Life Sciences Legal Update : Life Sciences Lawyers & Attorneys : Reed Smith Law Firm : Healthcare, Food and Drug Law, Biotechnology, Privacy, Product Liability

This post was written by Michelle Lyu Cheng.

On November 14, 2011, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing called "Medical Devices: Protecting Patients and Promoting Innovation." The hearing focused on the continued viability of a medical device clearance process that clears for market medical devices that are "substantially equivalent" devices to previously cleared devices (also known as the "510(k) process," in reference to the statutory provision governing this process). Class III medical devices not cleared through this process must undergo the more rigorous and time-consuming Premarket Approval process. Among the issues considered were whether the 510(k) process sufficiently evaluated the safety of devices when clinical data is not necessarily always considered or part of the submission; whether high-risk medical devices should always be considered for the 510(k) process; the user fees for medical device applications; strengthening post-approval monitoring requirements; and the resources and needs for the FDA and the Center of Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in reviewing, clearing and approving medical devices. 

Testifying witnesses before the panel were as follows: Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the CDRH of the Food and Drug Administration; Ralph Hall, Professor of Practice, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; David R. Challoner, M.D., Vice President (emeritus) of Health Affairs, University of Florida, and Chair, IOM Committee on the Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process, Gainesville, Fla.; and Gregory Curfman, M.D., Executive Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Boston. 

The first discussion panel centered on Dr. Shuren and his work with CDRH. In late 2009, the CDRH initiated a review of the 510(k) process, among others, and in 2010, released two reports concluding that the FDA had not managed its premarket programs sufficiently, with the most dire problem being unpredictability in the 510(k) and other premarket processes. This led to other increases in costs to the industry and delays in bringing innovation to the market. The root causes were determined to be the lack of personnel resources in CDRH, as compared with the center for drugs and biologics, insufficient reviewer training, insufficient managers and frontline reviewers, rapidly growing workload caused by increased complexity of devices and number of admissions, insufficient guidance for FDA, and poorly drafted submissions by the industry. In 2011, Dr. Shuren testified that concrete steps for improving the transparency, predictability and consistency of the premarket programs were outlined and evaluated. The Committee members generally focused on the sufficiency of CDRH/FDA's resources and an increase in review times for both the 510(k) and the Premarket Approval processes. One suggestion from Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) was that the user fees for these submissions should be increased, although later it was conceded that the optimal solution would be if the FDA was independently funded. 

The second discussion panel with Mr. Hall and Drs. Challoner and Curfman focused on the 510(k) process and the National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine (IoM) report that heavily criticized the 510(k) process. Mr. Hall started first, outlining that the drug and medical device sectors are very different, including because medical device development is an iterative process that builds upon previously created devices, and clinical testing is not necessarily an optimal or feasible method of measuring safety and effectiveness for medical devices compared with drugs. In response to Sen. Harkin's question about 510(k) devices bearing little resemblance to each of its predicate devices that may compromise patient safety, Mr. Hall noted the FDA has resources and regulatory powers at its disposal to satisfy itself for any issues relating to safety and effectiveness. Mr. Hall also stated in response to Sen. Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) question that post-market surveillance should be improved but that currently, FDA does have controls and regulatory systems in place for monitoring. Mr. Hall also emphasized that the 510(k) process does control for safety and effectiveness.

The discussion with Dr. Challoner primarily focused on IoN's report, as he chaired the committee that drafted it. The IoN report concluded that the 510(k) process generally does not evaluate safety and effectiveness, but only evaluates whether it is substantively equivalent to prior devices previously cleared. He stated that the IoN committee concluded that overhauling the 510(k) process was an optimal scenario, but per Sen. Mikulski's (D-Md.) question, Dr. Challoner stated that he did not expect the 510(k) process be eliminated overnight. He considered the IoN report to be a conversation starter. Dr. Challoner also testified that since the 510(k) process will not be immediately overhauled, it may be necessary to evaluate and strengthen the post-market processes and improve quality control. Dr. Curfman provided testimony similar to Dr. Challoner, namely that post-market surveillance controls would be helpful in monitoring the safety and effectiveness of devices. One potential way of doing so would be to institute a uniform device identification system so that a device can be tracked over its lifetime.

