Implications of I.O.M.

Dechert LLP
Contact

The other day, the Institute of Medicine came out with its long-awaited – and it seems to us, rather short on specifics – report, “Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years,” on the FDA’s §510k “substantial equivalence” clearance process for (some/most) medical devices. Here’s a link to the report on the IOM’s website, where it is available for free, either to read or download. We’re not going to try competing with the FDA wonks on this one. If you’re interested in the product development/administrative/policy aspects of what the IOM recommended, we suggest that you go to someplace like the FDA Law Blog.

The IOM’s major recommendation is to ditch the §510k process altogether. We’re not going to discuss whether doing that is, a good idea (because that might make some devices safer) or a bad idea (because that might make a lot more devices more expensive and slower to get to market). We’re product liability lawyers, so we’re interested in what the impact of the recommendations might be on medical device litigation.

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP
Contact
more
less

Dechert LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide