FierceHealthcareFierceHealthITFierceHealthFinanceFierceEMRHospital ImpactFierceMobileHealthcare   FiercePharma

FDA's medical approval process faces GAO scrutiny

Tools
Tags
Medicare
medical devices
incentives
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government Accountability Office
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The Government Accountability Office is scheduled to release a report next month on the FDA's medical device review process, but the facts that we have available to us already suggest that things are seriously amiss.

The FDA itself admits that it doesn't feel the need to either establish that medical devices are actually beneficial, or compare them to existing treatments. All it does in most medical device reviews is make sure that each device performs the tasks it says it's supposed to (without checking on whether it has a therapeutic effect) and doesn't offer any obvious dangers to the patient.

Meanwhile, Medicare offers incentives to doctors to use new devices; the intention is to help encourage them to take the time to learn about new devices, but the result is that doctors may sometimes overuse medical device treatments that have not been vetted for their effectiveness. For example, some devices go through trials with as few as 25 patients. While the pharmaceutical approval process may have some flaws, at least it never approves a drug with such a scanty review process.

Knowing all of this, the GAO's report next month on medical device approval is likely to be very interesting reading.

To learn more about this problem:
- read this New York Times piece

Related Articles:
FDA should regulate medical devicemakers' DTC advertising
FDA says CT scans can make medical devices malfunction
FDA to notify doctors of drug, device issues via Internet

Bookmark and Share
Get Your FREE FierceHealthcare Email Newsletter:
Comments (1) | Post a comment

Comments

yada yada yada.

If we don't have a way to bring devices to the forefront, then no one will take the risk-reward to make it happen. Human nature.

The article is biased against mammosite. It has a good 4 year track record with low failure rates.

Additionally PATIENTS CANNOT ENROLL ON THE B39 TRIAL if they are NODE NEGATIVE. It is CLOSED to them.

These are the patients who are best suited - should we not allow them to get an equivalent treatment at 4 years follow up (actually better than standard tangents) ?

I think not..

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

To combat spam, please enter the code in the image.