Sen. Harkin, the Committee Chair, concluded that this hearing was helpful in illustrating the need to take a more intense look at the approval process and post-surveillance controls, especially for certain higher-risk devices. While Sen. Harkin conceded that user fees may not be the optimal solution to compensate for the FDA's lack of resources, he did not consider that any changes to this would be feasible in light of the current climate. Based on some of the discussion points raised during this hearing, the 510(k) process and the post-market surveillance requirements may see increased scrutiny.

A link to the videotaped hearing is here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Catherine A. Hurley.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has recently updated the information on its website with respect to the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA), Section 111 “Mandatory Insurer Reporting” requirements. The recent updates cover (1) a revised implementation timeline for certain liability insurance (including self-insurance) total payment obligation to claimant settlements, (2) revised guidance on claims involving exposure, ingestion, and implantation issues, (3) upcoming improvements to the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) program, (4) a new exception for certain settlements paid into a qualified settlement fund and (5) a new way for certain injured Medicare beneficiaries to satisfy their past and future MSP obligations.

Revised Implementation Dates

First, CMS has delayed Section 111 reporting for certain liability insurance (including self-insurance) total payment obligation to claimant (TPOC) settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments. The revised implementation date for reporting will be based on the TPOC amount. A schedule of the new dates is provided here.

Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation – Revised Guidance

Second, CMS has posted revised guidance pertaining to liability insurance (including self-insurance) responsible reporting entities (RREs) where the claims involve exposure, ingestion, and implantation issues. In the guidance, CMS explains its policies for claims involving exposure, ingestion, and implantation. Specifically, CMS discusses when Medicare will, and will not, assert a recovery claim against the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, and when the MMSEA, Section 111 mandatory reporting rules must (or need not) be followed. CMS also provides examples of various factual scenarios involving exposure, ingestion, and implantation, and discusses how its policies will be applied to each. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Susan Edwards, Elizabeth Carder-Thompson, Gail Daubert, Celeste Letourneau, and Debra McCurdy.

On Friday, October 7, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") (collectively, the "Agencies") announced they were soliciting nominations from sponsors of medical devices to participate in the Agencies’ parallel review pilot program. The Agencies officially published a Federal Register notice announcing the program October 11, 2011 (the "Notice"), with an effective date of November 10, 2011, although the Agencies began accepting nomination submissions October 7.

To read the full alert, which summarizes the Notice and discusses potential implications for manufacturers that may be considering participation in the pilot program, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Vicky G. Gormanly and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

The interest level in storing health records in digital format has grown rapidly with the lower cost and greater availability and reliability of interoperable storage mechanisms and devices. Health care providers like hospitals and health systems, physician practices, and health insurance companies are among those most likely to be considering a cloud-based solution for the storage of patient-related health information. While lower cost, ubiquitous 24/7 availability, and reliability are key drivers pushing health care providers and insurers to the cloud, a number of serious legal and regulatory issues should be considered before releasing sensitive patient data into the cloud. The issues are highlighted in the Health Care chapter  of our Cloud Computing White Paper.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Susan A. Edwards, Elizabeth B. Carder-Thompson, Gail L. Daubert and Celeste A. Letourneau.

Notably absent from last month’s Department of Health and Human Services Semiannual Regulatory Agenda was any indication of where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") stand with respect to their notice with request for comments, issued last fall, on the proposed parallel review process for medical products. While CMS and FDA officials confirmed that they are currently reviewing comments submitted during the review period, they declined to speculate on when they intend to act. The comments submitted, however, provide insight into industry views on this important issue, including widespread discontent with the approval mechanisms currently available. We have undertaken a review of all of the comments submitted and extracted the eight main concerns cited in the following analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) has an interesting upcoming conference on June 13-14 in Beijing, China that will address current legal, regulatory and economic issues regarding food, cosmetics, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals and medical devices in China and the United States. Speakers are top government officials and internationally renowned experts who will discuss the issues in both countries.  They include Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg (Commissioner of Food and Drugs, US Food and Drug Administration), Wu Zhen (Deputy Commissioner of China's State Food and Drug Administration), Ralph Tyler (Chief Counsel, US Food and Drug Administration), Rosemary Gallant (Principal Commercial Officer Beijing, US Embassy Beijing, Commercial Section), Ding Jianhua (Deputy Director-General, Department of International Cooperation, SFDA), Wang Lanming (Supervisor-General, Department of Medical Devices Supervision, SFDA), Lin Wei (Deputy Director-General, Bureau of Import-Export Food Safety, AQSIQ) and Jinjing Zhang (Deputy Director General, Department of Food Licensing, SFDA).  Reed Smith partner Gordon Schatz will be speaking on the panel "Innovation and Access: Key Success Factors in China."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Kevin Madagan and Paul Sheives.

On October 24, 2009, President Obama signed a proclamation declaring the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic a National Emergency to facilitate the nations ability to respond to the H1N1 pandemic by enabling – if warranted – the waiver of certain statutory federal requirements for medical treatment facilities.  

This proclamation provided Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the ability under section 1135 of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. § 1320b–5] to waive certain legal requirements that could otherwise limit the ability of the nation’s healthcare system to respond to the surge of patients with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. 

Secretary Sebelius recently issued a Section 1135 waiver that becomes effective at 5:00 p.m. today but is retroactive to October 23, 2009.  

Accordingly, healthcare facilities may now petition the Department for 1135 waivers to ensure that sufficient healthcare items and services are available to meet the needs of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries. Listed below are a few examples of when 1135 waivers may be necessary:

• Hospitals request to set up an alternative screening location for patients away from the hospital’s main campus (requiring waiver of sanctions for certain directions, relocations or transfers under EMTALA).
• Hospitals request to facilitate transfer of patients from ERs and inpatient wards between hospitals (requiring waiver of sanctions under EMTALA regulations).
• Critical Access Hospitals requesting waiver of 42 C.F.R. § 485.620, which requires a 25-bed limit and average patient stays less than 96 hours.
• Skilled Nursing Facilities requesting a waiver of 42 C.F.R. § 483.5, which requires CMS approval prior to increasing the number of the facility’s certified beds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Frederick H. Branding, R.Ph., JD, Areta L. Kupchyk and Kevin M. Madagan.

After just passing her eighth week as FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg announced on August 6, 2009, six new enforcement procedures to a group of industry representatives, attorneys, consumers, and others attending a speech sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute in Washington, D.C.

“The FDA must be vigilant, the FDA must be strategic, the FDA must be quick, and the FDA must be visible,” according to Commissioner Hamburg. She stated that vigilance means regular inspections and follow-up to ensure problems are resolved; identifying and resolving problems early; a “greater emphasis on significant risk and violations”; rapidly responding to egregious violations or violations that jeopardize public health; and using “meaningful penalties to send a strong message” to discourage future offenses. The Commissioner also said that the agency must be visible and publicize its enforcement actions (and the rationale for those actions) widely and effectively. Commissioner Hamburg described six new policy changes to meet these goals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 1, 2009, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed to relax its controversial position concerning physician supervision of hospital outpatient services. The hospital industry had recently been vocal in its objection to CMS’s position, and the latest proposal signifies a potential important win for hospitals. If adopted, hospitals will be able to meet Medicare supervision requirements for outpatient services, without incurring some of the high costs necessary to ensure physician presence while those services are furnished. 

The July 1 proposal is contained in CMS’s hospital outpatient prospective payment system (“HOPPS”) rule for 2010. The controversy arose a year earlier in CMS’s HOPPS rule for 2009. In the 2009 HOPPS rule, CMS “clarified” that direct supervision by a physician is required for outpatient hospital therapeutic services furnished “incident to” a physician’s services – not only in an off-campus hospital-based location, but also in the main hospital building or an on-campus department. This means that a physician must be present in each provider-based department when these services are furnished. While styled as a clarification, most hospitals saw CMS’s position in the 2009 HOPPS rule as a significant change from prior CMS guidance. Specifically, in the original HOPPS regulations from 2000, while CMS required that services furnished at a location designated as a department of a provider under the Medicare “provider-based” rules must be furnished under the direct supervision of a physician, CMS also stated that it “assumed” that the direct supervision requirement would be met when the services are furnished on a hospital’s campus. 

