Skip to main content

Two Little Letters -- A World of Difference

Earlier this week, I blogged about the FDA's new Digital Health Center of Excellence, the virtual group responsible for all things regulatory in nature affecting digital health. As a part of their remarks to begin the first of two listening sessions, the FDA provided a list of thirteen areas on which the DHCoE will focus. Included among these were "Software as a Medical Device" and "Software in a Medical Device". I wanted to dive a bit deeper into what appears on the surface to be a small difference but in reality has a mighty impact -- at least it does today. 

Software as a Medical Device 

 In 2013, as a part of their final document titled "Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): Key Definitions" the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) released its definition of "Software as a Medical Device" (SaMD): 

The term “Software as a Medical Device” (SaMD) is defined as software intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device.

According to the IMDRF SaMD can be interfaced with or used in combination with medical devices and includes in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices. SaMD is capable of operating on general purpose (ie., non-medical) platforms and includes mobile apps and the cloud. However, SaMD is not necessary for a hardware medical device to achieve its intended medical purpose, specifically if the software's intended purpose is to drive a hardware medical device the software is not considered SaMD.

Software in a Medical Device

By comparison, the definition of "Software in a Medical Device" (SiMD) is a less granular. IMDRF defines it as software that is embedded in or is a part of a medical device. Health Canada has adopted the IMDRF definition of SaMD but goes on to establish four exceptions to their definition that may help to illuminate what is SiMD versus SaMD. These four categories of software are not considered to be SaMD by Health Canada:

    • Software intended for administrative support of a healthcare facility,
    • Software that enables clinical communication and workflow including patient registration, scheduling visits, voice calling, video calling,
    • Software intended for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle, such as general wellness apps, and
    • Software intended to serve as electronic patient records or tools to allow a patient to access their personal health information.

What does this mean?

It seems as though each week brings a new entry into the deep learning healthcare space. New uses for software, including predicting disease risk or progressions, using AI to detect abnormalities that may otherwise go unnoticed, using machine learning to improve the quality of diagnostic imaging, and providing real-time monitoring of critical vital signs are all recent examples of how innovators have applied software to create solutions to complex healthcare problems.

But regulation of SaMD is still in its infancy. Payers are working to adapt to changes in technology, but are struggling to keep pace with the rapid evolution. The FDA has taken the lead in modernizing its regulatory structure by creating the Digital Health Center of Excellence in an effort to provide innovators with a one-stop entry point to the FDA. The DHCoE also will be able to help developers to understand what data they need to collect in order to best position their products for FDA approval.

Payer acceptance seems to be lagging behind the FDA's efforts. Commercial payers often make digital health tools available to their subscribers and software in the form of electronic health records have become ubiquitous in most modern facilities. Acceptance of SaMD as a part of a benefit plan, and making payment for it to providers still seems to be on the horizon.

Medicare beneficiaries face the added complication of Medicare benefit categories. Medicare, as a defined benefit program, has little leeway to modernize its benefit structure to address technological shifts like SaMD. By law, Medicare is only allowed to make payment for services in defined benefit categories. For instance, Medicare can only pay for physician services and for supplies and equipment provided as a part of those services -- but those requirements do not clearly include SaMD.

Recently CMS did acknowledge that SaMD may be eligible for separate payment in the inpatient setting. CMS recently granted new technology add-on payment status to an AI software that has been shown to reduce the time to treatment and improve clinical outcomes in stroke patients. This acknowledgement by CMS that SaMD may be coverable and warrant payment under the IPPS could indicate the beginning of a shift in the paradigm that stand-alone software cannot be a coverable medical device.

Conclusion:

It isn't enough to create a newer better mousetrap -- especially in the healthcare space. Innovators in this space need to think about how to position their products in the market. The best solution may not always be to target traditional insurance reimbursement. Supporting the value proposition to payers in the commercial space by demonstrating overall system savings may encourage adoption, while demonstrating to policy makers in the federal space that the product is already contemplated in a benefit category may be a better play.

Knowing the audience, their needs and requirements and being able to incorporate those into the overall product strategy is key in this time of rapidly evolving technology.



John Warren is the Owner and Principal Consultant at Gettysburg Healthcare Consulting in Hanover, Pennsylvania. He worked at CMS for 22 years and he directed divisions responsible for rate setting and payment policy development as well as program integrity and medical review. He has consulted with numerous clients in the Medicare space interested in navigating Medicare coverage, coding and reimbursement. Visit http://www.policypros.net for information about GHC and it's services


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

A recent JAMA Viewpoint article discusses how limited-supply agreements between brand name and generic drug makers could impact Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These agreements allow brand manufacturers to maintain some market exclusivity by limiting the supply of generic competitors. The article suggests these deals may increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implements the IRA's price negotiation provisions. From a business perspective, it's understandable why brand manufacturers might find limited-supply agreements preferable to having their drugs subject to Medicare negotiation. Maintaining even partial exclusivity is likely better for revenue than triggering government-dictated price reductions. However, policymakers and patients are increasingly concerned that these deals keep prices high despite generic availability. The use of limited supply agreements could also produce unintended consequences.  Balancing som...

FDA Green Light Inches Genetic Screening Forward

The FDA recently granted authorization for the first multi-gene test for assessing hereditary cancer risk, marking a significant advancement in genetic screening capabilities. Developed by Invitae Corporation, the Invitae Common Hereditary Cancers Panel analyzes variants in 47 genes associated with increased cancer risk. Using next-generation sequencing on DNA from blood samples, the test looks at BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants linked to breast and ovarian cancer, as well as other cancer-related genes.  (image source: Adobe Stock Images) The FDA’s approval provides a regulatory framework giving labs a clearer roadmap for developing similar multi-gene panels. With an authorized model in place, labs can proceed more confidently in navigating FDA submissions. Specifically, the de novo classification created for Invitae’s test allows future lab-developed panels to gain regulatory clearance through the expedited 510(k) pathway by demonstrating substantial equivalence. This streamlined validat...

The Future of Liquid Biopsies: Endless Possibilities for Cancer Testing

Liquid biopsies are poised to disrupt cancer testing as we know it. These novel blood tests analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and other molecules released by cancer cells, providing a non-invasive option for detection, diagnosis, and monitoring. The promise of liquid biopsies has generated tremendous excitement, along with over $1 billion in investments and acquisitions in recent years. But how close are we to realizing their full potential?  A recent review article sounds a note of caution amidst the hype. While liquid biopsies show ability to detect cancer, evidence that they improve patient outcomes is still lacking. Randomized trials with survival endpoints are needed to prove clinical utility. However, this provides the perfect opportunity for innovative diagnostics companies. Rather than dampening enthusiasm, these evidence gaps highlight major growth possibilities if companies can demonstrate real-world value.   We envision liquid biopsies transforming oncology...