FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices
Judith A. Johnson
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
September 14, 2016
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42130

Summary
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 device 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. FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is
primarily responsible for medical device review. CDRH activities are funded by congressional
appropriations and user fees collected from device manufacturers, which together comprise the
program level budget. User fees account for 43% of FDA’s total FY2016 program level and 28%
of CDRH’s FY2016 program level. The CDRH program level budget in FY2016 is $450 million,
including $127 million in user fees. FDA’s authority to collect medical device user fees, originally
authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-250), has been reauthorized in five-year increments and was
reauthorized through FY2017 in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, P.L. 112-144).
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), all medical device manufacturers
must register their facilities and list their devices with FDA and follow general controls
requirements. FDA classifies devices according to the risk they pose to consumers. The FFDCA
requires premarket review for moderate- and high-risk devices. There are two main paths that
manufacturers can use to bring such devices to market. One path consists of conducting clinical
studies and submitting a premarket approval (PMA) application that includes 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. Substantial equivalence is determined by comparing the performance
characteristics of a new device with those of a predicate device. Demonstrating substantial
equivalence does not usually require submitting clinical data demonstrating safety and
effectiveness. Once its device is approved or cleared for marketing, a manufacturer must comply
with regulations on manufacturing, labeling, surveillance, device tracking, and adverse event
reporting. In 2015, FDA approved 98% of PMAs accepted for review and 85% of 510(k)s
accepted for review were determined to be substantially equivalent.
Problems related to medical devices can have serious consequences for consumers. Defects in
medical devices, such as artificial hips and pacemakers, have caused severe patient injuries and
deaths. Reports published in 2009 through 2011—by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, and the
Institute of Medicine—have voiced concerns about FDA’s device review process. In 2009, 2011,
2013, and 2015 FDA’s oversight of medical products was included on the GAO list of high-risk
areas. In response to these concerns, FDA has conducted internal reviews and has implemented
changes, including plans for a new National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST).

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The Medical Device Review Process: Premarket Requirements .................................................... 3
Device Classification ................................................................................................................ 5
Medical Device Marketing Applications................................................................................... 7
Premarket Approval (PMA)................................................................................................ 9
PMA Supplements .............................................................................................................11
Evaluations of the PMA and PMA Supplement Process................................................... 13
Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE).......................................................................... 17
Parallel Review: FDAApproval or Clearance and Medicare National Coverage
Determinations (NCDs)................................................................................................. 18
510(k) Notification............................................................................................................ 19
Assessments of the 510(k) Process................................................................................... 22
The Medical Device Review Process: Post-Market Requirements............................................... 25
Postmarketing Surveillance and the National Evaluation System for Health
Technology (NEST) ............................................................................................................. 26
Postmarket Surveillance Studies (“522 Studies”)............................................................. 29
Adverse Event Reporting.................................................................................................. 31
Medical Device Tracking.................................................................................................. 32
The Sentinel Initiative....................................................................................................... 33
Unique Device Identification (UDI) System .................................................................... 34
Labeling .................................................................................................................................. 36
Manufacturing......................................................................................................................... 37
Compliance and Enforcement................................................................................................. 37
Inspection.......................................................................................................................... 38
Warning Letter .................................................................................................................. 39
Product Recall................................................................................................................... 39
Figures
Figure 1. Medical Devices Listed with FDA, FY2016, by Premarket Review Process.................. 4
Tables
Table 1. Medical Device Classification........................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Types of PMA Supplements ............................................................................................ 12
Table 3. CDRH, FDA Domestic and Foreign Device Establishment Inspections, FY2009–
FY2015....................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4. CDRH Warning Letters Issued, FY2009–FY2015 .......................................................... 39
Table 5. CDRH Class I, II, and III Product Recalls, FY2009–FY2015 ........................................ 40
Table A-1. FDA Premarket Review for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices........................ 41

Appendixes
Appendix A. A Comparison of FDA Premarket Review of Prescription Drugs and
Medical Devices......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix B. History of Laws Governing Medical Device Regulation......................................... 42
Appendix C. Acronyms Used in this Report ................................................................................. 48
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 49

Congressional Research Service 1
Introduction
Medical device regulation is complex, in part because of the wide variety of items that are
categorized as medical devices. They may be simple tools used during medical examinations,
such as tongue depressors and thermometers, or high-tech life-saving devices that are implanted
in the patient, like pacemakers and coronary stents. The medical device market has been
described as consisting of eight industry sectors: surgical and medical instrument manufacturing,
surgical appliance and supplies, electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus, irradiation
apparatus, ophthalmic goods, dental equipment and supplies, dental laboratories, and in vitro
diagnostic products (IVDs, or laboratory developed tests).1
The federal agency responsible for regulating medical devices is the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)—an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
A manufacturer must obtain FDA’s prior approval or clearance before marketing many medical
devices in the United States. FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is
primarily responsible for medical device premarket review. Another center, the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), regulates devices associated with blood collection
and processing procedures, cellular products and tissues.2
CDRH activities are funded by congressional appropriations and user fees collected from device
manufacturers, which together comprise the program level budget.3
In general, CDRH user fees
may be used only for medical device premarket review activities, not other CDRH activities.4
User fees account for 43% of FDA’s total FY2016 program level and 28% of CDRH’s FY2016
program level.5
The CDRH program level budget in FY2016 is $450 million, including $127
million in user fees. FDA’s authority to collect medical device related user fees, originally
authorized in 2002 (P.L. 107-250), has been reauthorized in five-year increments and was
reauthorized through FY2017 by the 112th
Congress via Title II of the FDA Safety and Innovation
Act (FDASIA, P.L. 112-144).6
1
The Lewin Group, for AdvaMed, State Economic Impact of the Medical Technology Industry, June 7, 2010, p. 19. In
vitro diagnostic products (IVDs, or laboratory developed tests) have their own unique premarket requirements and are
not discussed further in this report. For more information on the regulation of IVDs see CRS Report R43438,
Regulation of Clinical Tests: In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Devices, Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), and Genetic
Tests, by Amanda K. Sarata and Judith A. Johnson.
2
Jurisdiction of the centers’ medical device review is governed by the FDA Intercenter Agreement between CBER and
CDRH (October 31, 1991). FDA, Devices Regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/510kProcess/ucm133429.htm.
3
For more information on medical device user fees, see CRS Report R44517, The FDA Medical Device User Fee
Program: MDUFA IV Reauthorization, by Judith A. Johnson.
4
Fees “shall only be available to defray increases in the costs of resources allocated for the process for the review of
device applications.” FFDCA 738(i)(2)(A)(ii). The law specifically defines “costs of resources allocated for the process
for the review of device applications” [FFDCA 737(9)] and what activities are considered part of the “process for the
review of device applications” [FFDCA 737(8)] For example, costs include management of information [FFDCA
737(9)(B); and, activities associated with the process for review include inspections of manufacturing establishments
[FFDCA 737(8)(C). The process for review of device applications focuses solely on activities involved in premarket
approval, with one exception: the evaluation of postmarket studies that are required as a condition of approval of
certain premarket applications or reports [FFDCA 737(8)(J)].
5
FDA, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees, FY2017, Washington, DC, February 2016, pp. 20 and
135. FDA also funds some device and radiological health activities with fees collected under the Mammography
Quality Standards Act (MQSA, P.L. 102-539), and device user fees fund some non–device-specific activities at FDA.
6
Title VI of FDASIA addresses the regulation of medical devices; for further information see CRS Report R42680,
The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, P.L. 112-144), coordinated by Susan Thaul.

Congress has historically been interested in balancing the goals of allowing consumers to have
access, as quickly as possible, to new and improved medical devices with preventing devices that
are not safe and effective from entering or remaining on the market. The goals of device
availability and device safety may exert opposite pulls, with implications for consumers, the
health care system, and the economy.
Private investment in medical device development reportedly reached a high of $3.7 billion in
2007. Investment has slowed somewhat to $2.5 billion in 2012, $2.3 billion in 2013, $2.7 billion
in 2014, and $2.8 billion in 2015.7
According to one report, the U.S. medical technology industry
generated $336 billion in revenue in 2013 and employed almost 671,000 workers.8
The “medical
technology industry” includes “medical device, diagnostic, drug delivery and analytic/life science
tool companies” but does not include “distributors and service providers” such as contract
research or contract manufacturing organizations.9
A 2011 analysis found that “32 of the 46
medical technology companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue are based in the
United States.”10
Although the largest companies dominate the market for devices in terms of
sales, some believe it is often the small device companies that make a significant contribution to
early innovation. Small companies may partner with larger companies to bring products to market
if they lack access to the capital and resources to conduct clinical trials and navigate regulatory
and reimbursement hurdles.
Manufacturers make decisions about pursuing new devices based in part on the cost of their
development. Additional regulatory requirements may escalate these costs, while other incentives,
such as tax breaks or market exclusivity extensions, may diminish them. If the device
development cost is too high, the eventual result may be that consumers are denied access to new
devices because new products are not developed or brought to market. Access problems have led
to proposals for, and the enactment of, incentives to develop medical devices for rare diseases and
pediatric populations. However, if the regulation and oversight of device development are not
adequate, unsafe or ineffective products may reach the market and cause harm to consumers.
Problems related to medical devices can have serious consequences for consumers. Relatively
recent examples in the media that have caused severe patient injuries and deaths include metal-
on-metal hip implants; pacemakers, defibrillators, and associated leads (wires); stents;
endoscopes; surgical mesh; and, power morcellators.11
The metal-on-metal hip has “been
implanted in millions of patients [worldwide], many of whom suffered serious harm and, as a
result, needed additional procedures to replace the device.”12
An estimated 500,000 patients in the
United States have received this type of hip replacement.13
7
PriceWaterhouseCoopers / National Venture Capital Association, “Medical Devices and Equipment,” Money Tree
Report, data provided by Thomson Reuters, at http://www.pwcmoneytree.com.
8
Ernst and Young. Pulse of the industry: Medical technology report, 2014, p. 27. http://www.ey.com/Publication/
vwLUAssets/ey-pulse-of-the-industry-report/$FILE/ey-pulse-of-the-industry-report.pdf.
9
Ibid., p. 70.
10
PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers), Medical Technology Innovation Scorecard: The race for global leadership, January
2011, p. 8, http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/innovation-scorecard.
11
For example, see Barry Meier and Janet Roberts, “Hip implant complaints surge, even as the dangers are studied,”
The New York Times, August 22, 2011, pp. A1, A16; Information on recalls is available by searching the database at
FDA, Medical & Radiation Emitting Device Recalls, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm.
12
Corinna Sorenson and Michael Drummond, “Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in
Perspective,” The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 92, no. 1 (2014), p. 127.
13
Barry Meier, “F.D.A. Seeks to Tighten Regulation of All-Metal Hip Implants,” The New York Times, January 16,
2013.

These device problems have raised questions as to whether adequate enforcement tools,
resources, and processes are in place at FDA to ensure that marketed devices are safe and
effective. Reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Health
and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) have
voiced concerns about FDA’s device review process.14
In 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 GAO
included FDA’s oversight of medical products on the GAO list of high-risk areas.15
This report provides a description of FDA’s medical device review process and related policy
issues. The report is divided into two parts: premarket requirements and postmarket requirements.
Appendix A provides a comparison of elements comprising the FDA premarket review of drugs
and medical devices. Appendix B provides a brief history of laws governing medical device
regulation, and Appendix C provides a table of acronyms used in the report.
The Medical Device Review Process:
Premarket Requirements
FDA requires all medical product manufacturers to register their facilities, list their devices with
the agency, and follow general controls requirements.16
FDA classifies devices according to the
risk they pose to consumers. Many medical devices, such as plastic bandages and ice bags,
present only minimal risk and can be legally marketed upon registration alone. These low-risk
devices are deemed exempt from premarket review and manufacturers need not submit an
application to FDA prior to marketing.17
In contrast, most moderate- and high-risk devices must
obtain the agency’s permission prior to marketing. FDA grants this permission when a
manufacturer meets regulatory premarket requirements and agrees to any necessary postmarket
requirements which vary according to the risk that a device presents.18
14
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medical Devices: FDA should take steps to ensure that high-risk device
types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process, GAO-09-190, January 2009; Daniel R.
Levinson, Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Devices, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
Inspector General, Washington, DC, October 2009; and, IOM (Institute of Medicine), Medical Devices and the
Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Washington, DC, July 2011.
15
GAO regularly reports on government operations that it identifies as high risk due to their greater vulnerability to
fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency or effectiveness
challenges. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271, January 2009; GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update,
GAO-11-278, February 2011; GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283, February 2013; and, GAO-15-290,
High-Risk Series: An Update, February 2015.
16
21 C.F.R. §807.
17
The term manufacturer is used throughout this report for simplicity, but regulations also apply to any person,
organization, or sponsor that submits an application to FDA to market a device.
18
In vitro diagnostic products (IVDs, or laboratory-developed tests) have their own unique premarket requirements and
are not discussed further in this report. For more information on the regulation of IVDs see CRS Report R43438,
Regulation of Clinical Tests: In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Devices, Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), and Genetic
Tests.

There are two main paths that
manufacturers can use to bring
moderate- and high-risk devices to
market with FDA’s permission. 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.19
The PMA process is generally used
for novel and high-risk devices and results in a type of FDA permission called approval.
The other path is shorter and less costly. It 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.20
The 510(k) process is unique to medical devices
and results in FDA clearance. Substantial equivalence is determined by comparing the
performance characteristics of a new device with those of a predicate device. To be considered
substantially equivalent, the new device must have the same intended use and technological
characteristics as the predicate; clinical data demonstrating safety and effectiveness are usually
not required. The manufacturer selects the predicate device to compare with its new device.
However, FDA has the ultimate discretion in determining whether a comparison is appropriate.
Figure 1. Medical Devices Listed with FDA, FY2016, by Premarket Review Process
Source: FDA, May 23, 2016.
Notes: “Other” includes devices that were allowed to enter the market via other means, such as through the
humanitarian device exemption process that allows market entry, without adherence to effectiveness
requirements, for devices benefiting patients with rare diseases or conditions. See “Humanitarian Device
Exemption (HDE).” Nonexempt devices are reviewed by FDA via the PMA process or the 510(k) process.
Of the unique devices that are listed by manufacturers with FDA in FY2016, as shown in Figure
1, about 63% were exempt from premarket review; the remainder entered the market via the
19
The PMA is somewhat similar to the process FDA uses to approve a new prescription drug. For information on the
drug approval process, see CRS Report R41983, How FDA Approves Drugs and Regulates Their Safety and
Effectiveness, by Susan Thaul.
20
To be a predicate, a device must have either been on the market before 1976 when the Medical Device Amendments
(MDA) took effect, or it could have been cleared for marketing after 1976, but must have the same intended use as a
device classified in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.).
PMA vs. 510(k)
There is a fundamental difference between the PMA and 510(k)
pathways. In a PMA review, FDA determines if the device is
reasonably safe and effective for its intended use. In a 510(k) review,
FDA determines if the device is substantially equivalent to another
device already on the market whose safety and effectiveness may not
have been assessed previously.

