[{"innerBlocks":[],"name":"core\/freeform","postId":3288,"blockType":{"name":"core\/freeform","keywords":[],"attributes":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"providesContext":[],"usesContext":[],"selectors":[],"supports":{"className":false,"customClassName":false,"reusable":false},"styles":[],"variations":[],"apiVersion":3,"title":"Classic","description":"Use the classic WordPress editor.","category":"text"},"originalContent":"The Food and Drug Administration wants to unveil a new, more efficient risk-based regulatory approach to digital health technologies focused on fostering innovation and bringing these products to market more rapidly.

Writing in a June 15 blog<\/a>, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, outlined the agency\u2019s forthcoming Digital Health Innovation Plan, the goal of which is to ensure the agency has the most modern and efficient regulatory approaches to evaluate new technologies that will ultimately benefit consumers.

\u201cThis plan will include a novel post-market approach to how we intend to regulate these digital medical devices,\u201d wrote Gottlieb. \u201cGreater certainty regarding what types of digital health technology is subject to regulation and regarding FDA\u2019s compliance policies will not only help foster innovation, but also will help the agency to devote more resources to higher risk priorities.\u201d

As part of a comprehensive approach to the regulation of digital health tools, Gottlieb said the FDA this fall will pilot \u201can entirely new approach toward regulating this technology (that) will be the cornerstone to a more efficient, risk-based regulatory framework for overseeing these medical technologies.\u201d

While the pilot program is still being developed, the agency is \u201cconsidering whether and how, under current authorities, we can create a third-party certification program under which lower risk digital health products could be marketed without FDA premarket review and higher risk products could be marketed with a streamlined FDA premarket review,\u201d he wrote.

\u201cCertification could be used to assess, for example, whether a company consistently and reliably engages in high-quality software design and testing (validation) and ongoing maintenance of its software products,\u201d Gottlieb added. \u201cEmploying a unique pre-certification program for software as a medical device (SaMD) could reduce the time and cost of market entry for digital health technologies.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: FDA to create centralized digital health unit<\/a>

Health IT Now, a coalition of patient groups, provider organizations, employers, and payers, responded favorably to the broad strokes of the plan outlined by Gottlieb.

\u201cWhile we are awaiting more exact details on the full scope of the FDA\u2019s plan, the vision outlined today by Commissioner Gottlieb is deeply encouraging and shows the Commissioner intends to make good on his goal of embracing new technologies. This is all about a modern FDA that better serves the needs of patients,\u201d said Health IT Now Executive Director Joel White.

\u201cHealth IT Now has long believed that the regulatory process for new devices and therapies must take into consideration the rapid development cycles of health IT,\u201d White added. \u201cThrough this Digital Health Innovation Plan, the FDA appears to be making a strong effort to do exactly that.\u201d

Health IT Now urged the regulatory agency to \u201cuse real-world data in product development, expansion and postmarket surveillance, while working to ensure that requirements on data use are clear and not burdensome for product sponsors.\u201d

Towards that end, Gottlieb\u2019s blog stated that \u201cpost-market collection of real-world data might be able to be used to support new and evolving product functions.\u201d For example, he said \u201cproduct developers could leverage real-world data gathered through the National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST) to expedite market entry and subsequent expansion of indications more efficiently,\u201d adding that \u201cNEST will be a federated virtual system for evidence generation composed of strategic alliances among data sources including registries, electronic health records, payer claims, and other sources.\u201d

Bradley Merrill Thompson, general counsel for the Clinical Decision Support Coalition, which represents software developers, healthcare payers, providers and medical device manufacturers, praises the direction the agency is taking.

Thompson notes that Gottlieb expressly acknowledges the \u201cambiguity regarding how FDA will approach new technology can lead innovators to invest their time and resources in other ventures.\u201d He also takes comfort in Gottlieb\u2019s assertion that the agency should pursue \u201cpolicies that are clear enough for developers to apply on their own, without having to seek out, on a case-by-case basis, FDA\u2019s position on every individual technological change or iterative software development.\u201d

\u201cIn the blog post, Commissioner Gottlieb also seems to reference the discussions that industry has been having lately with FDA regarding adoption of the TSA pre-check idea as a better way of bringing new software to market,\u201d adds Thompson. \u201cThe blog post suggests that the agency is committed to this approach, which obviously we are delighted to hear. There is much good that can be done, although there is much work left to be done. It will be very important to get the details right.\u201d

At the same time, he observes that Gottlieb seems committed to going beyond just the technology addressed in the 21st Century Cures Act. \u201cLegislation always covers at best a few of the larger categories, and there is truly much more work to be done,\u201d says Thompson. \u201cFDA seems to be committing to publishing guidance in the coming months to clarify, beyond the legislation, what FDA will regulate in the area of clinical decision support and other such software. That is music to my ears. Indeed, throughout the post, it seems like we\u2019re singing off of the same page.\u201d

The 21st Century Cures Act provides much-needed clarification regarding the regulation of medical software. In particular, the law identifies five specific categories of medical software that\u2014given certain conditions\u2014will not be regulated as a medical device by the FDA based on their low level of risk to patients.

\u201cFDA will provide guidance to clarify our position on products that contain multiple software functions, where some fall outside the scope of FDA regulation, but others do not,\u201d wrote Gottlieb in his blog. \u201cIn addition, FDA will provide new guidance on other technologies that, although not addressed in the 21st Century Cures Act, present low enough risks that FDA does not intend to subject them to certain pre-market regulatory requirements.\u201d

\u201cWe are excited about the FDA\u2019s Digital Health Innovation Plan because it holds great potential to ensure that the health IT policies of today are suited to accommodate the innovations of tomorrow,\u201d concluded White.","saveContent":"The Food and Drug Administration wants to unveil a new, more efficient risk-based regulatory approach to digital health technologies focused on fostering innovation and bringing these products to market more rapidly.

