Medical Devices

Subscribe to Medical Devices via RSS

Among the wave of guidance documents issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the first week of 2025 were three notable draft guidance documents pertaining to medical devices (together, the “Draft Guidances”). The Draft Guidances hit on the topics of in vitro diagnostic (“IVD”) devices, artificial intelligence (“AI”) enabled device software functions, and pulse oximeters. This uncharacteristic deluge of guidance all within the span of a week illustrates the Agency’s desire to disseminate policy ahead of the incoming administration – especially as it relates to medical devices, which for a variety of reasons that any follower of this blog could intuit, have become a hot-button issue across the various corners of the healthcare and life sciences industries.Continue Reading FDA Dumps Trio of Device-Related Guidances Prior to Administration Change

On July 8, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced its updated guidance, “Addressing Misinformation About Medical Devices and Prescription Drugs: Questions and Answers,” which provides recommendations and examples for firms who choose to address misinformation about or related to their approved or cleared drug or device.[1] This guidance revises and replaces FDA’s 2014 draft guidance titled “Internet/Social Media Platforms: Correcting Independent Third-Party Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices.” Social media users from 2014 will appreciate how different the world looks today and why—even though it took FDA ten years—this revision is a welcomed shift making it more straightforward for firms to respond to misinformation.Continue Reading FDA Revisits and Updates Guidance on Addressing Misinformation – Ten Years Later

Last month, in the last advisory opinion issued by the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) in 2023 – Advisory Opinion No. 23-11 (the “Opinion”) – OIG “blessed” an arrangement involving a medical device manufacturer (the “Requestor”) and its proposed payment of cost-sharing subsidies. Maintaining its position from similar opinions issued in recent years, OIG said that it would not impose sanctions under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”) or the Beneficiary Inducements Civil Monetary Penalty (the “CMP”) against the Requestor for paying cost-sharing subsidies to clinical trial participants to cover the participants’ share of costs for reimbursable, study-related items and services that the participants would otherwise be required to pay out of pocket.[1] This Opinion illustrates that OIG appears to remain willing to permit arrangements that do not fall squarely within an AKS safe harbor in order to incentivize participation, especially diverse participation, in clinical trials for medical devices.Continue Reading OIG Permits Medical Device Manufacturer’s Cost-Sharing Subsidies for Medicare Beneficiaries in Clinical Trial

On June 21, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a warning letter to Zyto Technologies, Inc. (“Zyto”), citing Zyto’s promotion of its Hand Cradle Galvanic Skin Response (“GSR”) device and associated software for uses outside the scope of the device’s 510(k) clearance.[1] This warning letter is one of only a handful issued this year to medical-device manufacturers, and comes shortly after FDA issued a warning letter to iRhythm Technologies, which we wrote about, for touting uses for a remote monitoring device which were, in FDA’s opinion, outside the scope of the product’s 510(k) clearance.[2] These enforcement actions indicate that FDA is keeping a close eye on the promotion of software-enabled medical devices, especially when that promotion suggests a function that has not been approved and/or cleared by FDA for the device.Continue Reading FDA Maintains Focus on “Intended Use” for Software-Enabled Medical Devices

On March 29, 2023, and March 30, 2023, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a series of FAQs[1] and a guidance document[2] clarifying the agency’s intended implementation of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (the “Omnibus”), which amended Section 524B of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act (the “FD&C Act”) to require the demonstration of cybersecurity safeguards in pre-market submissions for certain medical devices.[3] Continue Reading FDA To Require Demonstration of Cybersecurity Safeguards for Pre-Market Submissions of Certain Medical Devices

On December 15, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a draft guidance, titled “Circumstances that Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug or Device Inspection” (the “Inspection Draft Guidance”), which clarifies the types of behaviors that FDA considers to be inappropriately delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing access to an inspection, each of which constitutes adulteration of a drug or device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).[1] The Inspection Draft Guidance clarifies certain behaviors described in FDA’s previous guidance on the subject (the “2014 Guidance”) and, most significantly, expands the previous guidance to apply to medical device manufacturers.Continue Reading FDA Expands Inspection Guidance to Apply to Device Manufacturers

The United States’ recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) prosecution in United States v. Prometheus Group, et al., is a reminder that the government will use the FCA to target medical device manufacturers for off-label use of medical devices, even where healthcare providers have decided the use is safe and effective. In Prometheus Group, the government alleges that the defendant medical device manufacturer trained providers to re-use disposable rectal probes against U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) recommendations, causing the providers to submit false claims for payment to Medicare for the services mis-using the probes. The complaint alleges that Prometheus put vulnerable Medicare patients at risk to gain a marketing advantage by reducing overhead costs associated with its systems. The message to medical device manufacturers is clear: even without submitting claims to the government themselves, manufacturers can face FCA liability for suggesting providers use their devices in any way the FDA has not approved (and in this case, warned against).Continue Reading The Government Seeks FCA Liability for Off-Label Use of Medical Devices

On September 19, 2019, FDA issued a guidance document, “Safety and Performance Based Pathway,” describing an optional pathway for medical devices with well-understood safety and performance profiles. The guidance signals FDA’s willingness to implement a more modern approach under the arcane 510(k) premarket pathway.
Continue Reading FDA’s New Safety and Performance Based Pathway for Medical Devices Reflects a More Modern Approach to Finding Substantial Equivalence