510(k) process (35%), the PMA process (1%), or other means (such as the “Humanitarian Device
Exemption (HDE)]”).21
Device Classification
Under the terms of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA, P.L. 94-295), FDA
classified all medical devices that were on the market at the time of enactment—the
preamendment devices—into one of three classes. Congress provided definitions for the three
classes—Class I, Class II, and Class III—based on the risk (low-, moderate-, and high-risk
respectively) to patients posed by the devices.22
Examples of each class are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Medical Device Classification
Device
Classification Examples
Safety/Effectiveness
Controls Required Submission
Class I elastic bandages, examination gloves,
hand-held surgical instruments
General Controls Registration only unless
510(k) specifically required
Class II powered wheelchairs, infusion pumps,
surgical drapes
General Controls &
Special Controls
510(k) notification unless
exempt
-IDE possible
Class III heart valves, silicone gel-filled breast
implants, implanted cerebella
stimulators
General Controls &
Premarket Approval
PMA application
-IDE probable
metal-on-metal hip joint, certain dental
implants
General Controls 510(k) notification
Source: FDA, Overview of Medical Device Regulation, General and Special Controls, at http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/default.htm.
Note: IDE means investigational device exemption. Some Class III devices have been cleared via the 510(k)
process; these are Class III devices that entered the market prior to regulation calling for a PMA application.
Device classification determines the type of regulatory requirements that a manufacturer must
follow. Regulatory requirements for each class are described below in more detail. General
controls apply to all three classes of FDA-regulated medical devices, unless exempted by
regulation, and are the only level of controls that apply to Class I devices.23
Examples of general
controls include establishment registration, device listing, premarket notification, and good
manufacturing practice requirements.
Class I devices are those under current law for which general controls “are sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.”24
Many Class I devices are
exempt from the premarket notification and/or the Quality System (QS) regulation requirements,
21
Email from Ann M. Ferriter and David R. Gartner, Division of Analysis and Program Operations, Office of
Compliance, CDRH/FDA, May 23, 2016.
22
FFDCA §513(a)(1); see also 21 C.F.R. §860.3(c). The agency has developed classifications for over 1,700 distinct
types of devices and grouped them into 16 classification panels, such as “cardiovascular devices” or “ear, nose, and
throat devices.” FDA, Medical Devices, Classify Your Medical Device, December 3, 2012, http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/default.htm.
23
See FDA, Medical Devices, Regulatory Controls, 06/26/2014, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/default.htm#gen.
24
FFDCA §513(a)(1)(A).

though they still have to comply with the other general controls.25
A device is exempt if FDA
determines that it presents a low risk of illness or injury to patients.26
Class II devices are those under current law “which cannot be classified as class I because the
general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of the device.”27
Class II includes devices that pose a moderate risk to patients, and
may include new devices for which information or special controls are available to reduce or
mitigate risk.28
Special controls are usually device specific and may include special labeling
requirements, mandatory performance standards, and postmarket surveillance. Currently “15% of
all device types classified in Class II are subject to special controls.”29
Although most Class II
devices require premarket notification via the 510(k) process, a few are exempt by regulation.30
Class III devices are those under current law which “cannot be classified as a class I device
because insufficient information exists to determine that the application of general controls are
sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device,” and
“cannot be classified as a class II device because insufficient information exists to determine that
the special controls ... would provide reasonable assurance of [their] safety and effectiveness,”
and are “purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a
use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health,” or present “a
potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury, [are] to be subject ... to premarket approval to
provide reasonable assurance of [their] safety and effectiveness.”31
In other words, general and/or special controls are not sufficient to assure safe and effective use
of a Class III device. Class III includes devices which are life-supporting or life-sustaining, and
devices which present a high or potentially unreasonable risk of illness or injury to a patient. New
devices that are not Class I or II are automatically designated as Class III unless the manufacturer
files a request or petition for reclassification.32
Although most Class III devices require premarket approval (PMA), some Class III devices may
have been cleared via the 510(k) process. In fact, during the first 10 years following enactment of
MDA, over 80% of postamendment Class III devices entered the market on the basis of 510(k)
submissions showing substantial equivalence to preamendment devices.33
These are Class III
devices that entered the market prior to regulation calling for a PMA application.34
FDA explains
the situation as follows:
25
QS regulation is found in 21 C.F.R. §820.
26
See 21 C.F.R. §§862- 92.
27
FFDCA §513(a)(1)(B).
28
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/default.htm#special.
29
Institute of Medicine, Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years,
Washington, DC, July 2011, p. 40.
30
FDA, Overview of Medical Device Regulation, Medical Device Classification, Class I/II Exemptions, at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/ucm051549.htm.
31
FFDCA §513(a)(1)(C).
32
FFDCA §513(f)(2).
33
IOM, Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Washington, DC,
July 2011, p. 81.
34
FDA, PMA Historical Background, at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/
HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketApprovalPMA/ucm046769.htm; and, FDA, Medical
Devices, Special Considerations, Class III Certification and Summary, at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
(continued...)

When FDA’s medical device regulation program began in the late 1970s, FDA regulated
over 170 Class III device types through the 510(k) program, and those devices were
never required to submit PMAs, like a typical Class III device. The intent was that FDA’s
regulation would be temporary and that, over time, the FDA would reclassify those
device types into Class I or II, or sustain the classification in Class III and call for PMA
applications. This reclassification process is described in Section 515 of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Over the years, the FDA made significant
progress on the original list of 170 devices; however, as of 2009, 26 medical device
regulations still required final action.35
At the time that the MDA of 1976 was drafted, “relatively few medical devices were permanently
implanted or intended to sustain life. The 510(k) process was specifically intended for devices
with less need for scientific scrutiny, such as surgical gloves and hearing aids.”36
Over time,
FDA’s 510(k) review process was “challenged as new devices changed more dramatically and
became more complex.”37
In late 2009, FDA implemented the 515 Program Initiative “to facilitate action on these remaining
Class III device types.”38
Examples of Class III devices that were still regulated via the 510(k)
program include the metal-on-metal hip implant, certain dental implants, automated external
defibrillator, electroconvulsive therapy device, pedicle screw spinal system, intra-aortic balloon
and control system, and several device types related to pacemakers.39
In 2012, FDASIA changed
the process for the reclassification of a device from rulemaking to an administrative order.40
As a
result, since 2013 FDA has published a number of final orders in the Federal Register to
reclassify many of these remaining Class III device types.41
Medical Device Marketing Applications
As stated above, in general, before a nonexempt medical device may be legally marketed, a
manufacturer must submit to FDA either: a PMA application, and the agency may approve the
device; or, a 510(k) notification, and the agency may clear the device. FDA makes its
determination—either approval or clearance—based on information the manufacturer submits to
the agency. The information that is required—in other words, the type of submission the
manufacturer must make (if any)—is determined based on the risk that the device poses, if used
(...continued)
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketNotification510k/
ucm134578.htm#classiii.
35
FDA, CDRH Transparency, 515 Program Initiative, at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/
OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHTransparency/ucm240310.htm.
36
Diana M. Zuckerman, Paul Brown, and Steven Nissen, “Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process,”
Archives of Internal Medicine, Online publication 2011, p. E2.
37
Ibid., p. E2.
38
FDA, 515 Program Initiative, at http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/
cdrh/cdrhtransparency/ucm240310.htm.
39
FDA, CDRH Transparency, 515 Program Status, at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/
OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHTransparency/ucm240318.htm.
40
Section 608(b) of FDASIA amended FFDCA section 515(b).
41
For further details, see FDA, CDRH Transparency, 515 Program Status, at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHTransparency/ucm240318.htm.

according to the manufacturer’s instructions. FDA typically evaluates more than 4,000 510(k)
notifications and about 40 original PMA applications each year.42
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA; P.L. 105-115) gave
FDA the authority to establish procedures for meeting with manufacturers prior to preparing a
submission.43
The procedures aim to speed the review process by giving FDA and a manufacturer
the opportunity to address questions and concerns about the device and/or the planned studies that
will be used to support the marketing application before the studies are initiated and the
application is submitted.
Generally speaking, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), manufacturers
 are prohibited from selling an adulterated product;44
 are prohibited from misbranding a product;45
 must register their facility with FDA and list all of the medical devices that they
produce or process;
 must file the appropriate premarket submission with the agency at least 90 days
before introducing a nonexempt device onto the market; and
 must report to FDA any incident that they are aware of that suggests that their
device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury.46
Under the terms of the Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFA), manufacturers must pay a fee for
most types of submissions. In FY2016, the user fee for FDA review of a PMA submission is
$261,388 or $65,347 for a small business; the user fee for FDA review of a 510(k) submission is
$5,228 or $2,614 for a small business.47
GAO found that in 2005, the average cost for FDA to
review a PMA was $870,000 and the average cost to review a 510(k) submission was $18,200.48
User fees account for 43% of FDA’s total FY2016 program level and 28% of CDRH’s program
42
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Aging, A Delicate Balance: FDA and the Reform of the Medical Device
Approval Process, Testimony of William Maisel, Deputy Center Director for Science, FDA/CDRH, 112th
Cong., 1st
sess., April 13, 2011.
43
For guidance on the procedures established, see Early Collaboration Meetings Under the FDA Modernization Act;
Final Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff, February 28, 2001, at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm073604.htm.
44
A device is adulterated if it includes any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is prepared, packed, or held
under unsanitary conditions. The FFDCA further states that a device is adulterated if its container contains any
poisonous or deleterious substance, or if its strength, purity or quality varies significantly from what the manufacturer
claims. For higher class devices, a device can be considered adulterated if it fails to meet performance requirements
outlined in its approval, or if it is in violation of other Good Manufacturing Practice requirements.
45
A device is misbranded when all or part of the labeling (i.e., the FDA-approved printed material providing
information about the device) is false, misleading, or missing.
46
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/default.htm#gen.
47
A small business is defined as a business that has $100 million or less in gross receipts or sales, including all
affiliates. Those small businesses with gross receipts or sales of $30 million or less are eligible to have their first PMA
fee waived. FDA, Medical Devices, Important Information on the Medical Device User Fee Rates for FY2016, at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/ucm457438.htm
48
types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process, GAO-09-190, January 2009.

level.49
The CDRH program level budget in FY2016 is $450 million, including $127 million in
user fees.
The following sections describe the PMA and 510(k) submissions in more detail, and provide
information about making changes to a PMA device using a supplement, the Humanitarian
Device Exemption, special types of 510(k) submissions, and parallel review of a device by FDA
and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Premarket Approval (PMA)
A PMA is “the most stringent type of device marketing application required by FDA” for new
and/or high-risk devices.50
PMA approval is based on a determination by FDA that the application
contains sufficient valid scientific evidence to provide reasonable assurance that the device is safe
and effective for its intended use(s).51
In contrast to a 510(k), PMAs generally require some
clinical data prior to FDA making an approval decision.52
All clinical evaluations of investigational devices (unless exempt) must have an investigational
device exemption (IDE) before the clinical study is initiated.53
An IDE allows an unapproved
device (most commonly an invasive or life-sustaining device) to be used in a clinical study to
collect the data required to support a PMA submission.54
The IDE permits a device to be shipped
lawfully for investigation of the device without requiring that the manufacturer comply with other
requirements of the FFDCA, such as registration and listing. In August and in November 2011,
FDA released draft guidance intended to ensure the quality of clinical trials and streamline the
IDE process by clarifying the criteria for approving clinical trials.55
Final guidance on these topics
was issued in 2013 and 2014.56
All clinical studies must also receive prior approval by an
institutional review board (IRB).57
49
FDA, Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees, FY2017, Washington, DC, February 2016, pp. 20 and
135. FDA also funds some device and radiological health activities with fees collected under the Mammography
Quality Standards Act (MQSA, P.L. 102-539), and device user fees fund some non–device-specific activities at FDA.
50
FDA, Medical Devices, Premarket Approval (PMA), at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketApprovalPMA/
default.htm.
51
FFDCA §513(a)(1)(C); 21 C.F.R. §814.
52
21 C.F.R. §814.
53
See 21 C.F.R. §812. Devices are exempt from IDE requirements when testing is noninvasive, does not require
invasive sampling, does not introduce energy into a subject, and is not stand alone (i.e., is not used for diagnosis
without confirmation by other methods or medically established procedures). See 21 C.F.R. §812.2(c)(3).
54
FDA, Device Advice: Investigational Device Exemption (IDE), July 9, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/InvestigationalDeviceExemptionIDE/default.htm.
55
FDA, “FDA seeks comment on proposed guidance for high-quality clinical studies,” FDA, press release, August 15,
2011, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm268000.htm; and, “FDA issues two draft
guidance documents to facilitate investigational medical device studies in humans,” press release, November 10, 2011,
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm279459.htm.
56
See Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices, at http://www.fda.gov/
RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm373750.htm, Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) for Early Feasibility
Medical Device Clinical Studies, Including Certain First in Human (FIH) Studies, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm279103.pdf, and FDA Decisions for
Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Investigations, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/
deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm279107.pdf.
57
An IRB is a group, generally comprised of volunteers, that examines proposed and ongoing scientific research to
ensure that human subjects are properly protected. See 45 C.F.R. §46.107.

A PMA must contain (among other things) the following information:
 summaries of nonclinical and clinical data supporting the application and
conclusions drawn from the studies;
 a device description including significant physical and performance
characteristics;
 indications for use, description of the patient population and disease or condition
that the device will diagnose, treat, prevent, cure, or mitigate;
 a description of the foreign and U.S. marketing history, including if the device
has been withdrawn from marketing for any reason related to the safety or
effectiveness of the device;
 proposed labeling; and
 a description of the manufacturing process.58
Approval is based not only on the strength of the scientific data, but also on inspection of the
manufacturing facility to ensure that the facility and the manufacturing process are in compliance
with the quality system (QS) regulation.59
FDAMA made it easier for manufacturers to submit the
required sections of a PMA in a serial fashion as data are available (“modular PMA”).
When a PMA is first received by FDA, it has 45 days to make sure the application is
administratively complete. If not, the application is returned. If the application is complete, it is
formally filed by FDA. The agency then has 75 days to complete the initial review and determine
whether an advisory committee meeting will be necessary.
Advisory committees may be convened to make recommendations on any scientific or policy
matter before FDA.60
They are composed of scientific, medical, and statistical experts, and
industry and consumer representatives. An advisory committee meeting allows interested persons
to present information and views at a public hearing.61
FDA typically accepts advisory committee
recommendations for an application (approvable, approvable with conditions, or nonapprovable).
However, there have been cases where FDA’s decision has not been consistent with the
committee’s recommendation. CDRH will hold joint advisory committee meetings with other
FDA centers when necessary. Though FDA regulations allow 180 days to review the PMA and
make a determination, total review time can be much longer.62
MDUFA performance goals have
been established to reduce the review time for PMAs.63
58
FDA, Medical Devices, PMA Application Contents, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketApprovalPMA/
ucm050289.htm.
59
21 C.F.R. §820.
60
For further information, see http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/.
61
21 C.F.R. §14.
62
For example, see 1st
Quarter FY2016 Package, MDUFA III (FY2013-2017) Performance, February 18, 2015, p. 15,
at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/MedicalDeviceUserFee/UCM487953.pdf. See also 21 C.F.R.
§814.40.
63
FDA officials meet with industry leaders to agree upon mutually acceptable fee types, amounts, and performance
goals. The agreement specifies that, in return for the additional resources provided by medical device user fees, FDA is
expected to meet performance goals defined in a letter, generally referred to as the “FDA Commitment Letter,” from
the HHS Secretary to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. This
process is similar to the one used for prescription drug user fees under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).
For further information on MDUFA, see CRS Report R44517, The FDA Medical Device User Fee Program: MDUFA
(continued...)

As a condition of approval for a PMA device, FDA may order a post-approval study to obtain
information on device safety, effectiveness, and/or reliability over long-term use of the device in
real world populations (as opposed to clinical studies).64
A report published in November 2014 by
JAMA Internal Medicine analyzed 223 post-approval studies of 158 medical devices ordered to
be conducted by FDA between 2005 and 2011.65
The report found that delays in launching and
completing such studies were common. The report found limited information on the causes of
study delays and variable detail provided on the reason a post-approval study (PAS) was ordered.
According to the authors, “the FDA has never issued a warning letter to a manufacturer for failing
to start or complete a mandated PAS, which may undermine its authority in ordering these
studies. The most common effect of a PAS was a change to device labeling. The influence of such
label changes is unknown.”66
In 2015, 98% of PMAs accepted for filing were approved by FDA.67
After FDA notifies the
applicant that the PMA has been approved, a notice is posted on the Internet for the approved
PMA, making available a summary of the safety and effectiveness data upon which the approval
is based and providing interested persons an opportunity to petition FDA within 30 days for
reconsideration of the decision.68
PMA Supplements
If a manufacturer wants to make a change to an approved PMA device, it must submit to FDA
one of several different types of PMA supplements to request agency approval of the device
change.69
The various types of PMA supplements and associated fees are briefly described in
Table 2. The manufacturer is also required to pay a user fee, except in the case of the Special
PMA Supplement. FDA provides information about approved PMA supplements on the FDA
website.70
(...continued)
IV Reauthorization, by Judith A. Johnson. For further information on PDUFA, see CRS Report RL33914, The
Prescription Drug User Fee Act: History Through the 2007 PDUFA IV Reauthorization, by Susan Thaul.
64
For further information, see FDA, Medical Devices, Post-Approval Studies (PAS) - Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ), http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/
PostApprovaStudies/ucm135263.htm, and Post-Approval Studies, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/PostApprovaStudies/default.htm.
65
Ian S. Reynolds, Joshua P. Rising, and Allan J. Coukell, et al., “Assessing the Safety and Effectiveness of Devices
After US Food and Drug Administration Approval: FDA-Mandated Postapproval Studies,” JAMA Internal Medicine,
vol. 174, no. 11 (November 2014), pp. 1773-1779.
66
Ibid., p. 1777.
67
1st
Quarter FY2016 Package, MDUFA III (FY2013-2017) Performance, February 18, 2015, p. 22, at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/MedicalDeviceUserFee/UCM487953.pdf.
68
FDA, Medical Devices, PMA Approvals, at http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/
deviceapprovalsandclearances/pmaapprovals/default.htm.
69
FFDCA §515(d)(6); 21 C.F.R. §814.39. For further information on PMA supplements, see FDA, Guidance for
Industry and Staff, Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Approval (PMA)-The PMA Supplement Decision-
Making Process, December 11, 2008, at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM270606.pdf.
70
FDA, Medical Devices, PMA Approvals, at http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/
deviceapprovalsandclearances/pmaapprovals/default.htm.