In the latest proposal, CMS articulated three new proposed policies for physician supervision for hospital outpatient services that would go into effect Jan. 1, 2010. 

• First, nonphysician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse-midwives) would be permitted to directly supervise all hospital outpatient therapeutic services that they may perform themselves in accordance with state law, and scope of practice, hospital-granted privileges, and other Medicare requirements. 
• Second, for outpatient services furnished in the hospital or in an on-campus outpatient department of the hospital, the “direct supervision” requirement would be met if the physician or nonphysician practitioner is present on the same campus, in the hospital or on-campus provider-based department, and is immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the procedure.
• Third, for hospital outpatient diagnostic services, the physician supervision requirements attributable to each particular test under the Medicare physician fee schedule would have to be satisfied, whether the test is performed directly or under arrangements. While the same definition of “direct supervision” applicable to therapeutic services would also apply to diagnostic tests, nonphysician practitioners would not be permitted to supervise diagnostic tests.

These changes would allow hospitals significantly more flexibility in meeting the supervision requirements, and would represent a relaxation not only from CMS’s policy articulated in the 2009 HOPPS rule, but in some respects also from CMS’s policy prior to 2009. In particular, for example, nonphysician practitioners will be able to supervise therapeutic services furnished in off-campus provider-based departments.

An advance copy of the proposed 2010 HOPPS rule, which is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register July 20, 2009, is available here. Hospitals desiring to comment on the proposal must do so by Aug. 31, 2009. The final HOPPS rule is likely to be released in December 2009. Hospitals should monitor regulatory developments in this area in order to be able to adjust physician and nonphysician staffing and scheduling of services accordingly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Kevin M. Madagan.

FDA has repeatedly stated over the past year that more enforcement activity in the promotional arena is likely. It appears that time has arrived. Half of FDA’s Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications’ (“DDMAC”) citations for misleading advertisements in 2008 were sent in September and October. The citations address typical misbranding issues such as failing to adequately disclose risks, overstating efficacy, broadening indications, and asserting unsubstantiated superiority claims. Whether these citations are the result of DDMAC’s increased budget and new hires, or a continued interest by Congress and the Department of Justice over drug industry promotional issues, one thing appears clear: a new era of increased scrutiny is likely here. 

A particularly interesting position that DDMAC has taken in a few of the September and October letters concerns descriptions of disorders and the consequences of failing to obtain treatment. For example, in five letters targeting drugs indicated to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), DDMAC cites marketing materials that list the difficulties and consequences of untreated ADHD (e.g., poor social-emotional development and job success, inability to complete schooling, illegal behaviors, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, motor vehicle accidents, and physical injury). In each letter, DDMAC takes the position that listing such difficulties and consequences in association with an ADHD drug constitutes an implied claim that the drug will have a positive impact on these issues. If deemed an implied claim, DDMAC requires studies with endpoints that support each claim. 

This is similar to DDMAC’s position on quality-of-life (“QOL”) claims, with health-related QOL claims requiring substantial supporting evidence in the form of adequate and well-controlled studies designed to specifically assess these outcomes. 

While the need to have adequate studies to support claims is nothing new, drug manufacturers should remain cognizant of everything listed in marketing materials, including statements concerning the difficulties and consequences of untreated disorders, diseases, or conditions. Drug manufacturers wishing to include such statements must ensure that all implied claims arising from these general statements are supported by substantial evidence (i.e., adequate and well-controlled studies with endpoints targeting each implied claim/impact). Stated otherwise, drug manufacturers must design specific study endpoints to support a disease state description, or must carefully tailor disease state descriptions to pre-existing specific study endpoints.

The Oct. 13, 2008, Pink Sheet provides further detail about DDMAC’s increased activity. DDMAC’s 2008 warning letters can be accessed at fda.gov.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 14, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) received approval from the U.S. State Department to place eight full-time, permanent FDA employees at U.S. diplomatic posts in the People’s Republic of China, pending authorization from the Chinese government. The FDA will also be hiring five local Chinese nationals to work with the new FDA staff at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. Consulates General in Shanghai and Guangzhou. The FDA expects to be fully staffed in China within 18 months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link