Writing in a June 15 blog<\/a>, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, outlined the agency\u2019s forthcoming Digital Health Innovation Plan, the goal of which is to ensure the agency has the most modern and efficient regulatory approaches to evaluate new technologies that will ultimately benefit consumers.

\u201cThis plan will include a novel post-market approach to how we intend to regulate these digital medical devices,\u201d wrote Gottlieb. \u201cGreater certainty regarding what types of digital health technology is subject to regulation and regarding FDA\u2019s compliance policies will not only help foster innovation, but also will help the agency to devote more resources to higher risk priorities.\u201d

As part of a comprehensive approach to the regulation of digital health tools, Gottlieb said the FDA this fall will pilot \u201can entirely new approach toward regulating this technology (that) will be the cornerstone to a more efficient, risk-based regulatory framework for overseeing these medical technologies.\u201d

While the pilot program is still being developed, the agency is \u201cconsidering whether and how, under current authorities, we can create a third-party certification program under which lower risk digital health products could be marketed without FDA premarket review and higher risk products could be marketed with a streamlined FDA premarket review,\u201d he wrote.

\u201cCertification could be used to assess, for example, whether a company consistently and reliably engages in high-quality software design and testing (validation) and ongoing maintenance of its software products,\u201d Gottlieb added. \u201cEmploying a unique pre-certification program for software as a medical device (SaMD) could reduce the time and cost of market entry for digital health technologies.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: FDA to create centralized digital health unit<\/a>

Health IT Now, a coalition of patient groups, provider organizations, employers, and payers, responded favorably to the broad strokes of the plan outlined by Gottlieb.

\u201cWhile we are awaiting more exact details on the full scope of the FDA\u2019s plan, the vision outlined today by Commissioner Gottlieb is deeply encouraging and shows the Commissioner intends to make good on his goal of embracing new technologies. This is all about a modern FDA that better serves the needs of patients,\u201d said Health IT Now Executive Director Joel White.

\u201cHealth IT Now has long believed that the regulatory process for new devices and therapies must take into consideration the rapid development cycles of health IT,\u201d White added. \u201cThrough this Digital Health Innovation Plan, the FDA appears to be making a strong effort to do exactly that.\u201d

Health IT Now urged the regulatory agency to \u201cuse real-world data in product development, expansion and postmarket surveillance, while working to ensure that requirements on data use are clear and not burdensome for product sponsors.\u201d

Towards that end, Gottlieb\u2019s blog stated that \u201cpost-market collection of real-world data might be able to be used to support new and evolving product functions.\u201d For example, he said \u201cproduct developers could leverage real-world data gathered through the National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST) to expedite market entry and subsequent expansion of indications more efficiently,\u201d adding that \u201cNEST will be a federated virtual system for evidence generation composed of strategic alliances among data sources including registries, electronic health records, payer claims, and other sources.\u201d

Bradley Merrill Thompson, general counsel for the Clinical Decision Support Coalition, which represents software developers, healthcare payers, providers and medical device manufacturers, praises the direction the agency is taking.

Thompson notes that Gottlieb expressly acknowledges the \u201cambiguity regarding how FDA will approach new technology can lead innovators to invest their time and resources in other ventures.\u201d He also takes comfort in Gottlieb\u2019s assertion that the agency should pursue \u201cpolicies that are clear enough for developers to apply on their own, without having to seek out, on a case-by-case basis, FDA\u2019s position on every individual technological change or iterative software development.\u201d

\u201cIn the blog post, Commissioner Gottlieb also seems to reference the discussions that industry has been having lately with FDA regarding adoption of the TSA pre-check idea as a better way of bringing new software to market,\u201d adds Thompson. \u201cThe blog post suggests that the agency is committed to this approach, which obviously we are delighted to hear. There is much good that can be done, although there is much work left to be done. It will be very important to get the details right.\u201d

At the same time, he observes that Gottlieb seems committed to going beyond just the technology addressed in the 21st Century Cures Act. \u201cLegislation always covers at best a few of the larger categories, and there is truly much more work to be done,\u201d says Thompson. \u201cFDA seems to be committing to publishing guidance in the coming months to clarify, beyond the legislation, what FDA will regulate in the area of clinical decision support and other such software. That is music to my ears. Indeed, throughout the post, it seems like we\u2019re singing off of the same page.\u201d

The 21st Century Cures Act provides much-needed clarification regarding the regulation of medical software. In particular, the law identifies five specific categories of medical software that\u2014given certain conditions\u2014will not be regulated as a medical device by the FDA based on their low level of risk to patients.

\u201cFDA will provide guidance to clarify our position on products that contain multiple software functions, where some fall outside the scope of FDA regulation, but others do not,\u201d wrote Gottlieb in his blog. \u201cIn addition, FDA will provide new guidance on other technologies that, although not addressed in the 21st Century Cures Act, present low enough risks that FDA does not intend to subject them to certain pre-market regulatory requirements.\u201d

\u201cWe are excited about the FDA\u2019s Digital Health Innovation Plan because it holds great potential to ensure that the health IT policies of today are suited to accommodate the innovations of tomorrow,\u201d concluded White.","order":0,"get_parent":{},"attributes":[],"attributesType":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"dynamicContent":""}]

IT groups backing FDA’s Digital Health Innovation Plan

More for you