Table 2.Types of PMA Supplements
Type of
Supplement
Types of
Changes to
Device Data Required
User Fee
FY2016 (small
business fee) Reviewer
Year
Introduced
Panel-tracka Significant design
change; new
indication
Clinical; limited
preclinical data
in some cases
$196,041
($49,010)
Panel of subject
matter experts
and/or FDA staff
1990
180-dayb Significant design
change; labeling
change
Preclinical;
confirmatory
clinical data in
some cases
$39,208
($9,802)
FDA staff 1986
Real-timec Minor design
change to
device, software,
sterilization, or
labeling
Preclinical only $18,297
($4,574)
FDA staff 1997
30-day noticed Manufacturing
change
No specific data
requirements
$4,182
($2,091)
FDA staff 1997
Speciale Labeling change
that enhances
device safety
No specific data
requirements
No fee. FDA staff 1986
Source: Based on table in Benjamin N. Rome, Daniel B. Kramer, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, “FDA approval of
cardiac implantable electronic devices via original and supplement premarket approval pathways, 1979-2012,”
JAMA, vol. 311, no. 4 (January 22/29, 2014), p. 386, and current user fee information at http://www.fda.gov/
ForIndustry/UserFees/MedicalDeviceUserFee/ucm452519.htm.
a. Defined at FFDCA §737(4)(B). Not all panel-track supplements require a Panel meeting of an independent
panel of experts. FDA, Guidance for Industry and Staff, Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Approval
(PMA)-The PMA Supplement Decision-Making Process, p. 7.
b. Defined at FFDCA §737(4)(C). A Manufacturing Site Change Supplement is considered to be a type of 180-
Day Supplement. FDA, Guidance for Industry and Staff, Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Approval
(PMA)-The PMA Supplement Decision-Making Process, p. 21.
c. Defined at FFDCA §737(4)(D). FDA staff meets with the manufacturer and usually issues a same day
decision on the supplement. FDA, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, Real-Time Premarket Approval
Application (PMA) Supplements, April 28, 2006, at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/
ucm089602.htm.
d. Defined at FFDCA §737(5). The device may be distributed 30 days after FDA receives the notice unless the
agency finds the notice to be inadequate. Then FDA will inform the manufacturer in writing that a 135-day
PMA supplement is required. FDA, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff - 30-Day Notices, 135-Day Premarket
Approval (PMA) Supplements and 75-Day Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) Supplements for Manufacturing
Method or Process Changes, April 13, 2011, at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/
ucm080192.htm.
e. This is a “narrow exception to the general rule that prior FDA approval of changes to a PMA, including the
labeling for a device, is a condition of lawful distribution.” It is used when a manufacturer has “newly
acquired safety-related information” and “the information involves labeling changes that add or strengthen a
contraindication, warning, precaution, or information about an adverse reaction.” FDA, Guidance for Industry
and Staff, Modifications to Devices Subject to Premarket Approval (PMA)-The PMA Supplement Decision-Making
Process, p. 17.
Devices approved via a PMA supplement have smaller fees, shorter review times, and often do
not require the collection of premarket clinical data. Clinical data refers to data obtain during a
clinical trial involving human subjects and preclinical data refers to mechanical engineering tests
as well as animal studies. The features of the PMA supplement “encourage manufacturers to
implement evolving technologies to create new models of devices that are incrementally different

from previously approved additions. This helps facilitate rapid improvement in device
technology, but also means that high-risk medical devices can gain PMA approval as supplements
without any direct clinical study of the specific change made to the device.”71
Evaluations of the PMA and PMA Supplement Process
As mentioned above, FDA considers a PMA to be the most stringent type of device marketing
application required for new and/or high-risk devices. However, studies in the academic medical
literature have questioned the quality of the data submitted to the agency in support of PMA
applications.
Randomized controlled trial (RCT): participants are randomly assigned to two or more groups. One group
receives the intervention (the new treatment), while the control group receives current therapy or placebo.
Randomization ensures that any patient characteristics that might affect the outcome will be roughly equal across
each group in the study. Any difference in outcomes between the groups is then likely due to the intervention. The
RCT is often called the gold standard of evidence for a clinical trial.
Blinded clinical trial: participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors are prevented from knowing which
intervention was received by the participants until the trial has ended. Using a blinded trial design is, along with
randomization, another mechanism to help ensure that the trial results are not biased in favor of the intervention.
A December 2009 report in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) reviewed data
submitted to support PMAs for high-risk cardiovascular devices that received FDA approval
between 2000 and 2007. The authors found that 65% of the PMA applications were based on a
single study that often was not a high-quality randomized controlled clinical trial.72
This is in
contrast to drug applications, which require two randomized well-controlled trials.73
For a
comparison of FDA premarket review processes for drugs and devices, see Table A-1. The JAMA
report found that only 27% of all cardiovascular PMAs were based on a randomized trial and only
14% of the trials of cardiovascular devices used a blinded design.
In addition, the 2009 JAMA report also found that a majority (88%) of the cardiovascular studies
used surrogate end points, “which may not be reliable predictors of actual patient benefit.”74
A
surrogate end point of a clinical trial “is a laboratory measurement or a physical sign used as a
substitute for a clinically meaningful end point that measures directly how a patient feels,
functions, or survives.”75
An example of a surrogate is measurement of cholesterol level that is
used as a surrogate marker for the clinical end point, death from heart disease. A drug that lowers
cholesterol, however, may not lengthen life.
The authors of the 2009 JAMA study chose to examine cardiovascular devices “because it was
expected they would undergo the most stringent approval process given their far-reaching impact
on morbidity and mortality and their increasing use.”76
The authors stated that their findings
“raise questions about the quality of data on which some cardiovascular device approvals are
71
Benjamin N. Rome, Daniel B. Kramer, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, “Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices in the
US: Implications for Clinical Cardiology,” Current Cardiology Reports, vol. 16, no. 6 (June 2014), pp. 489-502.
72
Sanket S. Dhruva, Lisa A. Bero, and Rita F. Redberg, “Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in
premarket approval of cardiovascular devices,” JAMA, vol. 302, no. 24 (December 23, 2009), pp. 2679-2685.
73
FFDCA §505(d); 21 C.F.R. §314.126.
74
. Sanket S. Dhruva, Lisa A. Bero, and Rita F. Redberg, “Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in
premarket approval of cardiovascular devices,” JAMA, vol. 302, no. 24 (December 23, 2009), p. 2683.
75
Ibid., p. 2681.
76
Ibid., p. 2680.

based.”77
They argue that in comparison with drug approval, “the bar for evidence of benefit
should be higher for devices because they are implanted and cannot simply be discontinued, as
drugs can.”78
The importance of FDA device approval versus clearance is significant, as it may
preempt consumer lawsuits on device safety leaving injured patients no avenue of legal recourse
or redress.79
Decisions by physicians and patients could be more informed regarding the use of high-risk
devices, such as cardiovascular devices, if the clinical trial data that FDA reviews to support
approval were more accessible. A June 2015 BMJ (British Medical Journal) report found
selective reporting problems in the medical literature regarding the published trials of high-risk
cardiovascular medical devices.80
Reporting bias is a well-documented problem in the drug-
related medical literature. Those who have analyzed clinical trial information in FDA new drug
applications and compared it with the corresponding publications in the medical literature have
found the selective reporting of favorable results in the literature. “Results favoring the new drug
over the comparator were significantly more likely to be reported in the literature than
unfavorable results. The selective publication of favorable results for drugs includes several types
of reporting bias,” including failure to publish entire studies and failure to publish unfavorable
outcomes.81
The June 2015 BMJ report, the first of its kind, found that “half (51%) of clinical studies of novel
high risk cardiovascular devices remain unpublished over two years after FDA approval.... When
these studies are published, there are often clinically relevant discrepancies between FDA
documents and corresponding publications.”82
According to the authors, these findings “point to
the importance of mandatory registration on a public clinical trials platform. Clinicaltrials.gov is
an important step in this direction, but recent data show that published trials often have discrepant
findings between clinicaltrial.gov and publications.”83
The authors state that “the accessibility and
user friendliness of FDA reports needs to be considerably improved. As clinicians can use devices
immediately after FDA approval, it is in the public interest that all of the data be available to
clinicians at that time.”84
A January 2014 JAMA report examined FDA approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices
(CIEDs)—such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and other cardiac
devices—via the PMA process and the PMA supplement process.85
CIEDs were chosen as “a
77
Ibid., p. 2684.
78
Ibid.
79
The interaction between state tort laws and the federal regulation of medical devices and drugs has been a source of
constant litigation in recent years. In the past two decades, the Supreme Court has issued several decisions concerning
whether the FFDCA preempts state tort law. The results have been mixed: in some cases, a person injured by an
allegedly defective drug or device is barred from suing a manufacturer, whereas in other cases, the Supreme Court has
allowed a lawsuit to proceed. Following these decisions, ambiguities exist concerning the scope of federal preemption
in these medical device and drug cases. For further information, see CRS Report R43218, Preemption of Drug and
Medical Device Claims: A Legal Overview, by Andrew Nolan and Jennifer A. Staman.
80
Lee Chang, Sanket S. Dhruva, Janet Chu, et al., “Selective reporting in trials of high risk cardiovascular devices:
cross sectional comparisons between premarket approval summaries and published reports,” BMJ, vol. 350 (June 10,
2015), pp. 1-7.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid., pp. 1, 5.
83
Ibid., p. 6
84
Ibid.
85
Benjamin N. Rome, Daniel B. Kramer, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, “FDA approval of cardiac implantable electronic
devices via original and supplement premarket approval pathways, 1979-2012,” JAMA, vol. 311, no. 4 (January 22/29,
(continued...)

useful case study because they have been the subject of substantial evolution over the past 30
years,” and the authors sought to “characterize the nature of the changes in each supplement and
understand the data supporting these changes.”86
The first CIED was approved by FDA via the
PMA process in 1979. The report found that from 1979 to 2012, FDA approved 77 CIED PMAs
and 5829 PMA supplements based on those 77 original CIED PMAs. That represents a median of
50 supplements per original PMA. The authors warn clinicians and patients that “clinical data are
rarely collected as part of PMA supplement applications prior to marketing.”87
Of the 5829 PMA
supplements, almost half (2,754, 47%) were allowed onto the market via the 30-day notice
supplement, about a quarter were 180-day supplements (1,538, 26%), and another quarter were
real-time supplements (1,312, 23%) and special supplements (108, 2%); only a small fraction
used the more rigorous panel-track supplement (15, 0.3%).88
Two medical device recalls
that were widely reported in
the media—the Medtronic
Sprint Fidelis and St Jude
Medical Riata ICD leads—
both entered the market via
the PMA supplement process.
The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis
was a 180-day supplement,
and the St Jude Medical Riata
was a real-time supplement;
neither was studied in human
trials prior to FDA approval.
According to the authors of
the January 2014 JAMA
report, the “FDA’s approval of
many supplements without
new human trials, as in the
case of these recent ICD changes, highlights the importance of collecting rigorous postapproval
performance data.”89
Yet the January 2014 JAMA report states that postapproval studies for
devices on the market via a PMA supplement are uncommon.90
PMA supplements “allow patients
to benefit from incremental innovation in device technology by providing efficient and
inexpensive FDA review pathways for smaller device changes.”91
However, many such minor
design changes may add up to a substantial difference from the device approved in the original
PMA application.92
Therefore, the authors of the January 2014 JAMA study recommend “more
(...continued)
2014), pp. 385-391.
86
Ibid., p. 386.
87
Ibid., p. 389.
88
Ibid., p. 387. Data were missing for 102 supplements (2%).
89
Ibid., p. 389.
90
Ibid., p. 390.
91
Ibid., p. 386.
92
Ibid., p. 390.
Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and St Jude Medical Riata
The Sprint Fidelis and the Riata leads are specific models of cardiac
electrodes (thin wires) that connect an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
(ICD) directly to the heart. An ICD monitors heart rhythms and can deliver
an electrical shock to restore normal rhythm if life-threatening, irregular
heartbeats are detected. The ICD keeps the heart from going too fast and is
surgically implanted in patients who may be at risk of sudden cardiac arrest.
Both the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis and the St Jude Medical Riata were recalled
because of the potential for wire fracture, causing the ICD to deliver an
unnecessary shock or to not operate at all. Deaths and serious injuries were
reported in which a fractured Sprint Fidelis or Riata lead may have been a
possible or likely contributing factor. As of October 4, 2007, there had been
about 268,000 Sprint Fidelis leads implanted worldwide, including 172,000
Sprint Fidelis leads implanted in the United States. More than 227,000 Riata
leads had been distributed worldwide and as of 2011, about 79,000 Riata
leads remained implanted in U.S. patients.
Sources: FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/
ConsumerUpdates/ucm103022.htm and http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm314930.htm.

widespread implementation of rigorous postmarket studies to evaluate device performance once
approved for clinical use.”93
As stated previously in this section, others might also argue that because such devices are
implanted within the patient, and cannot be easily removed without the risk of causing major
complications, the evidence of benefit should be higher for devices during the FDA premarket
review process in comparison with the evidence for drugs. Allowing innovative but potentially
defective devices to quickly enter the market may leave large numbers of patients and their
physicians with very difficult decisions.
For example, the failure rate for the Sprint Fidelis lead was 2.8% per year.94
When the lead fails,
it can deliver a painful and unnecessary shock (750 volts) to the patient’s heart. According to one
cardiologist, “[m]ost patients can tolerate one shock, as the pain is over almost before the brain
has time to process the magnitude of the insult. But almost no one can tolerate multiple shocks.
The first shock starts the fear cycle. First is extreme anxiety, but after a second or third shock,
anxiety from the possibility of more shocks progresses quickly to near terror.”95
The risk of major complications in replacing the lead is 15.3%.96
The leads “run a long course
through the veins into the heart. The body’s natural healing process forms scar tissue at multiple
sites along the lead that can create strong attachments to the wall of a blood vessel or a heart
chamber. Freeing a lead from these attachments requires considerable skill and experience and is
more difficult and risky than implanting the leads in the first place.”97
Therefore, if a lead does
not show signs of malfunction, most patients would be closely watched rather than receive
prophylactic surgery to remove the lead.
In two announcements, dated October 2015 and February 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
stated that over 500 hospitals in 43 states had been fined more than $280 million for implanting
ICDs in “Medicare patients in violation of Medicare coverage requirements.... In terms of the
number of defendants, this is one of the largest whistleblower lawsuits in the United States.”98
The DOJ announcement provides further details about the settlement:
Medicare coverage for the device, which costs approximately $25,000, is governed by a
National Coverage Determination (NCD). [CMS] implemented the NCD based on
clinical trials and the guidance and testimony of cardiologists and other health care
providers, professional cardiology societies, cardiac device manufacturers and patient
advocates. The NCD provides that ICDs generally should not be implanted in patients
who have recently suffered a heart attack or recently had heart bypass surgery or
93
Ibid.
94
Robert G. Hauser, William H. Maisel, and Paul A. Friedman, et al., “Longevity of Sprint Fidelis Implantable
Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads and Risk Factors for Failure: Implication for Patient Management,” Circulation, vol.
123 (February 1, 2011), pp. 358-363.
95
John Mandrola, “Double counting...,” July 14, 2010, http://www.drjohnm.org/2010/07/double-counting/.
96
Jeanne E. Poole, Marye J. Gleva, and Theofanie Mela, et al., “Complication Rates Associated with Pacemaker or
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Generator Replacements and Upgrade Procedures: Results from the REPLACE
Registry,” Circulation, vol. 122 (October 19, 2010), pp. 1553-1561.
97
Eric Buch, Noel G. Boyle, and Peter H. Belott, “Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction,” Circulation, March
22, 2011, pp. e378-e380.
98
Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Fifty-One Hospitals Pay United States More Than $23 Million to
Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Related to Implantation of Cardiac Devices,” press release, February 17, 2016,
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fifty-one-hospitals-pay-united-states-more-23-million-resolve-false-claims-act-
allegations; and, “Nearly 500 Hospitals Pay United States More Than $250 Million to Resolve False Claims Act
Allegations Related to Implantation of Cardiac Devices,” press release, October 30, 2015, https://www.justice.gov/opa/
pr/nearly-500-hospitals-pay-united-states-more-250-million-resolve-false-claims-act-allegations.

