OIG Special Fraud Alert Deems Physician-Owned Distributors (PODs) As "Inherently Suspect" Under Anti-Kickback Statute

On March 26, 2013, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a Special Fraud Alert highlighting the risks associated with PODs -- physician-owned entities that sell (or arrange for the sale of) implantable medical devices ordered by their physician-owners for use in procedures the physician-owners perform on their own patients at hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers. Building on previous OIG and Congressional scrutiny of PODs, the Special Fraud Alert details specific attributes and practices of PODs that the OIG believes “produce substantial fraud and abuse risk and pose dangers to patient safety.”  A Reed Smith analysis of the Alert is available on our Life Sciences Legal Update blog.

FDA Issues New Guidance Documents

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

In recent weeks, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a number of new draft and final guidance documents on a range of issues, including financial disclosure by clinical investigators, medical device recalls, prescription drug labeling, and medical devices for pediatric uses. Highlights include the following:

CMS Releases Physician Payments Sunshine Act Final Rule

This post was written by Elizabeth Carder-Thompson, Katie C. Pawlitz, and Nancy E. Bonifant.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released late today its final rule implementing the physician payment transparency provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Section 6002), commonly referred to as the "Physician Payments Sunshine Act." Among other things, the Act requires drug, device, biological or medical supply manufacturers to report payments or other transfers of value to physicians and other covered recipients. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report certain information regarding ownership or investment interests held by a physician in the manufacturer or GPO.

The official version of the final rule, titled “Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership of Investment Interests” (the “Final Rule”), will be published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013. A proposed rule was previously published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2011, for which CMS received over 300 comments from a wide range of stakeholders.

The Final Rule provides important guidance to manufacturers and GPOs regarding the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, resolves several questions remaining after publication of the Proposed Rule, and raises some new ones. Notably, CMS has announced that manufacturers and GPOs will not be required to collect required information until August 1, 2013. Manufacturers and GPOs will be required to report the data for August through December of 2013 to CMS by March 31, 2014 and CMS will release the data publicly by September 30, 2014

We are in the process of conducting a full review of the lengthy Final Rule and will release shortly a Client Alert providing a detailed analysis of the Rule. In the meantime, please contact Elizabeth Carder-Thompson (202-414-9213), Katie C. Pawlitz (202-414-9233), Nancy E. Bonifant (202-414-9353) or any other member of the Reed Smith Health Care Group with whom you work, if you would like additional information or if you have any questions. 

FDA Issues Final Rule on Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

FDA has issued a final rule on the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements applicable to combination products. The rule clarifies which CGMP requirements apply when drugs, devices, and biological products are combined to create combination products. For certain types of combination products the application of CGMP requirements is straightforward – the constituent parts of a combination product are each subject only to the CGMP requirements applicable to that type of constituent part if the parts are manufactured and marketed separately. In other words, where parts of a combination product are separately manufactured and marketed, they remain separate for the purposes of applying CGMP regulations. The application of CGMP requirements to “single-entity” and “co-packaged” combination products is more complex. Thus, the final rule also sets forth a transparent and streamlined regulatory framework for manufacturers to use when demonstrating compliance with CGMP requirements for such products. Specifically, manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with CGMPs for “single-entity” and “co-packaged” combination products in one of two ways: (1) by demonstrating compliance with the specifics of all CGMP requirements applicable to each of the constituent parts included in the combination product; or (2) if the combination product contains both a drug and a device, demonstrating compliance with either drug CGMPs or quality system regulations for devices, in addition to other requirements set forth in the final rule. “Single-entity” combination products are products comprised of two or more regulated components that are physically, chemically, or otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single-entity. “Co-packaged” combination products are two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprised two regulated components. The rule becomes effective on July 22, 2013.

Obama Administration's Regulatory Agenda Points to Busy 2013 for HHS

On January 8, 2013, the Obama Administration published its latest semiannual regulatory agenda, outlining planned regulatory initiatives in a number of policy areas. The Federal Register version of the agenda includes only a portion of the regulations in the pipeline, however; the full agenda has been posted on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) web site. Major Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations are highlighted after the jump.

  • An HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposed rule that would add new/modify existing safe harbors under the anti-kickback statute; add new/revise existing regulations governing OIG's authority to impose civil money penalties and assessments; add new/revise existing regulations governing OIG's exclusion authority; and codify new exceptions to the beneficiary inducement prohibition (expected July 2013);
  • A final Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rule implementing Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions related to Medicaid reimbursement for covered outpatient drugs (expected in August 2013);
  • A CMS proposed rule to establish Medicare payment safeguards to prevent providers and suppliers that do not meet Medicare requirements from remaining enrolled in or submitting claims to Medicare (expected May 2013);
  • Proposed emergency preparedness requirements for Medicare and Medicaid participating providers and suppliers (expected in July 2013);
  • A final CMS rule establishing requirements for disclosure of skilled nursing facilities' ownership (expected May 2013);
  • A final rule on long-term care facility agreements with hospice agencies (expected October 2013);
  • A proposed rule to establish a prospective payment system for Federally Qualified Health Centers (expected June 2013);
  • Annual Medicare payment update rules (various dates);
  • Various rules implementing insurance-related provisions of the ACA (various dates);
  • A final rule modifying HIPAA privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification rules (expected but not released in December 2012);
  • An advance notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a methodology allowing an individual harmed by an offense punishable under HIPAA to receive a percentage of any civil money penalty or monetary settlement collected (expected March 2013);
  • A final rule to enhance human subjects research protections (expected April 2013); and
  • A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final rule establishing a unique device identification system for medical devices (expected May 2013).

There are also some surprises on the Administration’s list of “long-term actions” – including the long-overdue final ACA “Sunshine Act” rule requiring applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies to annually report certain payments to physicians or teaching hospitals (“final action” listed as December 2014). Other long-term actions include a final rule implementing ACA requirements related to reporting and returning of overpayments (February 2015); a variety of rules dealing with the 340B discount drug program (timing listed as “to be determined”); and a final HIPAA privacy rule on accounting for disclosures under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (TBD).

Access Board Committee to Meet on ACA Medical Diagnostic Equipment Standards (Jan. 22-23)

The Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee is holding its next meeting on January 22 and 23, 2013 to discuss its February 9, 2012 proposed rule on medical diagnostic equipment accessibility standards. Among other things, the session will focus on standards for transfer surfaces.

FDA Requests Comments on Review of Medical Device Submissions

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

The FDA has announced an opportunity for public comment on the statement of work for an assessment for the process of review of medical device submissions. Under the Medical Device User Fee Act of 2012 (MDUFA III), which gives FDA the authority to collect device user fees from industry for 2013-2017, FDA has committed to reaching certain performance goals. Among others, FDA is committed to participate, with the device industry, in a comprehensive assessment of the process for the review of device applications. The assessment will be conducted in two phases by a private, independent contractor. FDA is providing a comment period on the statement of work before requesting proposals for the assessment. Comments should be submitted in writing or electronically, at www.regulations.gov, by February 4, 2013.

FDA Issues Final Guidance Documents on Drug and Medical Device Submissions

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

On January 2, 2013, the FDA issued three final guidance documents related to drug and medical device submissions. The first guidance, Acceptance and Filing Reviews for Premarket Approval Applications, is intended to clarify the criteria for accepting and filing a premarket approval application (PMA) to assure the consistency of FDA’s acceptance and filing decisions. The guidance is applicable to original PMAs and PMA panel-track supplements reviewed by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The second guidance, eCopy Program for Medical Devices Submissions, explains the new electronic copy (eCopy) Program for medical devices submissions, provides the standards for a valid eCopy, and identifies the submission types that must include an eCopy in accordance with such standards for the submission to be processed and accepted for review by FDA. The final guidance, Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s, explains the procedures and criteria FDA intends to use in determining whether a 510(k) submission is administratively complete. The guidance is applicable to 510(k)s reviewed by CDRH and CBER.Comments regarding the guidances may be submitted at any time.

