Another part of the 2012 FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) clicked into place with the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishing a draft report proposing strategy and recommendations for what is rather grandly termed a “health IT framework”. Basically it defines more unified criteria, based on risk to the patient and function of what the device does, not the platform (mobile, software, etc.). It then separates products into three broad categories. Excerpted from the FDA release and the FDASIA Health IT Report:
- Products with administrative health IT functions, which pose little or no risk to patient safety and as such require no additional oversight by FDA. Examples: billing software, inventory management.
- Products with health management health IT functions. Examples: software for health information and data management, knowledge management, EHRs, electronic access to clinical results and most clinical decision support software. This will be coordinated largely by HHS’s Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) as part of their activities (including their current voluntary EHR certification program), but the private sector is also cited in establishing best practices.
- Products with medical device health IT functions, which potentially pose greater risks to patients if they do not perform as intended. Examples: computer-aided detection software, software for bedside monitor alarms and radiation treatment software. The draft report proposes that FDA continue regulating products in this last category. (Illustration on page 13 of report.)
The report also recommends the creation of a public-private entity under ONC, the Health IT Safety Center, which “would serve as a trusted convener of stakeholders and as a forum for the exchange of ideas and information focused on promoting health IT as an integral part of patient safety.” The private sector is duly noted as a ‘stakeholder’.
The report was developed by FDA “in consultation” with ONC and, not unexpectedly, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Another recommendation (page 28) is the establishment of a ‘tri-Agency memorandum of understanding (MOU)’ to further determine their working relationship in this area. There’s a 90 day comment period on the 34 page report, which is perfect for weekend reading (!) How this onion will eventually be peeled, rather than quartered, remains to be seen, as does anything emanating from Foggy Bottom. FDA release. Report. FierceMobileHealthcare.
Update 8 April: A good summary of criticism and approval of the framework to date appears in iHealthBeat from the California Health Care Foundation. The two US Senators sponsoring the PROTECT Act [TTA 28 Feb, 6 Mar] stated there is still too much regulation of low-risk technologies, and Bradley Thompson of Epstein Becker/mHealth Regulatory Coalition believes the report is weak on the issues around clinical decision support software. With praise: HIMSS, Health IT Now Coalition and ACT, which claims to represent about 5,000 mobile application developers and IT firms, but has no locatable website.
Previously in TTA: FDA finally issues proposed rule simplifying medical device classification