angioplasty. The medical purpose of a waiting period—40 days for a heart attack and 90
days for bypass/angioplasty—is to give the heart an opportunity to improve function on
its own to the point that an ICD may not be necessary. The NCD expressly prohibits
implantation of ICDs during these waiting periods, with certain exceptions. The
Department of Justice alleged that from 2003 to 2010, each of the settling hospitals
implanted ICDs during the periods prohibited by the NCD.99
According to Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and
editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, “Hospitals put ICDs in people outside the coverage guidelines
who would not get a benefit and likely suffer. It’s a big invasive procedure, and the guidelines are
there to make sure that for people who are getting the procedure the benefits outweigh the
harm.”100
Dr. Redberg reviewed cases for the DOJ and indicated that “many, if not most of the
cases we looked at not only violated the CMS guidelines, but were also unjustified by any clinical
data other than the MD’s opinion, and were clearly outside any boundaries of good or appropriate
care.”101
Bryan Vroon, the attorney who represented the whistleblowers in the Medicare ICD false claims
suit, states that “since the beginning of the DoJ investigation in 2008, the number of surgeries to
implant the device has dropped by about 28%, reaping a savings for Medicare of some $2 billion
over the five years that followed.”102
Unnecessary and potentially harmful ICD implantation
surgery is less of a problem in Europe. “The implantation rates for all types of devices are lower
in Europe than in the United States; thus, the need for [lead] extraction can be expected to be
higher in the United States than in Europe.”103
Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE)
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA, P.L. 101-629) authorized the Humanitarian
Device Exemption (HDE) to encourage the development of devices that aid in the treatment and
diagnosis of diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United States
per year. An HDE application is similar to a PMA, but it is exempt from the effectiveness
requirements to encourage manufacturers to develop devices for these small markets.
However, there are some important restrictions: there is a 4,000-unit limit per year on the number
of devices shipped, and use of an HDE device requires approval by an institutional review board
(IRB) at the institution where the device is to be used.104
The IRB process may involve
“substantial costs for meticulous record keeping, application production, and IRB fees (which
could involve hundreds of sites).”105
Also, there is “the potential for insurers not to cover the
device (for lack of evidence of efficacy).”106
99
Ibid.
100
Trudy Lieberman, “With clout growing, hospitals avoid negative coverage of huge fines, safety violations,”
HealthNewsReview, March 21, 2016, http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2016/03/with-clout-growing-hospitals-avoid-
negative-coverage-of-huge-fines-safety-violations/.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Charles Kennergren, “A European Perspective on Lead Extraction: Part 1,” Heart Rhythm, vol. 5, no. 1 (January
2008), pp. 160-162.
104
21 C.F.R. §814.100, §814.104(b)(5), and §814.124.
105
IOM, Rare Diseases and Orphan Products: Accelerating Research and Development, Washington, DC, 2010, p.
236, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12953.
106
Ibid.

In the past, the device sponsor was also not allowed to make a profit on the sale of the HDE
device if its price was more than $250. FDAAA (P.L. 110-85) removed the restriction on profit
for HDEs developed for pediatric use and required GAO to report by 2012 on the impact of
removing this restriction.107
FDASIA allows an HDE device to qualify for an exemption to the
general ban on selling such devices for a profit if the HDE device is intended for the treatment or
diagnosis of (1) a disease or condition that does not occur in pediatric patients, or (2) that occurs
in pediatric patients in such numbers that device development is impossible, highly impracticable,
or unsafe.108
Also, a sponsor of a device granted an HDE prior to FDASIA’s enactment may seek
a determination as to whether it would qualify for an exemption to the profit ban.
In order for a device to receive HDE marketing approval, there cannot be another legally
marketed device, either via the 510(k) process or the PMA process, available to treat or diagnose
the disease or condition. Once a device with the same intended use as the humanitarian use device
is approved or cleared, an HDE cannot be granted for the humanitarian use device.109
However,
the agency will “consider an HDE application if a comparable device has been approved under
another HDE or if a comparable device is being studied under an IDE.”110
Parallel Review: FDA Approval or Clearance and Medicare National Coverage
Determinations (NCDs)111
CMS requires as a condition of coverage under the Medicare program, with certain exceptions,
that devices (including IVDs) be FDA-approved or cleared where such approval or clearance is
required. This approval does not guarantee coverage, as there are a number of other factors that
CMS considers in its coverage decisions. CMS has stated that manufacturers will often focus
their efforts on gaining FDA approval, without realizing that upon receiving such approval,
Medicare coverage of the device is not automatic. Most private payer coverage decisions also
require FDA approval where such approval is required by law. For example, BlueCross
BlueShield’s Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) requires that final FDA approval be received
where required by law.
There are a few specific circumstances where a device may be covered under Medicare without
FDA approval or clearance. These include cases where the FDA has (1) granted an investigational
device exemption (IDE); (2) provided a classification of nonexperimental investigational device,
for which underlying questions of safety and effectiveness have been resolved for that device
type; and (3) required that clinical trials be conducted, with Medicare beneficiaries participating
in the FDA-approved clinical trial.
Importantly, Medicare coverage determinations are often closely monitored by private health
insurance plans, and many private plans will follow Medicare’s decisions. Therefore, a decision
by CMS to cover a device through a positive national coverage determination (NCD) will often
result in more rapid diffusion and adoption of that device in the health care system. For this
107
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Pediatric Medical Devices: Provisions Support Development, but Better
Data Needed for Required Reporting, 12-225, December 20, 2011, http://gao.gov/assets/590/587164.pdf.
108
Section 613 of FDASIA.
109
For additional information, see Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff - Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE)
Regulation: Questions and Answers, July 18, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071473.htm.
110
IOM, Rare Diseases and Orphan Products: Accelerating Research and Development, Washington, DC, 2010, p.
216, http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12953.
111
This section was written by Amanda Sarata.

reason, from the perspective of the device manufacturer, CMS’s coverage decision carries
significant weight.
The statutory basis of and processes used for determining FDA approval (or clearance) of a
device are distinct from the statutory basis of and processes used by CMS to make its NCDs. In
each case, the purpose of the review differs, as do the contextual factors of the decision. FDA
review and Medicare NCDs are usually carried out in a serial manner (i.e., one after the other).
However, in order to try to shorten the timeframe for getting a device into clinical use, in October
2011 CMS and FDA launched a two-year pilot program for the parallel review of medical
products.112
The pilot program was extended for an additional two years, effective December
2013.113
Although the agency has not formally extended the pilot program beyond December of 2015, the
original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FDA and CMS from 2010 that was
created to facilitate the parallel review pilot was amended in 2015 to have a termination date of
“indefinite.” The original MOU termination date was no later than five years after it was signed,
in June 2010.114
Congress has expressed interest in the ongoing status of the parallel review pilot.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports, accompanying the respective
Agriculture appropriations bills, included language directing FDA to report on whether it plans to
extend the pilot and how it anticipates encouraging more manufacturers to participate.115
In
addition, based partially on the experience with the parallel review pilot, FDA published a request
for expressions of interest from coverage organizations who would like to share input on
coverage decisions with medical device sponsors. The agency states that it has realized the value
of earlier discussions between the agencies, payers and manufacturers with respect to which
information and evidence may be needed to support a positive coverage decision.116
On August 11, 2014, FDA announced that it had approved a product for the first time through the
CMS Parallel Review Program, resulting in the simultaneous FDA approval of the product (Exact
Sciences’ Cologuard) and CMS issuance of a proposed NCD for the product.117
The agencies plan
to evaluate the pilot once a representative group of products have gone through the process and to
extend the program to both drugs and biologics.
510(k) Notification
In general, a 510(k) submission is required for a moderate-risk medical device that is not exempt
from premarket review. A 510(k) could also be used for currently marketed devices for which the
manufacturer seeks a new indication (e.g., a new population, such as pediatric use, or a new
112
FDA, “FDA, CMS launch pilot program for voluntary parallel review of innovative devices,” press release, October
7, 2011, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm274833.htm.
113
FDA and CMS, “Pilot Program for Parallel Review of,” 78 Federal Register 76628-76629, December 18, 2013.
114
FDA and CMS, “Memorandum of Understanding Between United States Food and Drug Administration and
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,” http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/
MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/DomesticMOUs/ucm217585.htm.
115
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2017, report to accompany S. 2956, 114th
Cong., 2d sess., S.
Rept. 114-259, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), p. 90; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2017,
report to accompany H.R. 5054, 114th
Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept 114-531, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), p. 70.
116
81 Federal Register 9203, February 24, 2016.
117
FDA, “FDA approves first non-invasive DNA screening test for colorectal cancer,” press release, August 11, 2014,

disease or condition), or for which the manufacturer has changed the design or technical
characteristics such that the change may affect the performance characteristics of the device.
Between 1996 and 2009, more than 80% of the devices cleared by FDA using 510(k) notification
were Class II devices, about 10% were Class I and less than 5% were Class III.118
A 2009 GAO
report found that 25% of the 10,670 Class II devices cleared by FDA in FY2003 through FY2007
were either implantable, life sustaining or presented significant risk to the health, safety, or
welfare of the patient.119
The agency cleared about 90% of 510(k) submissions reviewed during
FY2003 through FY2007.120
According to FDA data, 85% of 510(k)s accepted for review in 2015 were determined to be
substantially equivalent.121
As noted previously, the standard for clearance of a traditional 510(k)
is substantial equivalence with a predicate device. A predicate device can be one of two things. It
can be a previously cleared Class I or II device that does not require a PMA. It can also be
preamendment Class III for which the agency has not issued regulations requiring a PMA.
(PMAs, which are more rigorous submissions than 510(k)s, are discussed in the “Premarket
Approval (PMA)” section.)
A manufacturer may choose one of three types of 510(k) submissions for premarket clearance:
traditional, special, or abbreviated.122
A study of 510(k) submissions between 1996 and 2009
found that about 80% were traditional, 16% were special, and 3% were abbreviated.123
For novel
devices without a predicate, there is another alternative called the de novo 510(k) process.
Traditional 510(k)
A traditional 510(k) must include the name of the device, a description of the device, a
comparison with a predicate device, the intended use of the device, and the proposed label,
labeling, and advertisements for the device and directions for use.124
Studies supporting a 510(k)
submission are usually preclinical studies (laboratory testing), not clinical studies (in human
beings). Substantial equivalence, in many cases, means only that the device performs in a similar
fashion to the predicate under a similar set of circumstances. As a result, many devices never have
to demonstrate safety and effectiveness through studies using human subjects.
In addition to not requiring clinical studies, three other characteristics of the 510(k) process make
it much less rigorous than the PMA process: (1) premarket inspections of how devices were
manufactured are generally not required by FDA; (2) postmarket studies are not required by FDA
118
IOM, Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process: Measuring Postmarket Performance and
Other Select Topics, Workshop Report, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 12 and 78.
119
types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process, GAO-09-190, January 2009, p. 18.
120
Ibid., p. 27.
121
1st
Quarter FY2016 Package, MDUFA III (FY2013-2017) Performance, February 18, 2015, p. 199, at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/MedicalDeviceUserFee/UCM487953.pdf.
122
FDA, Medical Devices, 510(k) Submission Methods, at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
ucm134034.htm
123
IOM, Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process: Measuring Postmarket Performance and
Other Select Topics, Workshop Report, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 12 and 79.
124
FDA, Medical Devices, How to Prepare a Traditional 510(k), Content and Format of a Traditional 510(k),
07/01/2015; http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/
PremarketSubmissions/PremarketNotification510k/ucm134572.htm#link_4.

as a condition of clearance; and (3) FDA has limited authority to rescind or withdraw clearance if
a 510(k) device is found to be unsafe or ineffective.125
FDA may take any of the following actions on a 510(k) after conducting its review:
 find the device substantially equivalent to the predicate and issue a clearance
letter;
 find the device not substantially equivalent (NSE) and issue an NSE letter
prohibiting marketing;
 determine that the device is exempt from a 510(k) submission;
 request additional information (with the final clearance decision pending review
of that information).126
A manufacturer generally has 30 days to provide any additional information, or FDA may issue a
notice of withdrawal of the application.127
The manufacturer may, at any time, withdraw its
510(k). FDA has 90 days to review a traditional 510(k).128
Abbreviated and Special 510(k)s
Abbreviated and special 510(k)s were new approaches to premarket notification that came from
FDAMA. These approaches were intended to streamline and expedite FDA’s review for routine
submissions meeting certain qualifications, thus leaving reviewer time for more complicated
submissions.
An abbreviated 510(k) uses guidance documents developed by FDA to communicate regulatory
and scientific expectations to industry.129
Guidance documents have been prepared for many
different kinds of devices, and are available on FDA’s website. All guidance documents are
developed in accordance with Good Guidance Practices (GGP), and many with public
participation or opportunities for public comment.130
In addition to issuing guidance documents,
FDA can either develop performance or consensus standards or ‘recognize’ those developed by
outside parties.131
In an abbreviated 510(k), the manufacturer describes what guidance document,
special control, or performance standard was used, and how it was used to assess performance of
their device. Other minimum required elements are the product description, representative
labeling, and a summary of the performance characteristics. FDA typically reviews an
abbreviated 510(k) in 60 days.
A special 510(k) may be used for a modification to a device that has already been cleared under
the 510(k) process.132
It typically uses the design control requirement of the Quality System (QS)
125
Diana M. Zuckerman, Paul Brown, and Steven Nissen, “Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process,”
Archives of Internal Medicine, Online publication 2011, p. E4.
126
21 C.F.R. §807.100(a).
127
21 C.F.R. §807.87(l).
128
The FDA time clock (i.e., review cycle) begins when FDA receives the 510(k) and ends with the date that FDA
issues either a request for additional information or a decision. More than one cycle may occur before FDA issues its
final decision.
129
FDA, Medical Devices, 510(k) Submission Methods, Abbreviated 510(k), http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
ucm134034.htm#abbrev
130
21 C.F.R. §10.115. FDA continually accepts public comment on any draft or final guidance document.
131
21 C.F.R. §861.
132
FDA, Medical Devices, 510(k) Submission Methods, Special 510(k), http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
(continued...)

regulation.133
The QS regulation describes the good manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements
for medical devices.134
The special 510(k) allows the manufacturer to declare conformance to
design controls without providing the data. This type of submission references the original 510(k)
number, and contains information about the design control requirements. FDA aims to review
most special 510(k)s in 30 days.
De Novo 510(k)
Under the FFDCA, novel devices lacking a legally marketed predicate are automatically
designated Class III. FDAMA amended FFDCA Section 513(f) to allow FDA to establish a new,
expedited mechanism for reclassifying these devices based on risk, thus reducing the regulatory
burden on manufacturers. The de novo 510(k), though requiring more data than a traditional
510(k), often requires less information than a premarket approval (PMA) application.
Under the original de novo 510(k) process created in 1997 by FDAMA, the manufacturer
submitted a traditional 510(k) for its device. Because there was no predicate device or
classification, FDA would return a decision of not substantially equivalent. Within 30 days, the
manufacturer would submit a petition requesting reclassification of its device into Class II or I, as
appropriate. Within 60 days, FDA would render a decision classifying the device.
Section 607 of FDASIA modified FFDCA Section 513(f)(2), creating an alternative de novo
pathway that does not require that a device be reviewed first under a 510(k) and found NSE prior
to submission of a de novo. FDA has released draft guidance on the alternative de novo review
process.135
“Under the new de novo pathway, if a person believes their device is appropriate for
classification into Class I or Class II and determines there is no legally marketed predicate device,
they may submit a de novo without a preceding 510(k) and NSE.”136
This classification request
may be declined by FDA if there exists a legally marketed device on which to base a substantial
equivalence review, or if the new device is not a low-moderate risk device or general controls
would be inadequate to control risks and special controls cannot be developed.
Assessments of the 510(k) Process
As mentioned earlier, several reports have examined aspects of the FDA device review process.137
FDAAA (2007) required GAO to study and report on the appropriate use of the 510(k) process
(...continued)
ucm134034.htm#special.
133
Design controls are a series of predetermined checks, verifications, and specifications that are built into the
manufacturing process to validate the quality of the product throughout the process. These can include defining the
personnel responsible for implementing steps in the development and manufacturing process, defining specifications
and standards for assessing the quality of the materials that go into making the product, designing specifications for
accepting and rejecting different batches or lots of final product, and requirements for maintaining appropriate records.
134
21 C.F.R. §820.30.
135
FDA, Medical Devices, De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation) - Draft
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, August 13, 2014, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM273903.pdf and, “FDA Seeks Comment on
Streamlined Review of Lower Risk, New Technology, Devices,” press release, September 30, 2011,
136
FDA, Medical Devices, De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation) - Draft
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, August 13, 2014, p. 4.
137
For example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medical Devices: FDA should take steps to ensure that high-
(continued...)

“to determine whether a new device is as safe and effective as a classified device.”138
The report,
released in January 2009, found that a number of Class III devices—including device types that
are implantable, life sustaining, or posing a significant risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a
patient—were cleared for the U.S. market through FDA’s less stringent 510(k) review process.139
GAO recommended that “FDA expeditiously take steps to issue regulations for Class III device
types currently allowed to enter the market via the 510(k) process by requiring PMAs or
reclassifying them to a lower class.”140
In December 2008 an orthopedic device made by ReGen, a New Jersey company, was cleared for
marketing via the 510(k) process. In April 2009, Acting FDA Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein
initiated an internal review of the decision to clear the ReGen Menaflex device.141
In September
2009, FDA released a preliminary report on the review of ReGen Menaflex device.142
The report
provided a list of 22 instances in which the agency did not follow established processes,
procedures, or practices.143
The report provides a possible reason for this, noting “the presence of
widespread internal disagreement and confusion about the legal standard for 510(k) review.”144
Acting Commissioner Sharfstein said that the report made “a series of recommendations, all of
which will be adopted.”145
(...continued)
risk device types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process, GAO-09-190, January 2009;
Daniel R. Levinson, Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Devices, Department of Health and Human Services, Office
of Inspector General, Washington, DC, October 2009; and, IOM (Institute of Medicine), Medical Devices and the
Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Washington, DC, July 2011. In addition, GAO
regularly reports on government operations that it identifies as high risk due to their greater vulnerability to fraud,
waste, abuse, mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency or effectiveness
challenges. FDA review of medical products has been included in these reports. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An
Update, GAO-09-271, January 2009; GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278, February 2011; and, GAO,
High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283, February 2013.
138
P.L. 110-85, sec. 225.
139
See last four paragraphs of “Device Classification” section in this report. FDASIA changed the process for the
reclassification of a device from rulemaking to an administrative order.
140
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medical Devices: FDA Should Take Steps to Ensure That High-Risk
Device Types Are Approved through the Most Stringent Premarket Review Process, GAO-09-190, January 2009,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09190.pdf.
141
In January 2009 CDRH scientists sent letters to Congressional Committees and to the Obama transition team
regarding the ReGen Menaflex device. See Alicia Mundy, “Political Lobbying Drove FDA Process,” The Wall Street
Journal, March 6, 2009. A May 11, 2009, letter to Acting Commissioner Sharfstein from Members of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce indicated that the process used by FDA to clear the ReGen Menaflex device was
under investigation by the Committee and the letter outlined concerns with the process. See
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090511/fdaregen.pdf. The ReGen Menaflex device was
under investigation on the Senate side as well; Senator Charles Grassley “wrote to FDA and ReGen in March 2006
regarding allegations that ReGen influenced FDA’s actions on the device.” http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/
Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=23269
142
FDA, Review of the ReGen Menaflex: Departures from Processes, Procedures and Practices Leave the Basics for a
Review Decision in Question, September 2009, p. 8, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/
UCM183642.pdf. See also: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm183745.htm; and, Transcript for
FDA’s Media Briefing on the FDA’s Review of the ReGen Menaflex, September 24, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/
downloads/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaTranscripts/UCM184027.pdf.
143
See Attachment 3B at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm183745.htm.
144
FDA, Review of the ReGen Menaflex: Departures from Processes, Procedures and Practices Leave the Basics for a
Review Decision in Question, September 2009, p. 2, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/
UCM183642.pdf.
145
Transcript for FDA’s Media Briefing on the FDA’s Review of the ReGen Menaflex, September 24, 2009, p. 2,
(continued...)

In September 2009, FDA announced that it had requested an independent evaluation of the 510(k)
process by IOM.146
The agency also stated it would convene its own internal comprehensive
assessment of the 510(k) process by forming two FDA staff working groups. One group would
review the 510(k) program and make recommendations to enhance the decisionmaking process.
The second group would review how the agency incorporates new science into its
decisionmaking and make recommendations on incorporating new science while maintaining
predictability in the process for industry. During the development of the two internal reports, FDA
sought public input via two public meetings, three town hall meetings, three public dockets, and
many smaller meetings with various stakeholder groups.147
FDA released the two final reports of the agency’s internal review in August 2010.148
The reports
contained a total of 55 recommendations; the agency again sought public comment on the reports
and their recommendations. In January 2011, FDA released its “Plan of Action,” based on some
of the recommendations in the August 2010 internal review reports.149
Further information about
FDA’s “Plan of Action” and list of accomplishments for its implementation is provided on the
agency’s website.150
In July 2011, IOM released a report on the 510(k) process.151
The IOM Committee recommended
that the current 510(k) process be “replaced with an integrated premarket and postmarket
regulatory framework that effectively provides a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness
throughout the device life cycle.”152
In response to the 2011 IOM 510(k) report, CDRH Director
Jeffrey Shuren stated in July 2011 that “FDA believes that the 510(k) process should not be
eliminated but we are open to additional proposals and approaches for continued improvement of
our device review programs.... Many of the IOM findings parallel changes already underway at
the FDA to improve how we regulate devices. These actions, plus a sufficiently funded device
review program, will contribute to a stronger program. Any major modifications made to the
agency’s premarket review programs should be based on sound science and through thoughtful
and transparent discussion”153
(...continued)
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaTranscripts/UCM184027.pdf. On October 14, 2010,
FDA announced that Menaflex “should not have been cleared for marketing in the United States. … To correct this
error, the agency will begin the process to rescind the product’s marketing clearance.” http://www.fda.gov/
NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm229384.htm.
146
FDA, “Institute of Medicine to Study Premarket Clearance Process for Medical Devices,” press release, September
23, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm183497.htm.
147
U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee on Aging, A Delicate Balance: FDA and the Reform of the Medical
Device Approval Process, Testimony of William Maisel, Deputy Center Director for Science, FDA/CDRH, 112th
Cong., 1st
sess., April 13, 2011.
148
FDA, “FDA Issues Assessments of the 501(k) Program and Use of Science in Decision-Making,” press release,
August 4, 2010, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm221166.htm.
149
FDA, “FDA to improve most common review path for medical devices,” press release, January 19, 2011,
150
See, FDA, About FDA, CDRH Plan of Action for 510(k) and Science, at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/ucm239448.htm
151
July 2011.
152
Ibid., Recommendation 7-1.
153
FDA, “FDA to seek public comment on IOM recommendations,” press release, July 29, 2011, http://www.fda.gov/
NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm265908.htm.

2011 IOM Report on 510(k) Substantial
Equivalence
“In practice, the assessment of substantial equivalence generally does
not require evidence of safety or effectiveness of a device. Unlike the
premarket approval (PMA) process, by law the 510(k) process, with
some exceptions [see SMDA 1990], focuses solely on the
determination of a device’s substantial equivalence to a predicate
device. According to the FDA and the Supreme Court, when the
FDA finds a device substantially equivalent to a predicate device, it
has done no more than find that the new device is as safe and
effective as the predicate. It is important to note that devices on the
market before the enactment of the 1976 Medical Device
Amendments (MDA)—the origin of all predicate devices for the
510(k) process—have never been systematically assessed to
determine their safety and effectiveness. Because the preamendment
device to which equivalence was established was not itself reviewed
for safety or effectiveness, the committee found that clearance of a
510(k) submission was not a determination that the cleared device
was safe or effective.” See p. 154.
It is interesting to note that the 510(k) clearance process has not been adopted elsewhere, in
contrast to the FDA approach to drug regulation, which has been adopted by many other
countries. Although the U.S. system of medical device regulation has been in place much longer
than systems elsewhere, such as the European Union, and FDA has greater experience than most
countries in regulating medical devices, the IOM report found that “other countries that tightly
regulate medical devices do not rely solely on substantial equivalence to a predicate for premarket
review of medium-risk devices.”154
In addition, the IOM report notes that the “Global
Harmonization Task Force also does not offer as part of its guidance a predicate-based system for
premarket review of medical devices.”155
The Medical Device Review Process:
Post-Market Requirements
Once approved or cleared for marketing, manufacturers of medical devices must comply with
various regulations on labeling and advertising, manufacturing, and postmarketing surveillance.
This section describes such requirements as well as efforts under development—the Sentinel
Initiative and the Unique Device Identification (UDI) system—and CDRH compliance and
enforcement actions.
154
IOM, Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Finding 6-8, p.
146.
155
Ibid., p. 145. The Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) was formed in 1992 by the regulatory bodies and
industry of the leading medical-device producer and consumer nations—Canada, the European Union/European Free
Trade Association, Japan, Australia, and the United States. Its purpose was to improve public health and safety,
promote international trade, and provide guidance to countries with developing medical-device regulatory systems. The
GHTF was an attempt to bring nations that tightly regulate medical devices into line with one another to ease the flow
of devices between countries, manufacturers, and consumers while ensuring safety. GHTF no longer exists, and it has
been permanently replaced by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF), which is continuing the
work of the GHTF. For further information, see http://www.imdrf.org/index.asp.

Postmarketing Surveillance and the National Evaluation System
for Health Technology (NEST)
Because the premarket review process cannot be designed to completely ensure the safety of all
devices before they enter the market, it is essential to have a strong surveillance system that
monitors the safety of medical devices. When a problem is identified with a particular medical
device, various corrective actions can then be implemented. Corrective actions might include
changing the device labeling and instructions for use, improving user training, continued study of
the device problem via postmarket surveillance, or removal of the device from the market if
appropriate.
However, the iterative nature of medical device development adds a layer of complication to
devising postmarket requirements for a product that may be replaced by the next-generation
product before the start of, for example, a postmarket surveillance study. As noted earlier in this
report, for high-risk cardiac implantable electronic devices that entered the market between 1979
and 2012, there was a median of 50 supplements per original PMA approved by FDA; clinical
data are rarely collected as part of PMA supplement applications prior to marketing.156
The 2011
IOM report recommended that FDA “develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to collect,
analyze, and act on medical-device postmarket performance information.”157
In response to the 2011 IOM report and its recommendation to replace the 510(k) process, CDRH
released its own report in September 2012. The 2012 CDRH report stated that “several high-
profile medical device performance concerns have led some to question whether the current
United States postmarket surveillance system is optimally structured to meet the challenges of
rapidly evolving medical devices and the changing nature of health care delivery and information
technology.”158
In some cases, foreign surveillance systems have identified serious device safety concerns sooner
than in the United States.159
For example, a Swedish registry found that drug-eluting stents were
associated with an increased risk of death compared with bare-metal stents.160
An Australian
registry was the first to identify the increased failure rates of metal-on-metal hip joints and found
that many other new hip replacement products did not improve health outcomes compared with
older devices.161
Patients and taxpayer-financed health care programs were receiving limited or
no benefit from expensive new devices with a higher risk of adverse events.162
Postmarket data
156
See “Evaluations of the PMA and PMA Supplement Process”
157
July 2011, Recommendation 7-2.
158
FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device
Postmarket Surveillance, Silver Spring, MD, September 2012, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/
CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/UCM301924.pdf.
159
The Brookings Institution, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, Strengthening Patient Care: Building an
Effective National Medical Device Surveillance System, Washington, DC, February 2015, p. 12,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/02/23-medical-device-policy-surveillance/med-device-
report-web.pdf.
160
Bo Lagerqvist, Stefan K. James, Ulf Stenestrand, et al., “Long-Term Outcomes with Drug-Eluting Stents versus
Bare-Metal Stents in Sweden,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 356 (February 12, 2007), pp. 1009-1019.
161
Rajan Anand, Stephen E. Graves, Richard N. de Steiger, et al., “What is the Benefit of Introducing New Hip and
Knee Prostheses?,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, vol. 93 Suppl. 3(E) (2011), pp. 51-54.
162
Ibid.

can be used to not only monitor device safety, but also to better understand and measure device
innovation and cost-effectiveness.
According to the CDRH report, the “current United States medical device postmarket
surveillance system depends primarily upon” the following sources for detecting potential
problems with medical devices:
 Medical Device Reporting (MDR). FDA annually receives several hundred
thousand reports of confirmed or possible medical device related malfunctions,
serious injuries, and deaths. Limitations of this passive surveillance system
include incomplete, inaccurate, and/or delayed data reporting; underreporting of
events; and lack of information on the total number of devices on the market in
clinical use.
 Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun). FDA receives about 5,000 higher
quality reports each year on device use and adverse outcomes from a network of
280 U.S. hospitals. The network “can be used for targeted surveys and clinical
research” and has specialty subnetworks that focus on particular device types
(HeartNet), laboratories (LabNet), or patients (KidNet).
 Post-Approval Studies. Such studies may be ordered by FDA as a condition of
approval for a PMA device. These studies are typically “used to assess device
safety, effectiveness, and/or reliability including longer-term, real-world device
performance.”
 Postmarket Surveillance Studies. FDA may order a manufacturer of a Class II
or Class III device to conduct a 522 study (FFDCA Section 522) if failure of the
device is reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences, if it is
expected to have significant use in pediatric populations, or if it (1) is intended to
be implanted for longer than one year or (2) has life-supporting or life-sustaining
use outside a device user facility. Approaches used in 522 studies “vary widely
and may include nonclinical device testing, analysis of existing clinical
databases, observational studies, and, rarely, randomized controlled trials.”
 FDA Discretionary Studies. In addition to those mentioned above, FDA
“conducts its own research to monitor device performance, investigate adverse
event signals and characterize device-associated benefits and risks to patient sub-
populations.” Sources of privacy-protected data for these studies include
“national registries, Medicare and Medicaid administrative and claims data, data
from integrated health systems, electronic health records, and published scientific
literature.”
 Other Tools. Identified in the appendix of the September 2012 FDA report.163
There are limitations associated with the above sources of information on postmarket problems
caused by medical devices. “Currently, medical device data arise from disparate data sources with
variable data elements, data definitions, data quality, and frequently from only limited subsets of
patient exposures.”164
Because of these limitations, FDA is attempting to create a new resource
for all stakeholders—patients, physicians, hospitals, payers, manufacturers, regulators, and other
federal entities—involved in the use of medical devices.
163
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
164
The Medical Device Registry Task Force and the Medical Devices Epidemiology Network, Recommendations for a
National Medical Device Evaluation System, Draft for Public Comment, August 20, 2015, p. 9.

The September 2012 CDRH report described “FDA’s vision” for the creation of a national system
focused on medical devices that “would augment, not replace, other mechanisms of surveillance
such as FDA’s MDR and MedSun.”165
The new national system would conduct “active
surveillance in near real-time using routinely collected electronic health information containing
unique device identifiers [UDIs], quickly [identify] poorly performing devices, accurately
[characterize] the real-world clinical benefits and risks of marketed devices, and [facilitate] the
development of new devices and new uses of existing devices through evidence generation,
synthesis and appraisal.”166
The September 2012 CDRH report proposed four specific actions to strengthen the U.S. medical
device postmarket surveillance system:
1. establish a UDI system and promote its incorporation into electronic health
information;
2. promote the development of national and international device registries for
selected products;
3. modernize adverse event reporting and analysis; and
4. develop and use new methods for evidence generation, synthesis, and
appraisal.167
The agency held a series of meetings in September 2012 in order to solicit public comments
regarding the U.S. medical device postmarket surveillance system.168
In a series of subsequent reports, FDA and its partners have further refined this vision and
provided updates on efforts to move toward the creation of a new National Evaluation System for
health Technology (NEST).169
Two reports focus on providing medical devices with a UDI that
corresponds to the product’s manufacturer and model. Incorporation of UDI into patient
electronic health records, health insurance claims, and registries would eventually allow for
assessment of medical device performance in large patient populations. The remaining reports
discuss recommendations for implementing the system as a whole, including a coordinating
center, a seven-year implementation plan and several pilot programs. The cost to implement and
maintain the system over the first five years is estimated to be $200 million to $250 million, or
about $50 million annually, $25 million from appropriations, and $25 million from user fees.170
165
FDA, Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance, p. 8.
166
Ibid.
167
Ibid., pp. 4 and 8.
168
Public Meeting - Strengthening the National Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance System, September 10, 2012,
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm300721.htm; Public Workshop -
MDEpiNet 2012 Annual Meeting: The Medical Device Epidemiology Network as a Partnership for Building Global
Medical Device Epidemiology and Surveillance Capabilities, September 11, 2012, http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm300722.htm; Public Workshop - Leveraging Registries With
Medical Device Data for Postmarket Surveillance and Evidence Appraisal Throughout the Total Product Life Cycle,
September 12-13, 2012, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm300724.htm.
169
For additional information see FDA, Remarks by Robert Califf to the Medical Device Manufacturers Association,
May 5, 2016, at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm499546.htm, National Evaluation System, at
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/
ucm301912.htm, and Jeffrey Shuren and Robert M. Califf, “Need for a National Evaluation System for Health
Technology,” JAMA, published online July 11, 2016.
170
report-web.pdf, and Ferdous Al-Faruque, “Shuren: FDA Willing to Kick-Start Device Evaluation Program, but
(continued...)

