books

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Alexander EgilmanAviva Wang, and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of August. The selections feature topics ranging from an overview on the evolution of medical device regulation in the United States, to an analysis of the impact of the disclosure of expanded access policies mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act, to an evaluation of how litigation has impacted the success of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

illustration of person tracking his health condition with smart bracelet, mobile application and cloud services.

Should We Regulate Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps?

By Sara Gerke and Chloe Reichel

According to one estimate, over 318,000 health apps are available in app stores, and over 200 health apps are added each day. Of these, only a fraction are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); those classified as “medical devices,” which typically pose a moderate to high risk to user safety.

In this final installment of our In Focus Series on Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps, we asked our respondents to reflect on this largely unregulated space in health tech.

Specifically, we asked: How can/should regulators deal with the assessment of health apps? For apps not currently regulated by the FDA, should they undergo any kind of review, such as whether they are helpful for consumers?

Read their answers below, and explore the following links for their responses to other questions in the series.

Read More

Close up of a computer screen displaying code

Mitigating Bias in Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps

By Sara Gerke and Chloe Reichel

Recently, Google announced a new direct-to-consumer (DTC) health app powered by artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin conditions.

The company met criticism for the app, because the AI was primarily trained on images from people with darker white skin, light brown skin, and fair skin. This means the app may end up over-or under-diagnosing conditions for people with darker skin tones.

This prompts the questions: How can we mitigate biases in AI-based health care? And how can we ensure that AI improves health care, rather than augmenting existing health disparities?

That’s what we asked of our respondents to our In Focus Series on Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps. Read their answers below, and check out their responses to the other questions in the series.

Read More

Hand holding smartphone with colorful app icons concept.

Who Owns the Data Collected by Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps?

By Sara Gerke and Chloe Reichel

Who owns the data that are collected via direct-to-consumer (DTC) health apps? Who should own that data?

We asked our respondents to answer these questions in the third installment of our In Focus Series on Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps. Learn about the respondents and their views on data privacy concerns in the first installment of this series, and read their thoughts on consumer access to DTC health app data in the second installment.

Read More

Illustration of multicolored profiles. An overlay of strings of ones and zeroes is visible

Should Users Have Access to Data Collected by Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps?

By Sara Gerke and Chloe Reichel

Should consumers have access to the data (including the raw data) that are collected via direct-to-consumer (DTC) health apps? What real-world challenges might access to this data introduce, and how might they be addressed?

In this second installment of our In Focus Series on Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps, that’s what we asked our respondents. Learn about the respondents and their views on data privacy concerns in the first installment of this series. Read on for their thoughts on whether and how consumers should gain access to the data that direct-to-consumer health apps collect.

Read More

hands hold phone with app heart and activity on screen over table in office

Perspectives on Data Privacy for Direct-to-Consumer Health Apps

By Sara Gerke and Chloe Reichel

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) health apps, such as apps that manage our diet, fitness, and sleep, are becoming ubiquitous in our digital world.

These apps provide a window into some of the key issues in the world of digital health — including data privacy, data access, data ownership, bias, and the regulation of health technology.

To better understand these issues, and ways forward, we contacted key stakeholders representing a range of perspectives in the field of digital health for their brief answers to five questions about DTC health apps.

Read More

gavel.

Appeals Court Overturns FDA’s Partial Ban on Shock Devices: Analysis of Ruling

By David Orentlicher

In its regulation of medical devices, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may ban devices that pose “an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.” But earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided that the FDA may not issue a partial ban of a medical device.

The case, Judge Rotenberg Educational Center v. FDA, addressed the use of electrical stimulation devices to treat self-injurious or aggressive behavior, as in patients with serious intellectual or developmental disabilities.

In March 2020, the FDA attempted to prohibit this use of electrical stimulation (or electrical shock) because of the risks it poses to patients. As the FDA observed, persons with self-injurious or aggressive behavior may have “difficulty communicating pain and other harms caused by” electrical stimulation, and consent to the use of electrical stimulation is typically made by a third party, limiting the patient’s control over use of the device.

In other settings, including smoking cessation treatment, or treatment of substance use disorder, the FDA permits the practice. Hence the partial, rather than total, ban of electrical stimulation devices.

But by a 2-1 vote, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center court held that prohibiting electrical stimulation in some settings, but not others, runs afoul of a “practice of medicine” statutory provision. This provision precludes the FDA from limiting or interfering with a health care practitioner’s authority “to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease.” In the majority’s view, once the FDA permits use of a medical device, it must defer to the states for regulation of decisions regarding which patients are appropriate candidates for the device.

Read More

A male pharmacist is examining a drug from a pharmacy inventory.

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Alexander Egilman, and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of June. The selections feature topics ranging from an analysis of the characteristics of clinical studies supporting supplemental indications approved between 2017 and 2019, to an evaluation of the effect of California’s prescription drug coupon ban on generic drug use, to a comparison of how various international regulatory bodies approach postmarket safety communication. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

image of the US Supreme Court

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Again Survives Supreme Court Review

By Gregory Curfman

For the generic drug and biosimilar industries, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. comes as a relief.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts allowed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to survive and to continue to provide an alternative route for generic drugs and biosimilars to gain early market entry.

Patients, who may rely heavily on these less costly alternatives for their prescription drugs, will also benefit significantly from the Court’s decision in this case.

Read More

Home innovation technology concept illustration.

Call for Abstracts — 2022 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Diagnosing in the Home

Contribute to the 2022 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference and subsequent book project!

Through October 14, 2021, the Petrie-Flom Center is accepting abstracts for its annual conference. The 2022 annual conference will focus on ethical, legal, and regulatory challenges and opportunities around at home digital health technology.

This conference will engage with the vision for a 21st century health care system that embraces the potential of at home digital products to support diagnoses, improve care, encourage caregivers, maximize pandemic resilience, and allow individuals to stay within the home when preferable. The goals of this conference and subsequent book project are to consider the ethical, sociological, regulatory, and legal challenges and opportunities presented by the implementation of digital products that support clinical diagnosis and/or treatment in patients’ homes over the next decade.

Interested in submitting an abstract, but want to know more about what we’re looking for? Read through the following frequently asked questions.

Read More