FDA To Hold Workshop on Accessible Standardized Medical Device Labeling (April 29-30)

On April 29 and 30, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is hosting a public workshop on “Accessible Standardized Medical Device Labeling."  The purpose of the event is to discuss the need for medical device labeling to be delivered in a clear, concise, and readily accessible format so that patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers may use device labeling as efficiently and effectively as possible. This public workshop aims to engage stakeholders in active discussion with FDA and to encourage public comments regarding standard content and format for medical device labeling and the use of a repository containing medical device labeling. FDA also is accepting written or electronic comments related to the public workshop; comments will be accepted until April 12, 2013.

IRS Issues Regulations to Implement ACA Medical Device Tax

This post was written by Ruth N. Holzman, Angelo Ciavarella, and Debra A. McCurdy.

On December 7, 2012, the IRS published final regulations that provide guidance on the 2.3% excise tax imposed on any sale occurring after December 31, 2012, of any “taxable medical device” by the manufacturer, producer or importer of such device (such tax enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). A “taxable medical device” is any device (as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)) that is intended for humans, excluding eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any other medical device of a type that is generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use. The final regulations set forth the IRS’s interpretation of key elements of the excise tax, including the retail exemption, as discussed after the jump. 

The final regulations provide that a device defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that is intended for humans means a device that is listed as a medical device with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under section 510(j) of the FFDCA and 21 CFR part 807, pursuant to FDA requirements (or devices that should have been so listed). This definition generally follows the approach taken in the proposed regulations. Furthermore, the final regulations generally provide that a device is considered to be of a type generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use if: (i) the device is regularly available for purchase and use by individual consumers who are not medical professionals, and (ii) the device’s design demonstrates that it is not primarily intended for use in a medical institution or office, or by medical professionals. The regulations provide a set of non-exclusive factors for use in evaluating whether a taxable medical device qualifies for the retail exemption, as well as a safe harbor provision identifying certain categories of taxable medical devices determined to fall within the retail exemption. The final safe harbor includes: (1) devices that are identified in the FDA’s IVD Home Use Lab Tests (over-the-counter, or OTC, tests) database; (2) devices described as OTC devices in the relevant FDA classification regulation heading; (3) devices that are described as OTC devices in the FDA’s product code name, device classification name, or the classification name field in the FDA’s device registration and listing database; and (4) certain devices that qualify as durable medical equipment (DME), prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) for which payment is available on a purchase basis under Medicare Part B payment rules in accordance with the fee schedule published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Devices that qualify as DMEPOS include: (a) prosthetic and orthotic devices as defined in 42 CFR 414.202, that do not require implantation or insertion by a medical professional; (b) parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies as defined in 42 CFR 411.351 and described in 42 CFR 414.102(b);(c) customized items, as described in 42 CFR 414.224; (d) therapeutic shoes as described in 42 CFR 414.228(c); or (e) supplies necessary for the effective use of DME, as described in section 110.3 of chapter 15 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual.

The preamble to the regulations also addresses the application of the excise tax to certain specific circumstances, including dual use devices, humanitarian use devices, veterinary devices, and dental instruments. Existing rules governing manufacturer excise taxes, including exemptions for use by the purchaser for further manufacture, or for resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for use by the second purchaser for further manufacture, and for export, generally will apply to this excise tax, subject to certain exceptions. The preamble to the regulations discusses how these general rules will be applied to medical devices, including guidance on the meaning of manufacturer, importer and sale price. The IRS also addresses in the preamble a number of other issues raised by public comments, including interaction with the ACA’s branded prescription drug (BPD) fee. The IRS notes that there is no statutory basis for providing an exclusion from the device tax for a combination product with both a device and drug component, even if the combination product is taken into account for purposes of computing the BPD fee. Other specific areas addressed include classification of “convenience kits,” associated devices and components of devices, and medical software. The IRS has posed a frequently-asked questions document and other guidance on its web page.

 

FDA Issues Two New Draft Guidance Documents Related to the Conduct of Clinical Trials

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued two draft guidance documents related to the conduct of clinical trials. The first draft guidance, Draft Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators and Sponsors: IRB Responsibilities for Reviewing the Qualifications of Investigators, Adequacy of Research Sites, and the Determination of Whether an IND/IDE Is Needed is intended to assist institutional review boards (IRBs), clinical investigators, and sponsors involved in clinical investigations of FDA-regulated products in determining whether the proposed research satisfies the criteria for IRB approval. Specifically, the guidance addresses the IRB’s role in reviewing: (1) the qualifications of investigators; (2) the adequacy of research sites; and (3) the determination of whether an investigational new drug (IND) application or investigational device exemption (IDE) is needed. Many of the recommendations in the guidance have appeared in other FDA guidance documents or have been communicated to IRBs who have contacted the agency directly about these issues, but FDA has compiled the information here to ensure that all IRBs are aware of and have access to it. When finalized, this guidance will supersede Question 56 in FDA’s January 1998 guidance Institutional Review Board Frequently Asked Questions – Information Sheet Guidance for Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Investigators.

The second draft guidance, Draft Guidance for Industry: Electronic Source Data in Clinical Investigations, provides guidance to sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), data management centers, clinical investigators, and others involved in capturing, reviewing, and archiving electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. This guidance revises and updates the draft guidance Electronic Source Documentation in Clinical Investigations. The draft guidance addresses source data (from clinical investigations) used to fill the predefined fields in an electronic case report form (eCRF), according to protocol , and discusses the following topics related to electronic source data: (1) identifying and specifying authorized source data originators; (2) creating data element identifiers to facilitate sponsors, FDA, and other authorized parties in examining the audit trail of data; (3) capturing source data into the eCRF using either manual or electronic capture methods; and (4) investigator responsibilities with respect to reviewing and retaining electronic data. Comments on both guidance documents will be accepted at www.regulations.gov until January 22, 2013.

New FDA Draft Guidance Documents Address Product Safety and Risk Minimization

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

On December 13, 2012, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents related to product safety and risk minimization. The first guidance, Design Considerations for Devices Intended for Home Use, is intended to assist manufacturers in designing and developing home use medical devices that comply with applicable standards of safety and effectiveness and other regulatory requirements. The guidance identifies several factors that manufacturers should consider, especially during device design and development, and provides recommendations for reducing or minimizing these unique risks. Factors to consider in designing and developing medical devices for home use include the physical environment, the user, the device or system, the labeling, and the utilization of human factors. The guidance applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medical devices that are intended for home use. The second guidance, Safety Considerations for Product Design to Minimize Medication Errors, provides sponsors of IND applications, new drug applications, biologics licensing applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and nonprescription drugs marketed without an approved application with a set of principles for developing drug products using a systems approach to minimize medication errors relating to product design. The recommendations in the guidance are intended to improve the drug product and container closure design at the earliest stages of product development for all prescription and nonprescription drug products. This draft guidance is the first in a series of three planned guidance documents to minimize risks contributing to medication errors. Comments on both guidance documents should be submitted to www.regulations.gov by March 13, 2013.

FDA Addresses Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) Implementation

This post was written by Jennifer Pike.

On November 19, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a notice and an amendment to a proposed rule related to FDA’s implementation of the FDASIA, which was signed into law on July 9, 2012. In the notice, FDA announced that it is seeking information from all stakeholders (including patients, physicians, dentists, and manufacturers) on appropriate uses of the custom device exemption identified in section 520(b) of the FDCA. By way of background, FDASIA amended section 520(b) of the FDCA, to (among other things) establish criteria for a device to qualify for a custom device exemption. Under section 520(b) of the FDCA as amended, “custom devices” are exempted from performance standard or premarket approval requirements if (among other things): (1) the device is “created or modified in order to comply with the order of an individual physician or dentist (or any other specially qualified person designated under regulations promulgated by the Secretary after an opportunity for an oral hearing)”; (2) the device is not “generally available in the United States in finished form through labeling or advertising by the manufacturer, importer, or distributor for commercial distribution”; (3) the device’s purpose is to treat a “unique pathology or physiological condition that no other device is domestically available to treat”; and (4) the device is manufactured for the “special needs of such physician or dentist (or other specially qualified person so designated) in the course of the professional practice of the physician or dentist (or other specially qualified person so designated)” or by an individual patient named in such order. Manufacturers are limited to using the custom device only for the purpose of treating a “sufficiently rare condition, such that conducting clinical investigations on such device would be impracticable.” Additionally, production of the device must be limited to no more than five units per year of a particular device type. Lastly, under section 617 of FDASIA, manufacturers will be required to submit an annual report explaining their use of the custom device exemption.  Additional details are available after the break.

