRS Report R42508, The FDA Medical Device User Fee Program, by Judith A. Johnson. (Note: The rest of this report has not been updated since December 28, 2011.) Prior to and since the passage of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, Congress has debated how best to ensure that consumers have access, as quickly as possible, to new and improved medical devices and, at the same time, prevent devices that are not safe and effective from entering or remaining on the market. Medical devices regulation is complex, in part, because of the wide variety of items that are categorized as medical devices; examples range from a simple tongue depressor to a life-sustaining heart valve. The regulation of medical devices can affect their cost, quality, and availability in the health care system. In order to be legally marketed in the United States, many medical devices must be reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency responsible for protecting the public health by overseeing medical products, including devices. FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is primarily responsible for medical device review. CDRH activities are funded through a combination of public money (i.e., direct FDA appropriations from Congress) and private money (i.e., user fees collected from device manufacturers) which together comprise FDA's total. User fees account for 33% of FDA's total FY2011 program level and 15% of CDRH's program level, which is $378 million in FY2011 including $56 million in user fees. FDA's authority to collect user fees, originally authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-250), has been reauthorized in five-year increments. It will expire on October 1, 2012, under the terms of the Medical Device User Fee Act of 2007 (MDUFA), Title II of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, P.L. 110-85). FDA requires all medical product manufacturers to register their facilities, list their devices with FDA, and follow general controls requirements. FDA classifies devices according to the risk they pose to consumers. Premarket review is required for moderate- and high-risk devices. There are two paths that manufacturers can use to bring such devices to market. One path consists of conducting clinical studies, submitting a premarket approval (PMA) application and requires evidence providing reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective. The other path involves submitting a 510(k) notification demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a device already on the market (a predicate device) that does not require a PMA. The 510(k) process results in FDA clearance and tends to be much less expensive and less time- consuming than seeking FDA approval via PMA.
The loss of hearing - be it gradual or acute, mild or severe, present since birth or acquired in older age - can have significant effects on one's communication abilities, quality of life, social participation, and health. Despite this, many people with hearing loss do not seek or receive hearing health care. The reasons are numerous, complex, and often interconnected. For some, hearing health care is not affordable. For others, the appropriate services are difficult to access, or individuals do not know how or where to access them. Others may not want to deal with the stigma that they and society may associate with needing hearing health care and obtaining that care. Still others do not recognize they need hearing health care, as hearing loss is an invisible health condition that often worsens gradually over time. In the United States, an estimated 30 million individuals (12.7 percent of Americans ages 12 years or older) have hearing loss. Globally, hearing loss has been identified as the fifth leading cause of years lived with disability. Successful hearing health care enables individuals with hearing loss to have the freedom to communicate in their environments in ways that are culturally appropriate and that preserve their dignity and function. Hearing Health Care for Adults focuses on improving the accessibility and affordability of hearing health care for adults of all ages. This study examines the hearing health care system, with a focus on non-surgical technologies and services, and offers recommendations for improving access to, the affordability of, and the quality of hearing health care for adults of all ages.
FDA Regulatory Affairs is a roadmap to prescription drug, biologics, and medical device development in the United States. Written in plain English, the concise and jargon-free text demystifies the inner workings of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and facilitates an understanding of how the agency operates with respect to compliance and product approval, including clinical trial exemptions, fast track status, advisory committee procedures, and more. The Third Edition of this highly successful publication: Examines the harmonization of the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with international regulations on human drug, biologics and device development, research, manufacturing, and marketing Includes contributions from experts at organizations such as the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and PAREXEL Focuses on the new drug application (NDA) process, cGMPs, GCPs, quality system compliance, and corresponding documentation requirements Provides updates to the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), incorporating pediatric guidelines and follow-on biologics regulations from the 2012 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) V Explains current FDA inspection processes, enforcement options, and how to handle FDA meetings and required submissions Co-edited by an industry leader (Mantus) and a respected academic (Pisano), FDA Regulatory Affairs, Third Edition delivers a compilation of the selected US laws and regulations as well as a straightforward commentary on the FDA product approval process that’s broadly useful to both business and academia.
The objective of the workshop that is the subject of this summary report was to present the challenges and opportunities for medical devices as perceived by the key stakeholders in the field. The agenda, and hence the summaries of the presentations that were made in the workshop and which are presented in this summary report, was organized to first examine the nature of innovation in the field and the social and economic infrastructure that supports such innovation. The next objective was to identify and discuss the greatest unmet clinical needs, with a futuristic view of technologies that might meet those needs. And finally, consideration was given to the barriers to the application of new technologies to meet clinical needs.
Drug overdose, driven largely by overdose related to the use of opioids, is now the leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two public health challenges: reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can arise from the use of opioid medications. Chronic pain and opioid use disorder both represent complex human conditions affecting millions of Americans and causing untold disability and loss of function. In the context of the growing opioid problem, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an Opioids Action Plan in early 2016. As part of this plan, the FDA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a committee to update the state of the science on pain research, care, and education and to identify actions the FDA and others can take to respond to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on informing FDA's development of a formal method for incorporating individual and societal considerations into its risk-benefit framework for opioid approval and monitoring.