The reports by FDA and its partners on the medical device postmarket surveillance system are
listed in the text box below.
Reports on the National Evaluation System for HealthTechnology (NEST)
 FDA, Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance: Update and Next Steps,
April 2013.
 The Brookings Institution, Unique Device Identifiers (UDIs): A Roadmap for Effective Implementation, December
2014.
 The Brookings Institution, Strengthening Patient Care: Building an Effective National Medical Device Surveillance
System, February 2015.
 FDA, FDA’s Role in Ensuring American Patients Have Access to Safe and Effective Medical Device Technology,
March 2015.
 The Medical Device Registry Task Force and the Medical Devices Epidemiology Network, Recommendations for
a National Medical Device Evaluation System, August 2015.
 The Pew Charitable Trusts, Implementing Unique Device Identification, September 2015.
 Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Better Evidence on Medical Devices: A Coordinating Center for a 21st
Century National Medical Device Evaluation System, April 2016.
A January 2016 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee minority staff report
on antibiotic-resistant infections associated with the use of duodenoscope devices recommends
that Congress fully fund the National Medical Device Evaluation System.171
A public workshop,
sponsored by the FDA and the University of Maryland/Center of Excellence in Regulatory
Science and Innovation, on the National Evaluation System for Medical Devices was held on
March 24, 2016.172
On July 27, 2016, FDA released draft guidance on how the agency plans to use real-world data
(RWD) in making premarket and post market regulatory decisions regarding medical devices.173
RWD is defined as “data collected from sources outside of traditional clinical trials.” Such
sources may include, for example, “administrative and healthcare claims, electronic health
records, data obtained as part of a public health investigation or routine public health surveillance,
and registries.”174
Postmarket Surveillance Studies (“522 Studies”)
While the term postmarketing surveillance refers to a wide range of programs, the term
postmarket surveillance refers to a specific activity defined in law.175
For certain class II and class
(...continued)
Funding Guarantee Needed,” The Gray Sheet, May 16, 2016, p. 7. The Obama Administration requested $1.8 million in
the FDA FY2017 budget to start establishing the National Medical Device Evaluation System as part of the Precision
Medicine Initiative. FDA, FY2017 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. 150, at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM485237.pdf.
171
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Preventable Tragedies: Superbugs
and How Ineffective Monitoring of Medical Device Safety Fails Patients, Minority Staff Report, 114th
Cong., 2nd
sess.,
January 13, 2016.
172
For further information, see http://www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/centers/cersievents/deviceeval/.
173
FDA, “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices,” July 27, 2016,
at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/
UCM513027.pdf.
174
Ibid., p. 4.
175
FFDCA §522.

III devices, FDA may order a manufacturer to conduct a postmarket surveillance study—also
called a 522 study—once the device is approved or cleared for marketing in order to gather safety
and efficacy data. A postmarket surveillance study may be ordered if
 device failure would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health
consequences;
 the device is expected to have significant use in pediatric populations;
 the device is intended to be implanted in the body for more than one year; or
 the device is intended to be a life-sustaining or life-supporting device used
outside a device user facility.176
The primary objective of postmarket surveillance is to study the performance of the device after
clearance or approval as it is used in the population for which it is intended—and to discover
cases of device failure and its attendant impact on the patient. Manufacturers may receive
notification that their device is subject to postmarket surveillance when FDA files (i.e., accepts)
the submission, and again when a final decision is made. If notified, manufacturers must submit a
plan for postmarket surveillance to FDA for approval within 30 days of introducing their device
into interstate commerce.177
FDASIA specifies that the Secretary’s authority to order the conduct of postmarket surveillance is
at the time of approval or clearance of a device or at any time thereafter.178
It also requires the
manufacturer to commence any required postmarket surveillance not later than 15 months after
being so ordered.
Researchers have found that 522 studies “have often been difficult to implement and complete
reliably.”179
For example, a “key challenge in conducting these studies is a lack of incentives for
clinicians and patients to participate, because they represent already marketed devices and an
additional reporting burden and other requirements on top of their usual practice.”180
In addition,
“522 studies have been criticized for inconsistencies in design, the lack of oversight, timeliness of
reporting findings, and how the information is eventually used.”181
On May 16, 2016, FDA issued
final guidance on postmarket surveillance under FFDCA Section 522.182
176
FFDCA §522; a device user facility means a hospital, ambulatory surgical facility, nursing home, or outpatient
treatment facility which is not a physician’s office.
177
Further information, and a listing of 522 studies, can be found at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/
cfPMA/pss.cfm http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/
PostmarketSurveillance/ucm134497.htm
178
179
report-web.pdf.
180
Ibid.
181
Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, “Why the FDA can’t protect the public,” BMJ, vol. 341 (November 3, 2010).
182
FDA, Postmarket Surveillance Under Section 522 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Guidance for
Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, May 16, 2016, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm268141.pdf.

A September 2015 GAO study described “(1) the types of devices for which FDA has ordered a
postapproval study and the status of these studies, and (2) the types of devices for which FDA has
ordered a postmarket surveillance study and the status of these studies.”183
GAO analyzed FDA data on 313 postapproval studies that FDA ordered between January 1,
2007, and February 23, 2015. GAO found that 56% of the postapproval studies were for
cardiovascular devices, 11% were for orthopedic devices, 9% were for general and plastic surgery
devices, and 24% were for devices used by other medical specialties, such as anesthesiology,
neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, and gastroenterology-urology.184
Nearly all (94%) of the
postapproval studies were for devices approved through the PMA process, the remainder (6%)
were for devices approved through the HDE process.185
Of the 313 postapproval studies, GAO
found that 225 (72%) were ongoing, 62 (20%) were completed, and 26 (8%) were inactive.186
Of
the 225 ongoing studies, 81% were making adequate progress and 19% were delayed due to, for
example, limited patient enrollment.187
GAO analyzed FDA data on 392 postmarket surveillance studies that FDA ordered between May
1, 2008, and February 24, 2015. GAO found that 196 (50%) of the postmarket surveillance
studies were for orthopedic medical devices.188
“In 2011 alone, FDA ordered 176 studies for
orthopedic devices following safety concerns about metal-on-metal hip implants, including
potential bone or tissue damage from metal particles.”189
Another 121 postmarket surveillance
studies were ordered by FDA in 2012 “following safety concerns about the use of implanted
surgical mesh used for urogynecological procedures.”190
Of the 392 studies, most (94%) were for
devices cleared through the 510(k) process (primarily metal-on-metal hips and surgical mesh),
2% were approved through the PMA process, and 4% were approved through the HDE process.191
GAO found that 88% of the 392 postmarket surveillance studies were inactive, 10% were
ongoing, and 2% were completed.192
Adverse Event Reporting
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA, P.L. 101-629) required FDA to establish a
system for monitoring and tracking serious adverse events that resulted from the use or misuse of
medical devices.193
Medical Device Reporting (MDR) is one mechanism that FDA uses to
identify and monitor significant adverse events involving medical devices.194
183
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medical Devices: FDA Ordered Postmarket Studies to Better Understand
Safety Issues, and Many Studies Are Ongoing, GAO-15-815, September 2015.
184
Ibid., p. 8.
185
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
186
Ibid., p. 14.
187
Ibid., p. 15.
188
Ibid., p. 17.
189
Ibid.
190
Ibid.
191
Ibid., p. 18.
192
Ibid., p. 20.
193
FFDCA §519(a)
194
The searchable MDR database for devices is publically accessible at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/
cfdocs/cfmdr/search.CFM.

Device manufacturers are required to report to FDA (1) within 30 calendar days of acquiring
information that reasonably suggests one of their devices may have caused or contributed to a
death, serious injury, or malfunction and (2) within 5 working days if an event requires action
other than routine maintenance or service to prevent a public health issue.195
User facilities, such
as hospitals and nursing homes, are also required to report deaths to both the manufacturer, if
known, and FDA within 10 working days.196
User facilities must report serious injuries to the
manufacturers (or FDA if the manufacturer is unknown) within 10 working days.197
User facilities
must also submit annual reports to FDA of all adverse event reports sent to manufacturers or FDA
in the past year.198
In August 2009, FDA published notice of a proposed rule, and a related draft guidance document,
that would require manufacturers to submit MDRs to the agency in an electronic format.199
According to FDA, the proposed regulatory changes would provide the agency with a more
efficient data entry process that would allow for timely access to medical device adverse event
information and identification of emerging public health issues. The device industry requested a
longer timeframe to implement the changes. A report by the HHS Office of Inspector General
released in October 2009 raised a number of questions about adverse event reporting for medical
devices.200
The report found that CDRH does not consistently use adverse event reporting and
made several recommendations about how it could better do so.
On February 13, 2014, FDA published a final rule on Electronic Medical Device Reporting
(eMDR) requiring manufacturers to submit MDRs to the agency in an electronic format. User
facilities may also submit eMDR reports, but the final rule allows user facilities to continue to
submit paper MDR reports.201
Medical Device Tracking
“Manufacturers are required to track certain devices from their manufacture through the
distribution chain when they receive an order from [FDA] to implement a tracking system for a
certain type of device.”202
Device tracking ensures that manufacturers of these devices can locate
them quickly, if needed once in commercial distribution, to facilitate notifications and recalls if
serious risks to health are associated with a particular device. FDA may issue a tracking order for
any Class II or Class III device:
 the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health
consequences;
195
21 C.F.R. §803.10(c)(1) and §803.10(c)(2).
196
21 C.F.R. §803.10(a)(1)(i).
197
21 C.F.R. §803.10(a)(1)(ii).
198
21 C.F.R. §803.10(a)(2) and §803.33.
199
FDA, “Proposed Rule, Medical Device Reporting: Electronic Submission Requirements,” 74 Federal Register
42203-42217, August 21, 2009; and FDA, “Draft Guidance for Industry, User Facilities, and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; eMDR—Electronic Medical Device Reporting; Availability,” 74 Federal Register Page 42310,
August 21, 2009.
200
Daniel R. Levinson, Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Devices, HHS Office of Inspector General, OEI-01-08-
00110, October 2009, http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110.pdf.
201
For further information, see http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/
PostmarketRequirements/ReportingAdverseEvents/eMDR–ElectronicMedicalDeviceReporting/default.htm.
202
FDA, Medical Device Tracking, May 13, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/MedicalDeviceTracking/default.htm#link_2.

 which is intended to be implanted in the human body for more than one year; or
 which is intended to be a life-sustaining or life-supporting device used outside a
device user facility.203
FDA has issued orders to track a number of implantable devices (including silicone-gel filled
breast implants, certain joint prostheses, implantable pacemakers, implantable defibrillator,
mechanical heart valves, and implantable infusion pumps) and various other devices that are used
outside a device user facility.204
The Sentinel Initiative
Section 905 of FDAAA mandated that FDA create an active postmarket risk identification
system.205
Although the FDAAA language is focused on monitoring drugs, FDA is using its
general authority to monitor all FDA-regulated products, including medical devices, after they
have reached the market.206
FDASIA required the Secretary to modify the postmarket risk
identification and analysis system, now called Sentinel, to include medical devices and to engage
stakeholders during this expansion.207
FDA launched the Sentinel Initiative in May 2008; once completed, it will be called the Sentinel
System. FDAAA set goals that the new system must be able to access data on 25 million people
by July 2010, a goal which FDA has met, and 100 million people by July 2012.208
FDA met the
100 million people goal in December 2011, and as of June 2012 “has secure access to data
concerning approximately 126 million patients nationwide derived from 17 different data
partners.”209
According to FDA, Sentinel aims to develop and implement a proactive system that
will complement existing systems that the agency has in place to track reports of adverse events
linked to the use of its regulated products.210
FDA is collaborating with institutions throughout the United States, including academic medical
centers, healthcare systems and health insurance companies, who act as data partners in the
system. Additional collaborators will include patient and healthcare professional advocacy
groups, academic institutions and the medical products industry. As an example of data applicable
to medical devices, “one Sentinel-related project identified, described, and evaluated potential US
203
21 C.F.R. §821.1(a)
204
A device user facility means a hospital, ambulatory surgical facility, nursing home, or outpatient treatment facility
which is not a physician’s office. A current list of the devices for which tracking is required can be found at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/MedicalDeviceTracking/
default.htm#link_2.
205
FFDCA §505(k); 21 U.S.C. §355
206
FFDCA §1003(b)(2)(c)
207
FDASIA §615.
208
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The Sentinel Initiative: Access to Electronic Healthcare Data for More Than
25 Million Lives, July 2010, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/FDAsSentinelInitiative/UCM233360.pdf.
209
FDA, FDAVoice, FDA’s Mini-Sentinel exceeds 100 million lives (and counting)… A major milestone in developing
a nationwide rapid-response electronic medical product safety surveillance program, CDR Melissa Robb, June 29,
2012, http://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2012/06/fdas-mini-sentinel-exceeds-100-million-lives-and-counting-a-
major-milestone-in-developing-a-nationwide-rapid-response-electronic-medical-product-safety-surveillance-program/.
The Sentinel Initiative is focused on electronic claims data held by health plans. Importantly, the plans retain control
over the patient-level data within their own data firewalls and provide only aggregated information to FDA.
210
Information on the current status of the Sentinel Initiative is available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/
FDAsSentinelInitiative/default.htm.

orthopedic-implant registries that could participate in the creation of a national network of such
registries as part of the Sentinel Initiative. Data related to medical devices include rates of
selected outcomes (for example, myocardial infarction and stroke), rates of infection, and rates of
implant revision and reintervention.”211
According to FDA and other stakeholders, including a
Unique Device Identification (UDI) on CMS claims forms is “the best way to expand the
agency’s Sentinel system to include medical devices.”212
Unique Device Identification (UDI) System
FDAAA required the HHS Secretary to promulgate regulations establishing a UDI system.213
FDASIA required the Secretary to issue proposed regulations for the UDI system not later than
December 31, 2012.214
The proposed rule was published in July 2012, and the final rule was
published in September 2013.215
When fully implemented, the label of most devices will include
a UDI in human- and machine-readable (bar code) form.216
A UDI is an alphanumeric code
composed of two parts: the device identifier (DI) indicating the device’s manufacturer and model
number, and the production identifier (PI) identifying the device serial number, lot number,
manufacture date, and in some cases expiration date. According to FDA, the UDI system offers
“a range of benefits to industry, FDA, consumers, health care providers and health care systems,”
such as
• Allowing more accurate reporting, reviewing and analyzing of adverse event reports so
that problem devices can be identified and corrected more quickly.
• Reducing medical errors by enabling health care professionals and others to more
rapidly and precisely identify a device and obtain important information concerning the
characteristics of the device.
• Enhancing analysis of devices on the market by providing a standard and clear way to
document device use in electronic health records, clinical information systems, claim data
sources and registries. A more robust postmarket surveillance system can also be
leveraged to support premarket approval or clearance of new devices and new uses of
currently marketed devices.
• Providing a standardized identifier that will allow manufacturers, distributors and
healthcare facilities to more effectively manage medical device recalls.
• Providing a foundation for a global, secure distribution chain, helping to address
counterfeiting and diversion and prepare for medical emergencies.
211
July 2011, p. 106.
212
Todd Allen Wilson, “Pascrell To Burwell: Press CMS To Put UDIs In Claims Forms,” Inside CMS, February 25,
2016.
213
FFDCA §519(f); 21 U.S.C. §360i
214
FDASIA §614.
215
Food and Drug Administration, “Unique Device Identification System,” 77 Federal Register 40735-40778, July 10,
2012; and, “Unique Device Identification System—Final Rule,” 78 Federal Register 58786-58828, September 24,
2013. An amendment to the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2012, 69393-69399.
216
For further information, see: The Brookings Institution, Unique Device Identifiers (UDIs): A Roadmap for Effective
Implementation, December 2014; and, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Implementing Unique Device Identification,
September 2015.

