Medical Design and Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Supplies and Components Index
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • MedTech Resources
    • Medtech Events in 2025
    • The 2024 Medtech Big 100
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Educational Assets
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Voices
    • Video
  • 2025 Leadership
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
    • 2021 Winners
  • Women in Medtech
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

Minutes From Negotiation Meeting on MDUFA III Reauthorization, August 31, 2011

October 13, 2011 By U.S. Food & Drug Administration

FDA – Industry MDUFA III Reauthorization Meeting

August 31, 2011, 10:00 am – 12:30 pm

FDA White Oak Building 1, Silver Spring, MD

Room 4101-4105

Purpose

To discuss MDUFA III reauthorization.

Participants

FDA
Malcolm Bertoni Office of the Commissioner (OC)
Ashley Boam Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
Kate Cook Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
Christy Foreman CDRH
Bill Hubbard FDA Consultant
Toby Lowe CDRH
Thinh Nguyen CDRH
Tracy Phillips CDRH
Don St. Pierre CDRH
Ruth Watson Office of Legislation (OL)
Nicole Wolanski CDRH
Barbara Zimmerman CDRH
Industry
Susan Alpert Medtronic (representing AdvaMed)
Hans Beinke Siemens (representing MITA)
Brian Connell Medical Imaging Technology Alliance
David Fisher Medical Imaging Technology Alliance
John Ford Abbott Laboratories (representing AdvaMed)
Elisabeth George Phillips (representing (MITA)
Donald Horton Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (representing
ACLA)
Tamima Itani Boston Scientific (representing MDMA)
Mark Leahey Medical Device Manufacturers Association
Joseph Levitt Hogan Lovells US LLP (representing AdvaMed)
John Manthei Latham and Watkins (representing MDMA)
David Mongillo American Clinical Laboratories Association
James Ruger Quest Diagnostics (representing ACLA)
Patricia Shrader Medtronic (representing AdvaMed)
Janet Trunzo Advanced Medical Technology Association

Meeting Start Time: 10:10 am

AdvaMed, MDMA, and MITA jointly offered preliminary feedback on
the counter-proposal presented by the Agency on August 24 th.
Industry stated that they appreciated the Agency’s effort to
put forward proposals that addressed the issued important to
Industry. Industry stated that they were prepared to offer initial
feedback, including counter-proposal language on a subset of
issues, but needed more time for discussions among the associations
and would be prepared with a complete counter-proposal on September
13 th. The Agency acknowledged the challenges for Industry in
formulating a unified response among the associations and their
members.

Industry
* offered counter-proposals in the following areas: Scientific
and Regulatory Review Capacity, Training, Performance Reports, and
Guidance Document Development.

Scientific and Regulatory Review Capacity

Industry’s counter-proposal included the Agency reducing
the ratio of review staff to front line supervisors prior to the
commencement of MDUFA III, rather than using MDUFA III user fee
revenue to accomplish this as the Agency had proposed.
Additionally, Industry proposed using user fee revenue to leverage
external experts rather than hiring additional staff with needed
expertise. Industry proposed that the Agency work with Industry to
benchmark best practices for retaining employees, in contrast to
the Agency’s proposal of developing targeted retention
bonuses to address attrition of review staff.

The Agency expressed concern that Industry’s
recommendation dramatically changed the Agency’s proposal.
The Agency stated that resources are required to change the staff
to supervisor ratio and the Agency does not have has excess
resources to do so. The Agency stated that, for the ratio reduction
to be successful, it has to include hiring additional staff rather
than simply taking review staff and converting them to supervisors,
which would reduce the Agency’s review capacity. The Agency
stated that they believe the program is not currently right-sized
to achieve the necessary performance with the given workload. The
Agency expressed concern that Industry’s counter-proposal did
not address all of the management and staffing issues the Agency
has identified.

Training

Industry’s counter-proposal included the Agency
implementing a Reviewer Certification Program prior to the
commencement of MDUFA III as well as committing to a specific
number of Vendor Days each year, but did not propose using user fee
revenues for either of these initiatives, as the Agency’s
proposal had. Industry proposed applying user fee revenue to
supplement management training and a MDUFA III training program,
both of which the Agency had proposed applying user fee revenue to.
Industry proposed applying user fee revenue to expand the Reviewer
Certification program to become mandatory for all reviewers hired
within the past few years as well as requiring yearly refresher
courses on policies outlined by Industry and other
stakeholders.

The Agency asked questions to clarify Industry’s intent,
and indicated that they would analyze the counter-proposal in more
detail.

Performance Reports

Industry’s counter-proposal requested even more
granularity of data than the Agency’s proposal, while noting
that their requests for reporting may change as negotiations
continue and quantitative goals are agreed upon. Additionally, they
requested detailed reporting on staff training, appeals, guidance
development, and staff time spent on different activities.

