/
Regulatory weaknesses A report of the typist for the Regulation Subgroup Regulatory weaknesses A report of the typist for the Regulation Subgroup

Regulatory weaknesses A report of the typist for the Regulation Subgroup - PowerPoint Presentation

phoebe-click
phoebe-click . @phoebe-click
Follow
349 views
Uploaded On 2018-12-06

Regulatory weaknesses A report of the typist for the Regulation Subgroup - PPT Presentation

ie no one has seen or approved this Draft 070113 Coordination This is the point at which we need to truly start integrating the work products of the subgroups We need to look at the safety issues and assess whether they are addressed ID: 737203

regulatory fda software issues fda regulatory issues software safety hit device fcc law medical risk july onc reporting needed

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Regulatory weaknesses A report of the ty..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Regulatory weaknesses

A report of the typist for the Regulation Subgroup(i.e. no one has seen or approved this)Draft 07/01/13Slide2

Coordination

This is the point at which we need to truly start integrating the work products of the subgroups.We need to look at the safety issues and assess whether they are addressed

We need to consider the elements of innovation that need to be protected and describe regulatory features that protect them

This is also the point at which we need to make sure we do not duplicate each other’s work.Slide3

Process over the next week

Discussion of the Regulations Subgroup over the next week:Are the three regulatory systems – ONC, FCC and FDA – deficient in any way with regard to how HIT is regulated?

(July 1, except reporting which will be on July 3)

Are

there ambiguities in the three regulatory systems that need to be clarified so that HIT vendors and others can proceed more easily to innovate?

(July 3)

Do

any of the three regulatory systems duplicate one another, or any other legal, regulatory or industry requirement? (July 3)Is there a better way to assure that innovation is permitted to bloom, while safety is assured? (July 8)Slide4

Started by

Examining the work of the Safety & Innovations SubgroupSafety gridInnovation featuresHeld 5 sessions on—

FDA regulation

ONC regulation

FCC regulation

Other federal and state regulation and private effortsSlide5

Questions considered on July 1

For FDA, FCC and ONC, identify regulatory requirements that:

Are

broader or more onerous than need to be to assure the safety of HIT

Fail to be risk-based, for example by either failing to utilizing available mitigation or failing to identify appropriate risk aggravating circumstances.

Are

insufficient in some specific way to assure the safety of HIT

Unnecessarily interfere with some specific needed feature of innovationMiss or omit a sensible opportunity to promote innovationSlide6

FDA issues where attention needed

Item

Issue:

A or B

Description of challenge

Wellness/disease borderline

A & B

FDA needs to explain

how to discern disease related claims from wellness, and needs to deregulate low risk disease related claims

Accessory issues

A & B

FDA needs to explain its position on which basic IT elements are regulated when connected to a medical device, and deregulate or down-regulate those that are low risk

CDS software

A

FDA needs to explain which forms of clinical

decision support software it regulates

Software modularizationAFDA needs to specify its rules for deciding the regulatory status of software modules either incorporated into a medical device, or accessed by a medical device

A = Ambiguous and B = Broken at the written law levelSlide7

FDA issues where attention needed

Item

Issue:

A or B

Description of challenge

Labeling issues

A

FDA needs to explain how the concept of intended use will

be applied to standalone software where the use might evolve over time, perhaps using risk management and

postmarket

surveillance to manage the risks associated with the evolution in the intended use

QS application to standalone software

A

FDA needs

to explain how the quality system requirements and facility registration apply to manufacturing of standalone software

Premarket

requirements for interoperable devicesAFDA needs to adopt a paradigm for reviewing software that is intended to be part of a larger, but unspecifiedPostmarket requirements for networksA & B

Responsibilities for reporting adverse events and conducting corrective actions can be clarified, but also likely need a new approach that reflects shared responsibility across users, producers, and across regulatory agencies

A = Ambiguous and B = Broken at the written law levelSlide8

FDA Program Administration

Apart from those regulatory issues, the subgroup has also identified an issue with how the agency administers the law. There is presently a weakness in the agency coordination of policymaking with regard to HIT software, and especially including mobile medical apps. This weakness

includes:

inconsistencies

in information shared with individual companies, and

unclear

guidance more

generally, including the lack of a final guidance on mobile medical apps.Slide9

ONC issues where attention needed

Item

Issue:

A or B

Description of challenge

Mandatory

elements

BONC program does not include capability in law enforcement, nor its programs framed with mandates where necessary

Assurance

of Safe Configuration

A

Safety

depends on appropriate post-installation configuration. No means to educate or require compliance with documented and evolving best practices

Coverage of interoperability

issues*

*could be inter-agency ONC/FDA/FCC

BUnclear and incomplete responsibility. Assumption that ONC does regulate HIT/medical device interface and FDA regulates med device/med device interface. But same med device (e.g. infusion pump) could be installed in either configuration. Which agency would receive report of “pump-server-HIT equipment-wireless infrastructure-EHR” related adverse event? Who is responsible for resolving?A = Ambiguous and B = Broken at the written law levelSlide10

FCC issues where attention needed

Item

Issue:

A or B

Description of challenge

Linkage to FDA reporting

B

FCC and FDA have not merged their reporting processes in a way that allows for

transparent

analysis (also see gaps slide below)

Linkage to FDA review

B

FCC and FDA do not

coordinate their review processes (equipment authorization program and premarket review) to ensure they are consistent

Linkage to FDA: Conformity Assessment

AIncomplete/missing clinically focused wireless conformity assessment tools that would facilitate safety and co-existence analysisPost-installation Surveillance ASpectrum management and identification, diagnosing, and resolving wireless co-existence/EMC problems that affect HIT and medical device performance (in healthcare facilities and mHealth environments)A = Ambiguous and B = Broken at the written law levelSlide11

Bigger Picture

Whether collectively the regulatory scheme in totality:Fails to address some particular safety risk

Is

too costly in relation to the risks it is designed to reduce

Is

demonstrably

too burdensome on innovation, apart from imposing costs

We agreed not to get into politics or philosophy but instead stick to evidence driven policy.Slide12

Gaps where attention needed

Item

Description of challenge

Reporting of safety

issues

The need to aggregate data across all three agencies to understand what the data are really telling us

A = Ambiguous and B = Broken at the written law levelSlide13

Next step

Wednesday call will be a deep dive into reporting and the prioritization of the ambiguities that need clarification