FDA stated in the notice that it is specifically interested in receiving the following: (1) input on where use of the custom device exemption is appropriate; (2) specific instances where manufacturers, dentists, or physicians would have liked to use, or plan to use the custom device exemption for treatment of a sufficiently rare condition; (3) product areas other than orthopedic and dental devices where the custom device exemption may be useful; (4) the type of information manufacturers intend to require a physician, dentist, or other qualified person to submit to them when ordering a custom device; and (5) how often a custom device is ordered due to unusual anatomical features of the individual physician/dentist, or due to a unique need in the physician’s/dentist’s practice not shared by health professionals of the same specialty (i.e., a special need of a physician or dentist). Comments must be submitted by January 18, 2013.

FDASIA also required FDA to create a unique device identification (UDI) system by amending section 519(f) of the FDCA. Pursuant to this mandate, FDA published a proposed rule on July 10, 2012 setting forth proposed unique device identifier labeling requirements, proposed requirements relating to issuing Agencies and submission of data to the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID), and proposed conforming amendments to several existing FDA regulations. The proposed rule included a phased implementation of the rule’s requirements. In the amendment to the proposed rule published on November 19, 2012, FDA adjusted the proposed effective dates for certain categories of devices. Specifically, under the proposed rule as amended, the requirements applicable to implantable, life-supporting, and life-sustaining devices would be effective no later than 2 years from finalization of the rule. Therefore, implantable, life-supporting, and life-sustaining devices that are not already subject to a 1-year effective date would be required to bear a UDI within 2 years following the publication of a final rule. Because labelers of devices labeled with a UDI must submit information concerning the device to the GUDID, all labelers of all implantable, life-supporting, and life-sustaining devices would be required to submit data to the GUDID within 2 years of the date FDA publishes a final rule. FDA noted that the amendment to the proposed rule has not extended the proposed rule’s comment period, which closed on November 7, 2012.

Massachusetts Issues Final Drug/Device "Sunshine" Rules

On November 21, 2012, the Massachusetts Public Health Council finalized amendments to the State’s Marketing Code of Conduct, which restricts certain payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to Massachusetts health care practitioners and imposes other disclosure requirements regarding such payments. The rules, which are effective December 7, 2012, are summarized on the Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Legal Update blog.
 

Meeting on ACA Medical Diagnostic Equipment Access Standards (Dec. 3-4)

The Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards Advisory Committe will hold a meeting on December 3-4, 2012 to discuss its February 9, 2012 proposed rule on medical diagnostic equipment accessibility standards.  

Massachusetts Approves Emergency Amendments on State "Sunshine Act" Drug/Device Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

On the Reed Smith Life Sciences Legal Update blog, there is a recent post regarding the Massachusetts Public Health Council’s approval of emergency amendments to the State’s Marketing Code of Conduct regulations. The underlying regulations restrict certain gifts and payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to Massachusetts health care practitioners (HCPs) and require disclosure of payments and transfers of value to HCPs. The emergency amendments, which follow state legislative amendments, now allow manufacturers to provide modest meals and refreshments to HCPs at non-CME educational presentations and modify applicable reporting requirements. The amendments also address the interaction of state requirements and federal law, including the ACA’s Physician Payment Sunshine Act provisions. For additional details, see our full post.

GAO Flags Concerns about Implantable Medical Device Information Security

A recent GAO report warns of information security risks – such as unauthorized changes of device settings resulting from a lack of appropriate access controls -- associated with the growing use of wireless technology in certain active implantable medical devices (e.g., implantable cardioverter defibrillators and insulin pumps). On the other hand, officials and technology experts caution that efforts to mitigate information security risks need to be balanced against potential adverse impact on devices’ performance, including limiting battery life. The GAO also highlights potential gaps in the FDA’s use of its traditional adverse event reporting system to address information security in active implantable medical devices, particularly since reporting entities might not understand the relevance of information security risks. In the report, “Medical Devices: FDA Should Expand Its Consideration of Information Security for Certain Types of Devices,” the GAO recommends that the FDA develop and implement a more comprehensive plan to enhance the agency’s review and surveillance of medical devices. The plan should address how FDA can: (1) increase its focus on manufacturers' identification of potential unintentional and intentional threats, vulnerabilities, the resulting information security risks, and strategies to mitigate risks during the premarket approval review process; (2) utilize available resources, including those from other federal agencies; (3) leverage postmarket efforts to identify and investigate information security problems; and (4) establish specific milestones for implementing this plan. HHS concurred with GAO’s recommendation and described efforts FDA has initiated in this area.

Vermont Offers Limited Amnesty to Device and Biologic Manufacturers who Failed to Report Payments to Health Care Providers

This post was written by Katie C. Pawlitz.

Today the Office of the Vermont Attorney General announced that the Vermont Attorney General is offering limited amnesty to medical device and biologic manufacturers who have failed to report pursuant to Vermont’s Prescribed Products Gift Ban and Disclosure Law. The offer will remain open until October 1, 2012. In order to take advantage of the offer, manufacturers must email prescribedproducts@atg.state.vt.us with the following information: (1) manufacturer name; (2) reporting periods not reported; and (3) name, address, email, and phone number of the representative with whom Vermont should communicate.

The reporting obligation under the Vermont Law became effective July 1, 2009 and, to date, manufacturers have been required to report to Vermont with respect to three reporting periods. The amnesty offer is limited to financial penalties authorized under the Law and does not apply to back-payment of registration fees or penalties for violations of other aspects of the Law, such as gift ban violations. The Office of the Attorney General has indicated that it does not anticipate seeking full disclosure for unreported activity, but that it does anticipate requiring at a later date, disclosure of aggregate information regarding the activity.

FDA Final Rule Implementing Device Registration and Listing Requirements

This post was written by Erin Janssen.

The FDA issued a final rule in August amending current regulations to reflect recent statutory amendments to the device registration and listing provisions of the FD&C Act. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), enacted on September 27, 2007, amended the FD&C Act to require domestic and foreign device establishments to submit their registration and device listing information to FDA by electronic means rather than on paper forms, and also specified the timeframes when establishments must submit such information. In addition, the final rule facilitates FDA’s collection of additional registration information from foreign establishments as required by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act). The final rule also updates certain provisions in the regulations to improve the quality of registration and listing information available to FDA. The final rule is effective October 1, 2012.

FDA Guidance on FY 2013 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification

This post was written by Erin Janssen.

The FDA has issued guidance on FY 2013 medical device user fees for small businesses. The guidance explains how a business may qualify as a “small business” and pay most FY 2013 medical device user fees at substantially discounted rates. While the guidance is substantively the same as the guidance provided for FY 2012, the following new considerations are particularly significant:

  • The guidance explains that there is no small business discount for the establishment registration fee. If this is the only fee a business expects to pay during FY 2013, it should not submit an FY 2013 Small Business Qualification Certification.
  • A foreign business may qualify as a small business, even if it has not submitted a federal (U.S.) income tax return.

As of September 30, this document supersedes “Guidance for Industry, FDA, and Foreign Governments: FY 2012 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification,” as issued on May 25, 2012.

Older Entries

September 5, 2012 — FDA Issues Guidance for Comment on Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s

July 31, 2012 — Medical Device User Fee Rates for FY 2013

July 31, 2012 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Regarding Acceptance & Filing Review for PMA Applications

July 17, 2012 — Massachusetts Loosens Drug/Device Manufacturer Gift Ban and Disclosure Law, Allows Certain Drug Coupons and Vouchers

July 16, 2012 — FDA Proposes Unique Device Identification System for Medical Devices

July 16, 2012 — FDA Draft Guidance the Medical Device Pre-Submission Program/Meetings with FDA Staff

June 28, 2012 — Congress Clears FDA Safety & Innovation Act

June 18, 2012 — OIG Examines Scientific Disagreements at CDRH Regarding Medical Device Reviews

June 18, 2012 — Medicare Trends in Implantable Medical Device (IMD) Procedures

June 8, 2012 — House Approves ACA Device Tax Repeal Bill in Face of Veto Threat

May 31, 2012 — House Panel Takes Up ACA Medical Device Tax Repeal, Other Health Tax Policy Bills