The Agency asked questions to clarify Industry’s intent,
and indicated that they would review the counter-proposal in more
detail.

Guidance Document Development

Industry’s counter-proposal suggested that the Agency
reallocate existing resources to focus on guidance development
without adversely affecting the timeliness of review of
MDUFA-related submissions. The Agency expressed concern that the
MDUFA program is intended to provide user fees for increased
performance and it is not intended for Industry to dictate the
reallocation of taxpayer dollars to certain issues. Industry
confirmed that was the intent of the proposal. The Agency indicated
that this counter-proposal could be problematic for those
reasons.

Industry also requested that the Agency maintain a list of
guidance documents, updated on a real-time basis, that do not
reflect current thinking, either in part or as a whole, and would
require an applicant to get additional information from the Agency
prior to submitting a marketing application. Industry also
requested that the Agency publish a list of prioritized guidance
documents that they intend to publish within the year, and that the
Agency publish 90% of the guidance documents on the list.

ACLA Proposal

ACLA proposed language for inclusion in the MDUFA commitment
letter consisting of a proposed statutory amendment. ACLA proposed
exempting laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and the laboratories
that develop and offer these clinical laboratory testing services
from user fees during the period of MDUFA III regardless of whether
the Agency determines to regulate LDTs and the clinical
laboratories that develop them during the MDUFA III time period.
Under ACLA’s proposal, MDUFA III fees would apply to any IVD
test kit or IVD product that is manufactured and commercially
distributed by a laboratory through interstate commerce as
presently regulated and actively enforced under the Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act.  ACLA explained its position is based on the
uncertainty regarding oversight of LDTs during the MDUFA III period
as well as the differences between clinical laboratory services and
currently regulated medical devices (including IVD kits and
products).  ACLA would agree to uniform FDA performance goals
if FDA proceeds to regulate LDTs and clinical laboratories only if
MDUFA III fees do not apply as stated above. ACLA further
reiterated its alternative proposal, which would be to negotiate
differential FDA performance goals for review of LDTs and currently
regulated devices and differential MDUFA fees for laboratories and
LDTs from those applicable to currently regulated devices and
manufacturers.

AdvaMed, MDMA and MITA representatives stated that the ACLA
position did not represent the position of their respective
associations.

Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place September 13, 2011.

Meeting End Time: 12:30 pm

* For purposes of
these minutes only, the term Industry means AdvaMed, MITA, and MDMA
and does not include ACLA unless specifically noted.

SOURCE

Related Articles Read More >

A photo of Capstan Medical's mitral valve implant, which uses nitinol.
Capstan Medical’s R&D head discusses the heart valve and robotics startup’s tech, engineering challenges and solutions, advice for others in medtech and how to join his team
An illustration of a neurosurgeon using a robotic endoscope to remove a brain tumor.
MDO Nitinol Innovation Special Report
A photo of Highridge Medical CEO Rebecca Whitney.
Highridge Medical is betting on this spine tech
A photo of the miniature Auxilium Biotechnologies implants made on the International Space Station.
Implants 3D-printed in space could enable nerve regeneration
“mdo
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest medical device business news, application and technology trends.

DeviceTalks Weekly

See More >

MDO Digital Edition

Digital Edition

Subscribe to Medical Design & Outsourcing. Bookmark, share and interact with the leading medical design engineering magazine today.

MEDTECH 100 INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
DeviceTalks

DeviceTalks is a conversation among medical technology leaders. It's events, podcasts, webinars and one-on-one exchanges of ideas & insights.

DeviceTalks

New MedTech Resource

Medical Tubing

MassDevice

Mass Device

The Medical Device Business Journal. MassDevice is the leading medical device news business journal telling the stories of the devices that save lives.

Visit Website
MDO ad
Medical Design and Outsourcing
  • MassDevice
  • DeviceTalks
  • MedTech100 Index
  • Medical Tubing + Extrusion
  • Medical Design Sourcing
  • Drug Delivery Business News
  • Drug Discovery & Development
  • Pharmaceutical Processing World
  • R&D World
  • About Us/Contact
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to Print Magazine
  • Subscribe to our E-Newsletter
  • Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
  • Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

Copyright © 2025 WTWH Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media LLC. Site Map | Privacy Policy | RSS

Search Medical Design & Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Supplies and Components Index
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • MedTech Resources
    • Medtech Events in 2025
    • The 2024 Medtech Big 100
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Educational Assets
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Voices
    • Video
  • 2025 Leadership
    • 2024 Winners
    • 2023 Winners
    • 2022 Winners
    • 2021 Winners
  • Women in Medtech
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe