HHS draft report on health IT framework published

April 5, 2014 | by

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:

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

The PROTECT Act for HIT doesn’t: mHealth Coalition

March 6, 2014 | by

The mHealth Regulatory Coalition, which is a four-year-old alliance of legal and software companies in the health IT/software area, and whose most vocal spokespersons are well-known industry legal counsels Brad Thompson and Kim Tyrrell-Knott of Epstein Becker Green, has come out against the PROTECT Act (S 2007). PROTECT, which was proposed by Senators Fischer and King, would limit FDA regulation of certain ‘low-risk’ clinical software in the interest of fostering innovation and reducing regulatory burden. Original reports indicated that this responsibility would be transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [TTA 28 Feb]. According to Mr. Thompson, “The rush to avoid expert reviews of complex technologies with far-reaching health ramifications ignores the fact that we cannot separate the high risk from the low risk apps using broad terms in legislation.” His example: a theoretical smartphone app designed to diagnose melanomas from photos. PROTECT is being supported by IBM, athenahealth, Software & Information Industry Association, Newborn Coalition and McKesson. The bill also would exempt certain health IT software from being charged a 2.3% medical device tax, which is perhaps the ‘long game’ being played here by the aforementioned companies, as most Washington watchers give the bill as it stands little chance of clearing both houses of Congress and a congressional committee, much less being signed into law. The question remains: how best to speed less clinically significant wellness software to market without logjamming FDA.  iHealthBeat summary, Clinical Innovation + Technology, MRC press release

Is *less* regulation the answer for mHealth? (US)

February 28, 2014 | by | 1 Comment

What if the solution to the mHealth/digital health logjam of approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to take clinical and health software completely out of their approval purview–and hand it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is not a regulatory body but a standards-development organization. That is the solution proposed by the PROTECT Act of 2014 (Preventing Regulatory Overreach to Enhance Care Technology), proposed by Senators Angus King (I-Maine) and Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska). It’s put some of the better known organizations into a swivet, along with high profile attorney and mHealth legal expert Bradley Merrill Thompson with Epstein, Becker & Green. Possibly little to no regulation would be applied to EMRs, clinical support software and wearables/fitness apps–which is promptly being conflated by the usual suspects to heavy-duty equipment such as CT scanners.  FDA also finalized its guidance last September on telehealth and telemedicine applications, which this would render irrelevant. The Washington betting is that this Senate bill will go exactly nowhere, but it’s indicative of the jockeying for position this Editor is seeing within the present government and now with advocates/lobbyists [TTA 13 Feb]. MedCityNews, FierceMobileHealthcare