May 25, 2012 — House Leaders Plan June Vote on ACA Medical Device Tax Repeal

May 11, 2012 — House Panel Unanimously Approves FDA User Fee Act

May 11, 2012 — FDA Guidance on Medical Device Pre-market Approval

May 11, 2012 — FDA Seeks Information on Risks, Benefits of Metal-on-Metal (MoM) Hip Replacements

May 11, 2012 — International Collaboration Highlighted in FDA Global Engagement Report

May 4, 2012 — CMS Announces Data Collection for the Physician Payments Sunshine Act Will Not Be Required Before 2013

April 23, 2012 — HHS Issues its Open Government Plan Version 2.0

April 23, 2012 — April Congressional Health Policy Hearings and Markups

April 23, 2012 — GAO Examines FDA Device Review Process

April 18, 2012 — New Hampshire Quietly Considers Prohibition Of Physician Relationships With Medical Device Companies

April 2, 2012 — Advisory Committee on ACA Medical Diagnostic Equipment Access Standards

February 13, 2012 — GAO Examines Price Transparency for Implantable Medical Devices

February 13, 2012 — Access Standards Proposed for Medical Diagnostic Equipment under the ACA

February 13, 2012 — FDA Issues Guidance on New Informed Consent Requirements

February 10, 2012 — IRS Proposes Regulations to Implement ACA Medical Device Tax

February 10, 2012 — FDA and Industry Reach Agreement in Principle on Medical Device User Fees

February 10, 2012 — February Congressional Health Policy Hearings

January 27, 2012 — Overview and Analysis of the Proposed Federal Sunshine Regulations

January 25, 2012 — E&C Health Subcommittee Plans FDA User Fee Hearings in February

January 23, 2012 — E&C Health Subcommittee Plans FDA User Fee Hearings in February

January 5, 2012 — GAO Report on Pediatric Medical Devices

December 29, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Regarding Evaluation of Sex Differences in Medical Device Clinical Studies

December 29, 2011 — FDA Provides Draft Guidance on Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications

December 29, 2011 — FDA Guidance Regarding CDRH Appeals Process

December 14, 2011 — CMS Releases Long-Awaited Physician Payments Sunshine Act Proposed Rule

December 13, 2011 — FDA Draft Guidance on Artificial Pancreas Device Systems, Hepatitis B Screening of Blood/Blood Components

November 30, 2011 — ACA "Physician Payment Sunshine Act" Rule at OMB

November 29, 2011 — Congressional Health Policy Hearings

November 29, 2011 — FY 2013 IPPS New Technology Payment Town Hall Meeting (Feb. 14, 2012)

November 11, 2011 — Congressional Health Policy Hearings & Markups

October 28, 2011 — Correction Notice on CMS/FDA Parallel Review Pilot Program

October 14, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance to Clarify De Novo Classification Process

October 12, 2011 — CMS and FDA Publish Parallel Review Pilot Program Notice

September 29, 2011 — CMS Seeks Comments on Potential Medicare Coverage Determination Topics

September 29, 2011 — Congressional Hearings Examine Variety of Health Industry Issues

September 22, 2011 — Upcoming House Hearings on Drug Shortages, Device/Drug Regulations

September 1, 2011 — HHS Issues Final Plan to Reduce Regulatory Burdens

September 1, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Proposing Risk Based Approach to Oversight of Clinical Investigations

August 16, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Regarding Design of Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices

July 28, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Regarding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device; Guidance Follows 510(k) Working Group Recommendations

July 26, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Regarding Mobile Medical Applications

July 26, 2011 — FDA Issues Guidance and Final Rule Regarding Focused Ultrasound Stimulators for Aesthetic Use

July 18, 2011 — FDA Issues Draft Guidance Related to IVD Companion Diagnostic Devices

July 18, 2011 — FDA Proposed Rule Would Eliminate Certain Drug Pedigree Requirements

June 28, 2011 — GAO Issues Report on FDA Oversight of Medical Device Recalls.

June 14, 2011 — Lawmakers Seek Investigation of Physician Owned Distributors (PODs) for Medical Devices

June 13, 2011 — June Congressional Hearings on Health Policy Issues

May 31, 2011 — Federal Agencies Outline Regulatory Review Plans

May 13, 2011 — FDA Publishes Draft Guidance on Reprocessing of Reusable Medical Devices

May 13, 2011 — FDA to Hold Public Workshop on Reprocessing Reusable Medical Devices (June 8)

April 29, 2011 — FDA Final Guidance Documents on Writing Requests for Product Designation

April 29, 2011 — FDA Issues Guidance on Manufacturing Method/Process Changes

April 12, 2011 — Congressional Hearings This Week on FDA Medical Device Approvals, Drug Imports/Diversion

March 7, 2011 — FDA Finalizes Medical Device Data Systems Rule

February 18, 2011 — Congressional Hearings

February 10, 2011 — FDA Launches Medical Device Initiative to Reform the 510(k) Process, Meeting Scheduled to Receive Feedback

February 10, 2011 — FDA Announces Texas Town Hall Meeting with CDRH Director

February 10, 2011 — FDA Public Workshop on Drug/Medical Device Regulatory Requirements (June 20-21)

January 27, 2011 — FDA Announces Plans to Reform 510(k) Process

December 29, 2010 — HHS Semiannual Regulatory Agenda for FY 2011

December 15, 2010 — IRS Guidance on ACA Fee on Prescription Drug Manufacturers/Importers; Comment Request on Medical Device Excise Tax.

December 15, 2010 — FDA Requests Notification of Intent to Participate in Medical Device User Fee Reauthorization Process

December 14, 2010 — FDA Public Workshop on Sentinel Initiative (Jan. 12)

December 6, 2010 — CMS Meeting on New Technology Add-On Payments (Feb. 2, 2011)

November 15, 2010 — Senators Seek Accelerated HHS Action on Physician Payment "Sunshine Act" Provisions

October 29, 2010 — Common Formats for Patient Safety Data Collection/Event Reporting

October 15, 2010 — FDA Seeks Comment on 5 Year Strategic Priority Plan

September 17, 2010 — Parallel CMS/FDA Review of Medical Products

August 30, 2010 — FDA Meeting on Medical Devices and Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and Biocompatibility Considerations

August 13, 2010 — Memorandum of Understanding Between FDA and CMS

August 13, 2010 — FDA Announces Medical Device User Fees for FY 2011, Upcoming Meeting (Sept. 12)

August 13, 2010 — FDA Proposes Changes to the 510(k) Program; Seeks Public Comment

August 13, 2010 — FDA Withdraws Direct Final Rule Requiring the Submission of Information on Pediatric Uses of Devices

August 13, 2010 — CDRH Announces 2010 Compliance Strategic Plan

July 7, 2010 — FDA Guidance on Frequently-Asked Questions for In Vitro Diagnostic Studies

June 18, 2010 — FDA and FCC Join for Public Meeting on Integration and Use of Wireless Technology with Health Care Devices (July 26-27)

May 25, 2010 — IOM Recommendation for Greater FDA Authority on Post-market Surveillance

May 25, 2010 — FDA Guidance on Medical Device Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program

May 13, 2010 — FDA Review of Articles for Treatment of Rare Diseases

May 10, 2010 — FDA Meeting on Medical Device Radiation Exposure (June 9-10, 2010)

April 30, 2010 — FDA Announces New Procedures for CDRH Advisory Committees

April 30, 2010 — FDA Draft Guidance on 513(g) Requests for Medical Devices

April 30, 2010 — Town Hall Discussion with FDA CDRH's Director (May 18)

April 30, 2010 — FDA Public Workshop on Home Use of Medical Devices (May 24)

April 16, 2010 — Reed Smith Analyses of PPACA Provisions

April 16, 2010 — FDA Issues Final Regulations Requiring the Submission of Information on Pediatric Populations for Devices

April 15, 2010 — Joint Public Workshop on Computer Methods for Cardiovascular Devices

March 31, 2010 — FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Implementation of Device Registration and Listing Requirements

February 26, 2010 — FDA And NIH Announce Collaboration to Speed Patient Access to New Therapies