Medtech Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Guidance: How To Profit From Humanitarian-Use Devices In Pediatric Patients

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

1Draft guidance issued Aug. 5 clarifies FDA's new policy for allowing companies to profit from humanitarian-use devices in pediatric populations

You may also be interested in...



Sen. Franken Tasks GAO To Explore Incentives For Rare-Disease Devices

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., sent a 1letter to the Government Accountability Office July 21, requesting that the watchdog agency explore government incentives to spur development of medical devices to treat rare diseases

Sen. Franken Tasks GAO To Explore Incentives For Rare-Disease Devices

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., sent a 1letter to the Government Accountability Office July 21, requesting that the watchdog agency explore government incentives to spur development of medical devices to treat rare diseases

Regulatory News In Brief

Neuro/physical medicine device reg: Neurological and physical medicine manufacturers want extra time to comment on a proposed rule and draft guidance documents that would establish special controls for 11 device types and exempt six of the device types from 510(k) pre-market submission requirements, provided they follow the special controls (1"The Gray Sheet" April 5, 2010). Comments on FDA's April 5 proposals were due July 6, but DJO, Slendertone, Electrostim Medical Solutions Inc., and the Neurostimulation Device Alliance say they'll need "adequate time for careful consideration of the technical issues and the clinical implications of the proposed special controls." In June 2 comments, Titan Medical "vehemently" opposes easing regulation of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator (TENS) devices, arguing that the proposed new process could pose safety issues. Titan also raises the question of whether "less effective" devices allowed on the market will be reimbursed by payers under the same codes as 510(k) products. "How do payers differentiate between the two types?" the firm asks

Related Content

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT026440

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel