An analysis of the regulatory developments that impact public companies as they prepare for their fiscal year-end filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and their annual shareholder meetings. This memorandum discusses key considerations to keep in mind as you embark upon the year-end reporting process in 2025.

In this webinar we discuss the regional challenges in regulating medical product AI with a focus on different regulatory approaches in the US, EU, and UK.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) recently held its 2024 Exploratory Workshop titled “The Evolving Landscape of Human Research with AI – Putting Ethics to Practice” (the Workshop). Although the individual presentations and panel discussions throughout the Workshop covered a range of topics and raised a number of interesting questions and hypotheticals, the panelists did not draw any specific conclusions or reach any kind of consensus about next steps to address the critical issues. Even so, the panelists provided some crucial insights that companies and regulators must grapple with in the context of expanding use cases for AI in human research and creating rules governing such uses.

Agencies across the federal government continue to grapple with how to respond to the directives in President Biden’s October 2023 executive order on artificial intelligence, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its parent agency the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). As summarized in this handy Mintz/ML Strategies timeline of the actions set forth in President Biden’s AI executive order, DHHS has a mandate to “develop a strategy for regulating the use of AI in the drug development process” and a deadline of October 29, 2024 to meet that obligation. Notably, earlier this year DHHS announced a functional reorganization within the department that included creating the position of Chief AI Officer in response to the presidential order.

Obtaining Medicare coverage and reimbursement for medical devices is notoriously more difficult than for drugs or biologics, and any progress on expanding coverage pathways has been agonizingly slow for industry stakeholders. An announcement on August 7, 2024 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of a final notice for the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway was therefore a welcome development. However, digging under the surface of the TCET pathway uncovers some less than thrilling details. CMS’s failure to address stakeholder proposals to modify the TCET program has increased interest and advocacy around Congress’s consideration of the Ensuring Patient Access to Critical Breakthrough Products Act. We explore both the shortcomings of the TCET pathway and the possible legislative solutions to its perceived gaps below.

Read about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) joint workshop in the latest edition of AI: The Washington Report, a joint undertaking of Mintz and ML Strategies covering potential federal legislative, executive, and regulatory activities related to AI.

Now that the final rule on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) has been available for over a month and the stages of the enforcement discretion phaseout process and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) newly proposed policies for continuing limited enforcement discretion for certain types of LDTs have been thoroughly described and dissected (including by us in our previous post), it’s high time to dig into FDA’s perspectives on the comments it received on the proposed rule. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its final rule on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) in the Federal Register on May 6, marking a watershed moment in the agency’s arduous decade-plus-long journey toward winding down its historical enforcement discretion posture for LDTs. But FDA’s crusade is far from over. It will have much to do to implement the four-year phase-out period described in the final rule and those efforts may be delayed by litigation seeking to enjoin implementation of the rule altogether. While we wait for the litigation shoe to drop, let’s take a look at what the final rule says and the changes FDA made in these highly significant policy decisions since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on October 3, 2023 (see our previous posts on the NPRM here and here).

In vitro diagnostics, or IVDs, have a somewhat unique position among the gamut of products that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees and regulates on behalf of the U.S. public. IVDs are classified as medical devices and include “reagents, instruments, and systems intended for use in diagnosis, including determining the state of health, through the collection, preparation, and examination of specimens taken from the human body.” Unlike human drug and non-IVD device products, which generally must be authorized for a specific medical use prior to commercialization, IVD products may be sold for certain scientific research studies without FDA authorization, but such IVD products may not be sold for clinical diagnostic use.