• Leading to the development of a medical device identification system that is recognized
around the world.217
UDI is being implemented in phases. In general, the Class III device compliance date was
September 2014 (one year after the final rule was published), Class II is September 2016 (three
years after the final rule), and Class I is September 2018 (five years after the final rule).218
FDA
has held a number of public meetings and workshops with stakeholders to discuss the adoption,
implementation, and use of a UDI system and has posted further information about the use of
UDI for medical devices on its website.219
Members of Congress, FDA, and other organizations, such as the Brookings Institute and the Pew
Charitable Trusts, have called for the inclusion of the UDIs in Medicare claims forms. For
example, in a January 2016 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee minority
staff report on outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections associated with the use of duodenoscope
devices, the first recommendation is that Congress should require and promote that UDIs be
included in insurance claims.220
In a September 2015 letter to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Charles E. Grassley, the HHS
Inspector General, Daniel Levinson, indicates the benefits of incorporating UDI into “claims data,
both to protect beneficiaries from adverse events and the Medicare trust funds from significant
losses.”221
Research performed by two independent groups estimates that following the recall of
the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead (wire) in October 2007, “Medicare incurred costs
exceeding $1 billion due to this recall alone.”222
According to the HHS Inspector General, at the
present time,
Medicare claims forms insufficiently identify Medicare beneficiaries who received a
recalled or defective device. Therefore, we cannot readily determine the number of
Medicare beneficiaries affected by medical device recalls and failures or assess the
financial impact on Medicare. However, we have identified over 200 FDA recalls for
cardiac devices alone since early 2010 that we believe have significantly increased
Medicare costs. There have also been numerous orthopedic-related recalls within the last
5 years that we believe have significantly increased Medicare costs.223
217
FDA, Medical Devices, Benefits of a UDI system, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/UniqueDeviceIdentification/BenefitsofaUDIsystem/default.htm.
218
FDA, Medical Devices, Compliance Dates for UDI Requirements, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/UniqueDeviceIdentification/CompliancedatesforUDIRequirements/default.htm.
219
Further information about UDI is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/
UniqueDeviceIdentification/default.htm.
220
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Preventable Tragedies: Superbugs
and How Ineffective Monitoring of Medical Device Safety Fails Patients, Minority Staff Report, 114th
Cong., 2nd
sess.,
January 13, 2016.
221
Letter from Daniel Levinson, Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, to Senator Elizabeth
Warren and Senator Charles H. Grassley, September 1, 2015, http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/news/
upload/
IG%20Levinson%20Response%20to%20Senator%20Grassley%20and%20Senator%20Warren%20re%20UDI%20-
%209.01.2015.pdf.
222
Ibid. “Examining the Sprint Fidelis Effect on Medicare Costs,” H. Dennis Tolley, Ph.D., ASA; and, “Medtronic
Sprint Fidelis lead recall: Determining the Initial 5-year management cost to Medicare,” Heart Rhythm Center in the
Section of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, and
Electrophysiology Section, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
223
Letter from Daniel Levinson, Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, to Senator Elizabeth
Warren and Senator Charles H. Grassley, September 1, 2015, http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/news/
upload/
(continued...)

In the past, CMS has been opposed to the inclusion of UDIs in claims.224
Former Medicare
Administrator Marilyn Tavenner stated in a February 2015 letter that “including UDIs on claims
would entail significant technological challenges, costs and risks” for the agency.225
The February
2015 letter estimated the costs at $700 million.226
However, in a July 13, 2016, letter, CMS Acting
Administrator Andrew Slavitt and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf stated support for including
UDI on claims and urged the Accredited Standards Committee X12 to permit the device identifier
portion of UDI for implantable devices to be included in the next version of the claims form.227
Labeling
Like drugs and biological products, all FDA approved or cleared medical devices are required to
be labeled in a way that informs a user of how to use the device. The FFDCA defines a “label” as
a “display of written, printed, or graphic matter upon the immediate container of any article.”228
“Labeling” is defined as “all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter upon any article
or any of its containers or wrappers, or accompanying such article” at any time while a device is
held for sale after shipment or delivery for shipment in interstate commerce.229
The term “accompanying” is interpreted to mean more than physical association with the product;
it extends to posters, tags, pamphlets, circulars, booklets, brochures, instruction books, direction
sheets, fillers, webpages, etc. Accompanying can also include labeling that is connected with the
device after shipment or delivery for shipment in interstate commerce. According to an appellate
court decision, “most, if not all advertising, is labeling. The term ‘labeling’ is defined in the
FFDCA as including all printed matter accompanying any article. Congress did not, and we
cannot, exclude from the definition printed matter which constitutes advertising.”230
All devices must conform to the general labeling requirements.231
Certain devices require specific
labeling, which may include not only package labeling, but informational literature, patient
release forms, performance testing, and/or specific tolerances or prohibitions on certain
ingredients.232
(...continued)
IG%20Levinson%20Response%20to%20Senator%20Grassley%20and%20Senator%20Warren%20re%20UDI%20-
%209.01.2015.pdf.
224
Michael D. Williamson, “Pulled Measure Would Lead to Faster Info on Bad Devices,” Health Care Daily Report,
March 15, 2016.
225
Thomas M. Burton, “Medical Device ID Effort Hits Snag,” The Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2015,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/medical-device-id-effort-is-stalled-1426027440.
226
Todd Allen Wilson, “Pascrell To Burwell: Press CMS To Put UDIs In Claims Forms,” Inside CMS, February 25,
2016.
227
ASC X12 is a committee of government officials and industry stakeholders that are tasked with developing
operational and data transfer standards. The committee will propose a revised claim form that will be approved or
rejected by CMS in 2017. Nicholas Florko, “CMS Cautiously Throws Support Behind UDI In Claims Forms, But It
May Be Too Late,” InsideHealthPolicy, July 14, 2016.
228
FFDCA §201(k).
229
FFDCA §201(m).
230
United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc., 126 F.2d 42 (9th
Cir. 1942).
231
21 C.F.R. §801.
232
21 C.F.R. §§801.405 - 801.437. These devices included denture repair kits, impact resistant lenses in sunglasses and
eyeglasses, ozone emission levels, chlorofluorocarbon propellants, hearing aids, menstrual tampons,
chlorofluorocarbons or other ozone depleting substances, latex condoms, and devices containing natural rubber.

A section of the Quality System (QS) regulation also has an impact on various aspects of
labeling.233
The QS regulation applies to the application of labeling to ensure legibility under
normal conditions of use over the expected life of the device and also applies to inspection,
handling, storage, and distribution of labeling. FDA considers a device to be adulterated if these
requirements are not met. These requirements do not apply to the adequacy of labeling content,
except to make sure the content meets labeling specifications contained in the device master
record. However, failure to comply with GMP requirements, such as proofreading and change
control, could result in labeling content errors. In such cases, the device could be misbranded
and/or adulterated.
Manufacturing
Like drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers must produce their devices in accordance
with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). The GMP requirements for devices are described in
the QS regulation.234
The QS regulation requires that domestic or foreign manufacturers have a
quality system for the design, manufacture, packaging, labeling, storage, installation, and
servicing of nonexempt finished medical devices intended for commercial distribution in the
United States. The regulation requires that various specifications and controls be established for
devices; that devices be designed and manufactured under a quality system to meet these
specifications; that finished devices meet these specifications; that devices be correctly installed,
checked, and serviced; that quality data are analyzed to identify and correct quality problems; and
that complaints are processed. FDA monitors device problem data and inspects the operations and
records of device developers and manufacturers to determine compliance with the GMP
requirements.235
Though FDA has identified in QS regulation the essential elements that a quality
system should have, manufacturers have a great deal of leeway to design quality systems that best
cover nuances of their devices and the means of producing them.
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance requirements apply to both the premarket approval process and postmarket
surveillance. When a problem arises with a product regulated by FDA, the agency can take a
number of actions to protect the public health. Initially, the agency tries to work with the
manufacturer to correct the problem on a voluntary basis. If that fails, legal remedies may be
taken, such as asking the manufacturer to recall a product, having federal marshals seize products,
or refusing imported products that are in violation of the FFDCA. If warranted, FDA can ask the
courts to issue injunctions or prosecute individual company officers that deliberately violate the
law. When warranted, criminal penalties, including prison sentences, may be sought.
Section 516 of the FFDCA gives FDA the authority to ban devices that present substantial
deception or unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury. Section 518 enables FDA to
require manufacturers or other appropriate individuals to notify all health professionals who
prescribe or use the device and any other person (including manufacturers, importers, distributors,
retailers, and device users) of any health risks resulting from the use of a violative device, so that
these risks may be reduced or eliminated. This section also gives consumers a procedure for
233
21 C.F.R. §820.120.
234
FFDCA §520; 21 C.F.R. §820.
235
FDA, Medical Devices: 1. The Quality System Regulation, June 18, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/QualitySystemsRegulations/
MedicalDeviceQualitySystemsManual/ucm122391.htm.

economic redress when they have been sold defective medical devices that present unreasonable
risks. Section 519 of the act authorized FDA to promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers,
importers, and distributors of devices to maintain records and reports to assure that devices are
not adulterated or misbranded. Section 520(e) authorizes FDA to restrict the sale, distribution, or
use of a device if there cannot otherwise be reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. A
restricted device can only be sold on oral or written authorization by a licensed practitioner or
under conditions specified by regulation.
Inspection
Each FDA center has an Office of Compliance (OC) that ensures compliance with regulations
while pre- or postmarket studies are being undertaken, with manufacturing requirements, and
with labeling requirements. The objectives of CDRH’s OC’s Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO)
program are to ensure the quality and integrity of data and information submitted in support of
IDE, PMA, and 510(k) submissions and to ensure that human subjects taking part in
investigations are protected from undue hazard or risk. This is achieved through audits of clinical
data contained in PMAs prior to approval, data audits of IDE and 510(k) submissions, inspections
of IRBs and nonclinical laboratories, and enforcement of the prohibitions against promotion,
marketing, or commercialization of investigational devices. Any establishment where devices are
manufactured, processed, packed, installed, used, or implanted or where records of results from
use of devices are kept, can be subject to inspection. (See Table 3.)
The OC also reviews the quality system design and manufacturing information in the PMA
submission to determine whether the manufacturer has described the processes in sufficient detail
and to make a preliminary determination of whether the manufacturer meets the QS regulation. If
the manufacturer has provided an adequate description of the design and manufacturing process, a
preapproval inspection can be initiated. Inspection is to include an assessment of the
manufacturer’s capability to design and manufacture the device as claimed in the PMA and
confirm that the quality system is in compliance with the QS regulation. Postapproval inspections
can be conducted within 8 to 12 months of approval of the PMA submission. The inspection is to
primarily focus on any changes that may have been made in the device design, manufacturing
process, or quality systems.
Table 3. CDRH, FDA Domestic and Foreign Device Establishment Inspections,
FY2009–FY2015
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Domestic 1,711 2,115 2,125 2,183 2,209 2,024 1,942
Foreign 267 333 398 454 550 595 721
Total
Inspections
1,978 2,448 2,523 2,637 2,759 2,619 2,663
Sources: FDA, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Field Devices and Radiological Health Program Activity Data (PAD) table. Data above was found in the “Actual”
column of the PAD table from the FDA Justification documents for FY2011 through FY2017. Domestic and
Foreign data consist of Bioresearch Monitoring Program Inspections, Pre-Market Inspections, Post-Market Audit
Inspections, and GMP Inspections.
The compliance offices work closely with the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA),236
which
operates in the field to regulate almost 124,000 business establishments that annually produce,
236
See ORA at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ORA/default.htm.

warehouse, import and transport $1 trillion worth of medical products. ORA field inspectors
typically have conducted about 22,000 domestic and foreign inspections a year to ensure that
regulated products meet the agency’s standards. CSOs also monitor clinical trials. Scientists in
ORA’s 13 laboratories typically have analyzed more than 41,000 product samples each year to
determine their adherence to FDA’s standards.
Warning Letter
A Warning Letter is a written communication from FDA notifying a responsible individual,
manufacturer, or facility that the agency considers one or more products, practices, processes, or
other activities to be in violation of the laws that FDA enforces. The Warning Letter informs the
recipient that failure to take appropriate and prompt action to correct and prevent any future
repeat of the violations could result in an administrative or judicial action. Although serious
noncompliance is often a catalyst for issuance of a Warning Letter, the Warning Letter is informal
and advisory237
(see Table 4).
Table 4. CDRH Warning Letters Issued, FY2009–FY2015
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Number of Letters 136 204 175 210 217 114 168
Source: FDA Enforcement Statistics Summary, reports for fiscal years FY2009-FY2015, at http://www.fda.gov/
ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm247813.htm.
Product Recall
A recall is a method of removing or correcting products that FDA considers are in violation of the
law.238
Medical device recalls are usually conducted voluntarily by the manufacturer after
negotiation with FDA.239
Manufacturers (including refurbishers and reconditioners) and importers
are required to report to FDA any correction or removal of a medical device that is undertaken to
reduce a health risk posed by the device.240
A recall may involve the removal of all or a portion of
the product on the market (such as a single lot). In rare instances, where the manufacturer or
importer fails to voluntarily recall a device that is a risk to health, FDA may issue a recall order to
the manufacturer.241
When a recall is initiated, FDA performs an evaluation of the health hazard presented taking into
account the following factors, among others:
 Whether any disease or injuries have occurred from the use of the product;
237
Warning letters are publically available on FDA’s website at http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/
WarningLetters/default.htm.
238
Recall does not include market withdrawal or a stock recovery. A market withdrawal is a firm’s removal or
correction of a distributed product for a minor violation that does not violate the law and would not be subject to legal
action by FDA (e.g., normal stock rotation practices, routine equipment adjustments and repairs, etc.). Stock recovery
involves correction of a problem before product is shipped (i.e., is still in the manufacturer’s control).
239
21 C.F.R. §7
240
21 C.F.R. §806.
241
21 C.F.R. §810. See out-of-print CRS Report RL34167, The FDA’s Authority to Recall Products, by Vanessa K.
Burrows (available from the author upon request).

 Whether any existing conditions could contribute to a clinical situation that could
expose humans or animals to a health hazard;
 Assessment of hazard to various populations (e.g., children, surgical patients,
pets, livestock) who would be exposed to the product;
 Assessment of the degree of seriousness of the health hazard to which the
populations at risk would be exposed;
 Assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of the hazard;
 Assessment of the consequences (immediate or long-range) of the hazard.
Following the health hazard assessment, FDA assigns the recall a classification according to the
relative degree of health hazard. Class I recalls are the most serious, reserved for situations where
there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a product will cause serious
adverse health consequences or death. Class II recalls are for situations where the use of, or
exposure to, a product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences
or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote. In a Class III recall
situation, the use of, or exposure to, a product is not likely to cause adverse health consequences
(see Table 5). In addition to a warning letter or recall, FDA may issue a public notification or
safety alert (e.g., “Dear Doctor” letter), to warn healthcare providers and consumers of the risk of
the device.242
FDASIA requires the Secretary to establish a program to improve the device recall system.243
Among other things, it requires an assessment of information on device recalls, an assessment of
the effectiveness of corrections or action plans for recalls, and documentation of the basis for
terminations of recalls.
Table 5. CDRH Class I, II, and III Product Recalls, FY2009–FY2015
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Class I 129 334 427 124 185 360 287
Class II N/A 2,208 2,665 2,210 1,988 N/A 2,494
Class III N/A 92 246 141 131 N/A 69
Total 2,306 2,634 3,211 2,475 2,304 2,706 2,850
Source: FDA Enforcement Statistics Summary, reports for fiscal years FY2009-FY2015, at http://www.fda.gov/
ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm247813.htm.
242
The main page for recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts for all FDA-regulated products is
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html.
243

Appendix A. A Comparison of FDA Premarket
Review of Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices
Table A-1. FDA Premarket Review for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices
Prescription drugs
High-risk devices
(Class III)
Moderate-risk devices
(Class II)
Year proof of safety and
effectiveness began
1932 (safety)
1962 (effectiveness)
1976 N/A
Premarket review process New drug application
(NDA)
Premarket approval
application (PMA)
510(k) notification
Form of permission to
market medical product
Approval Approval Clearance
Standard of evidence Substantial evidence that
the drug is safe effective
for the purpose in the
applicationa
Reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness
Substantial equivalence to
a predicate device
Supporting data Clinical trials and pre-
clinical studies
Clinical trials and pre-
clinical studies
Pre-clinical studiesb
Process for introducing
postmarket changes
Nonec PMA supplements New 510(k) notification
Tort liability claims against
manufacturer mostly
preempted?d
No Yes No
Source: Based on Table 1 in Benjamin N. Rome, Daniel B. Kramer, and Aaron S. Kesselheim, “Approval of
High-Risk Medical Devices in the US: Implications for Clinical Cardiology,” Current Cardiology Reports, vol. 16, no.
6 (June 2014), pp. 489-502.
a. Substantial evidence is defined as “adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical
investigations.” FFDCA §505(d).
b. Clinical trials are rarely required as part of the 510(k) process.
c. A change to the molecular structure of an active ingredient requires its own New Drug Application. In
some instances, the FDA may approve formulations of an approved drug based on bioequivalence studies.
d. The question of whether an individual can bring a state-law tort claim after suffering an injury caused by a
medical device can be a complex inquiry with varied results. While the Supreme Court has generally found
that under the MDA preemption provision, the ability of an individual to bring a state-law tort suit alleging
certain defects with a medical device can turn on how that device received marketing approval from the
FDA, (i.e., through either the §510(k) process or premarket approval), the inquiry is not this
straightforward and questions remain about which state-law tort claims brought against medical device
manufacturers are preempted by federal law. See, e.g., Gross v. Stryker Corp., 858 F. Supp.2d 466 (W.D.
Pa. 2012) (motion to dismiss granted against claims involving artificial hip prosthesis that had received
premarket approval with components that received FDA approval through §510(k) process; court finds
preemption extended to all components of the device, even those originally receiving §510(k) clearance).
For further information, see CRS Report R43218, Preemption of Drug and Medical Device Claims: A Legal
Overview, by Andrew Nolan and Jennifer A. Staman.

Appendix B. History of Laws Governing Medical
Device Regulation
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938
The first general federal food and drug law, the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, did not contain any
provisions to regulate medical device safety or claims made regarding such devices. Strong
support for reform developed during the 1930s due to “false therapeutic claims for medical
devices [that] were being presented to the public through radio and newspaper advertising.”244
Medical devices came under federal scrutiny when Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938 (P.L. 75-717). The regulatory authority provided to FDA by the
1938 law was “limited to action after a medical device has been offered for introduction into
interstate commerce” and only when the device was deemed to be “adulterated or misbranded.”245
Most of the legitimate devices on the market at the time the 1938 act became law “were relatively
simple items which applied basic science concepts such that experts using them could readily
recognize whether the device was functioning properly; the major concern with respect to these
devices was assuring truthful labeling.”246
During the first 20 years following enactment of the
1938 law, FDA’s activity with respect to medical devices involved protecting the American public
from fraudulent devices; FDA began to turn its attention to the hazards from legitimate devices
around 1960.247
The post-war revolution in biomedical technology had resulted in the introduction of a
wide variety of sophisticated devices. New developments in the electronic, plastic,
metallurgy, and ceramics industries, coupled with progress in design engineering, led to
invention of the heart pacemaker, the kidney dialysis machine, defibrillators, cardiac and
renal catheters, surgical implants, artificial vessels and heart valves, intensive care
monitoring units, and a wide spectrum of other diagnostic and therapeutic devices.
Although many lives have been saved or improved by the new discoveries, the potential
for harm to consumers has been heightened by the critical medical conditions in which
sophisticated modern devices are used and by the complicated technology involved in
their manufacture and use. In the search to expand medical knowledge, new experimental
approaches have sometimes been tried without adequate premarket clinical testing,
quality control in materials selected, or patient consent.248
The Dalkon Shield, a contraceptive device introduced in November 1970, is “an example of a
legitimate device which was marketed without adequate premarket testing.”249
Other examples
244
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Medical Device Amendments of 1976, to
accompany H.R. 11124, 94th
Cong., 2nd
sess., February 29, 1976, H. Rept. 94-853, p. 6.
245
Ibid. “A device is adulterated if it includes any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is prepared, packed,
or held under unsanitary conditions. A device is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading; unless it identifies the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor and quantity of contents; if required labeling statements are not conspicuous; if it
fails to bear adequate directions for use or adequate warnings; or if it is dangerous to health when used as indicated.”
246
Ibid.
247
Ibid., p. 7.
248
Ibid., p. 7-8.
249
Ibid., p. 8. By 1975, the Dalkon Shield had been linked to at least 16 deaths and 25 miscarriages, numerous cases of
pelvic perforation and pelvic infection, removal of the IUD for medical reasons, and pregnancies due to IUD failure. As
of February 1976, more than 500 lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages totaling more than $400 million
were pending against the manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield. IOM, Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA
(continued...)

include defective cardiac pacemakers and intraocular lenses which, following implantation,
caused unusual eye infections resulting in serious vision impairment or the need for removal of
the eye.
Congress amended the FFDCA in 1962 to require FDA approval of a new drug application prior
to marketing and to require that a new drug be shown to be effective as well as safe. Following
these changes, FDA began “to impose rigorous premarket approval of some products that today
would be deemed devices.” Court decisions in the late 1960s upheld FDA’s authority to regulate
some medical devices as drugs due in part to the overlapping definitions of drug and device in the
1938 law. FDA classified a number of devices as drugs (contact lenses, injectable silicone,
pregnancy-test kits, bone cement), and only such devices were subject to premarket review (prior
to 1976). However the approach of classifying devices as a drug was unsuccessful in other court
decisions and the need for more comprehensive authority to regulate devices was recognized by
the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.250
The Medical Device Amendments of 1976
The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA; P.L. 94-295) was the first major legislation
passed to address the review of medical devices. The MDA provided a definition for the term
device.251
It established a number of requirements referred to as general controls that applied to
all devices.252
Examples include provisions on adulteration and misbranding, prohibitions on false
or misleading advertising, and a requirement to register all medical device manufacturers with
FDA. One such provision required manufacturers to notify FDA 90 days prior to the marketing of
any new device; if the agency failed to act, marketing could begin. Because this provision is
outlined in section 510(k) of the FFDCA, it is often referred to as a “510(k) notification.”
The MDA directed FDA to classify, into one of three classes, all medical devices that were on the
market at the time of enactment; these are the preamendment devices.253
Congress provided
definitions for the three classes—Class I, Class II, Class III—based on the risks to patients posed
by the devices. In contrast to the approach taken with pharmaceuticals (all, except generic agents,
undergo rigorous premarket review and approval), Congress limited premarket approval to only a
(...continued)
510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Washington, DC, July 2011, p. 172, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Medical-
Devices-and-the-Publics-Health-The-FDA-510k-Clearance-Process-at-35-Years.aspx.
250
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Medical Device Amendments of 1976, to
accompany H.R. 11124, 94th
Cong., 2nd
sess., February 29, 1976, H. Rept. 94-853, p. 8-9.
251
An instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related
article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the
United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other
conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals; or (3) intended to
affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve any of its principal
intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent
upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. The definition was changed in 1992
from “any of its principal intended purposes” to “its primary intended purposes.” Current definition at FFDCA §201(h),
(21 U.S.C. 321).
252
The law has since been amended to exempt many (Class I) products from some general controls or to limit the
application of general controls to subsets of (Class II or Class III) products that pose higher risks. IOM, Medical
Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, Washington, DC, July 2011, p. 175.
253
Preamendment devices were presumed to be marketable. They did not undergo premarket review and could be
legally marketed unless FDA required their removal. After classifying the preamendment devices, FDA used them as
the first cadre of “predicate” devices in order to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

small number of devices. “Only the highest-risk category [Class III] would require agency review
and approval as a precondition for commercial sale and routine medical use. The other two
categories would be subject not to a rigorous review but merely a requirement [510(k)] that the
manufacturer of a device notify FDA, at least 90 days before commencing marketing, of its intent
to distribute the product commercially.”254
For Class I devices, no additional review was needed
once the status of Class I was confirmed; general controls were considered to be sufficient to
protect public health. For Class II devices, limited supplemental review would be needed to verify
conformity with performance standards if such standards had been established by the agency.255
Under MDA, all devices coming to market after enactment were automatically placed in Class III
until reclassified; these are the postamendment devices. As stated above, Class III medical
devices receive more intense scrutiny and require an application for premarket approval (PMA)
before the device can be marketed. However, the MDA allowed for the reclassification of a
device from one class to another. According to a 2011 IOM report on medical devices:
The classification and reclassification process did not include any evaluation of the safety
or effectiveness of the device types being categorized. Once a device type was assigned
to Class III, the FDA was directed to promulgate a regulation calling for manufacturers of
devices of that type to submit a [PMA] application. The agency would then (and only
then) undertake a review of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. For device types
placed into Class I or Class II, there was no mechanism for the systematic review of
safety and effectiveness. Congress envisioned instead that the agency would use its
postmarketing tools to identify and address issues of lack of safety or lack of
effectiveness case by case. Thus, preamendment devices in Class I and II were never
subjected to a comprehensive FDA evaluation for safety or effectiveness. The
classification process was not completed until 1988.256
For postamendment devices, which were automatically placed into Class III, there were two
important exceptions:
The primary exception involved a postamendment device that was substantially
equivalent to another device of the same type that either as a preamendment device that
had not been classified into any class or was not a preamendment device but had already
been classified into Class I or Class II. The FDA permitted manufacturers of
postamendment devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a preamendment
device in Class I or II as part of the 510(k) submission. An alternative exception provided
that the postamendment device would not be in Class III if the FDA, in response to a
petition, classified it into Class I or Class II.257
The MDA did not provide a definition for the term substantially equivalent. The MDA also did
not itemize the required contents of a 510(k). Such a notification “need only set forth its proposed
intended use or indications for use, the device to which substantial equivalence is claimed, and
evidence demonstrating that equivalence.”258
254
Ibid., p. 24.
255
Ibid., p. 177.
256
Ibid., p. 25.
257
Ibid., p. 179.
258
Ibid. p. 180.

The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA; P.L. 101-629) made a number of changes to the
law such as providing a definition for the term substantial equivalence and revising the definition
for Class II. FDA had not promulgated performance standards for most Class II devices. The new
law authorized the use of alternative restrictions, called special controls, at the agency’s discretion
and simplified the process of establishing performance standards for Class II devices. Examples
of special controls include special labeling requirements, mandatory performance standards,
patient registries and postmarket surveillance.
FDA also had experienced difficulty in promulgating regulations needed to require submission of
PMA applications for Class III devices. SMDA authorized FDA to reconsider all the
preamendment devices that had been placed in Class III and reclassify some of these devices into
Class I or Class II.259
The purpose was “to reduce the number of device types that needed PMA
review.”260
For those devices remaining in Class III, the agency was directed to establish a
schedule for promulgation of regulations calling for PMAs of devices that still used the 510(k)
notification as an entry to the marketplace.
Under SMDA, FDA must issue a response to a 510(k) submission before marketing of a new
device can begin. SMDA allowed for the evaluation of safety and effectiveness data in 510(k)
notifications, but only in certain situations. These were limited to cases in which a new device
offered different technologic characteristics from the already marketed preamendment or
postamendment (predicate) device.261
“Because
the assessment of substantial equivalence
generally did not require evidence of safety or
effectiveness of a device and because a
preamendment device to which equivalence
was established was not itself reviewed for
safety or effectiveness, the FDA made clear
from the outset that clearance of a 510(k)
notification was not a determination that the
cleared device was safe or effective. That
position was reiterated by the agency
numerous times. The US Supreme Court accepted this interpretation in a 1996 opinion.”262
SMDA established postmarket requirements for medical devices. SMDA required facilities that
use medical devices to report to FDA any incident that suggested that a medical device could
have caused or contributed to the death, serious illness, or injury of a patient. Manufacturers of
certain permanently implanted devices were required to establish methods for tracking the
patients who received them and to conduct postmarket surveillance to identify adverse events.
The act authorized FDA to carry out certain enforcement actions, such as device product recalls,
for products that did not comply with the law.
259
FFDCA §515(i).
260
July 2011, p. 205.
261
FFDCA §513(i).
262
July 2011, p. 28.
U.S. Supreme Court 1996 Opinion
Medtronic v. Lohr
“Substantial equivalence determinations provide little
protection to the public. These determinations simply
compare a post-1976 device to a pre-1976 device to
ascertain whether the latter is no more dangerous and
no less effective than the earlier device. If the earlier
device poses a severe risk or is ineffective, then the
latter device may also be risky or ineffective.”
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA; P.L. 105-115)
mandated wide-ranging reforms in the regulation of foods, drugs, and medical devices by FDA.
In general, provisions involving medical devices “were designed to reduce FDA’s workload and
permit concentration of resources on devices that presented greater potential for harm” and “to
limit the FDA’s discretion and authority in regulating the device industry” in order to “accelerate
the pace of technology transfer.”263
FDAMA eliminated the 510(k) notification requirement for most Class I devices and some Class
II devices. It authorized the creation of a third-party review system of 510(k) submissions for
Class I and most Class II devices that still required 510(k) review. It allowed certain new devices
(those not substantially equivalent to another device and automatically placed in Class III) to be
evaluated for immediate placement in Class I or Class II. This process, called the de novo 510(k),
avoids PMA review, must be completed in 60 days, and may be requested by the sponsor.
For substantial equivalence determinations in which the new device has a different technological
characteristic, FDAMA requires that FDA “consider the least burdensome means of
demonstrating substantial equivalence and request information accordingly.”264
For a medical
device using an important breakthrough technology, or which does not have an approved
alternative device, priority review of the PMA must be provided by FDA.265
FDAMA limited the use of some postmarket controls (device tracking and postmarket
surveillance) to Class II and Class III devices, eased reporting requirements of adverse events for
device user facilities, eliminated mandatory reporting of adverse events by medical device
distributors, and directed FDA to establish a sentinel reporting system to collect information on
deaths and serious injuries or illnesses associated with the use of a medical device.266
Medical Device User Fee Acts
The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA; P.L. 107-250)
established a user fee program for premarket reviews of 510(k) submissions and PMA
applications; user fees may not be used for other FDA or CDRH activities. MDUFMA also made
targeted changes that would reduce regulatory burdens and agency workload, such as allowing
establishment inspections to be conducted by accredited persons (third parties). MDUFMA was
amended and clarified by two laws: the Medical Device Technical Corrections Act of 2004
(MDTCA, P.L. 108-214), and the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005
(MDUFSA, P.L. 109-43), and had its user fee provisions reauthorized by the Medical Device
User Fee Act of 2007 (MDUFA; Title II of FDAAA, see below).
FDA Amendments Act of 2007
The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA; P.L. 110-85) amended
the FFDCA and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to reauthorize several expiring programs
263
Ibid., p. 213.
264
FFDCA §513(i)(1)(D).
265
FFDCA §515(d)(5).
266
FFDCA §519 and §522. A device user facility means a hospital, ambulatory surgical facility, nursing home, or
outpatient treatment facility which is not a physician’s office.

(including the medical device user fee act) and to make agency-wide changes, several of which
have implications for the regulation of medical devices.267
FDAAA created incentives as well as
reporting and safety requirements for manufacturers of medical devices for children; required that
certain clinical trials for medical devices and some other products be publicly registered and have
their results posted;268
created requirements to reduce conflicts of interest in advisory committees
for medical devices and other products;269
and made certain other amendments to the regulation
of devices.
FDA Safety and Innovation Act
The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA, P.L. 112-144)
amended the FFDCA and the PHSA to reauthorize the prescription drug and medical device user
fee programs, created new user fee programs for generic and biosimilar drug approvals, and
modified FDA authority to regulate medical products. Several provisions in FDASIA made
modifications to various aspects of premarket and postmarket device regulation. Examples of
premarket changes include those which affect the efficiency, transparency, and data requirements
of the 510(k) and PMA processes; and alter or make clarifications to certain types of exempt
devices, for example, custom devices and humanitarian use devices. Provisions affecting
postmarket regulation include those which focus on expanding active postmarket surveillance;
altering requirements related to postmarket studies for devices; and strengthening both device
recall and tracking capabilities through a recall program and the unique device identifier system.
Miscellaneous reforms include those aimed at increasing transparency of FDA’s approval and
clearance decisions and processes for issuing industry guidance documents; improving health
information technology for the agency; and harmonizing device regulation with FDA’s
international counterparts.
267
See CRS Report RL34465, FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-85), by Susan Thaul.
268
See the Clinical Trials Databases section of CRS Report RL34465, FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-85), by
Susan Thaul.
269
FDA uses advisory committees to gain independent advice from outside experts. See CRS Report RS22691, FDA
Advisory Committee Conflict of Interest, by Erin D. Williams.

Appendix C. Acronyms Used in this Report
BIMO Bioresearch Monitoring
CBER Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
CDRH Center for Devices and Radiological Health
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CSOs Consumer safety officers
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDAAA Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
FDAMA Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
FDASIA Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012
FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
GAO Government Accountability Office
GGP Good Guidance Practices
GHTF Global Harmonization Task Force
GMP Good manufacturing practices
HHS Health and Human Services
IDE Investigational Device Exemption
IOM Institute of Medicine
IRB Institutional review board
IVD In Vitro Diagnostic
MDA Medical Device Amendments of 1976
MDR Medical Device Reporting
MDTCA Medical Device Technical Corrections Act of 2004
MDUFA Medical Device User Fee Act of 2007
MDUFMA Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002
MDUFSA Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005
NSE Not substantially equivalent
OC Office of Compliance
ORA Office of Regulatory Affairs
PMA Premarket Approval
QS Quality System regulation
SMDA Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
UDI Unique device identification

Author Contact Information
Judith A. Johnson
Specialist in Biomedical Policy
jajohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7077

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

More from Dr Dev Kambhampati

Recently uploaded

In this document

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices