2019 was a robust year for the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory agenda. The agency continued to implement initiatives and mandates required by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), and navigated leadership and staffing changes at many levels. Most notably, Commissioner Scott Gottlieb resigned on April 5. Norman Sharpless and Brett Giroir
In 2016, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), which contained provisions to help accelerate medical product innovation while reducing regulatory burden, as well as to increase efforts for critical research and increase the involvement of patients and their perspectives in research and the product development process. The Cures Act specifically provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to modernize product development and review, and create greater efficiencies and predictability in product development and review. In June 2018, in response to this congressional mandate and corresponding new authorities, as well as reauthorizations of FDA’s user fee agreements, FDA made a series of announcements for a proposal to modernize new drug development.
Highlights of FDA’s initial proposal included:
- Focusing on recruiting talent across disciplines;
- Building multidisciplinary teams for more efficient collaboration;
- Prioritizing operational excellence through a single and consistent review process;
- Improving knowledge management through enhancements to information technology and honed expertise within review divisions;
- Emphasizing safety and risk-benefit analysis before and after approval; and
- Incorporating the patient voice into product development.
As articulated by former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, “[a] principal aim of these proposed changes is to elevate the role of . . . scientists and medical officers to take on even more thought leadership in their fields.” The agency contemplates implementing organizational and structural changes that make drug review divisions more therapeutically-focused to promote efficient review and transparency in – as well as patient and stakeholder access to – the review process. According to the agency, these and other changes that are part of the Cures Act will result in a 20 percent improvement in efficiency.
It has now been one month since the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) sent its proposed information blocking rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for required review.
We expect OMB to approve the much-anticipated proposed rule and ONC to release it soon with the usual opportunity for public comment. While we wait, there are some things that health information technology developers, health information exchanges, health information networks and health care providers who may be subject to the information blocking prohibition and enforcement actions can do to prepare for the upcoming comment period. But before we get to comments, let’s remind ourselves about how we got to this point.
By way of background, Congress asked ONC to produce a report describing the extent of information blocking and a strategy to address it. ONC submitted that report to Congress in 2015 (the 2015 Report) noting, among other things, enforcement authority gaps and indicating that successful information blocking prevention strategies would likely require congressional intervention. In the 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in 2016, Congress granted the HHS Office of Inspector General investigative and enforcement authorities for prohibited information blocking conduct. The Cures Act defined information blocking as a practice that “except as required by law or specified by the Secretary…, is likely to interfere with, prevent, or materially discourage access, exchange, or use of electronic health information [(EHI)].” As part of the law, Congress tasked the Secretary of HHS with issuing rules that identify “reasonable and necessary activities” that will not be considered prohibited information blocking. This is one purpose of ONC’s proposed rule.
At this point, we do not know precisely what kinds of activities ONC will propose to permit by carving them out of the broad information blocking prohibition. However, from the Cures Act we do know the types of practices Congress believed “may” be information blocking, namely:
- restricting authorized access, exchange and use of EHI for treatment and other permitted purposes, and
- implementing technology in ways that are:
- nonstandard and likely to substantially increase the burden or complexity of access, exchange and use of EHI;
- likely to impede EHI with respect to exporting complete information sets and in transitioning between health IT systems; or
- likely to lead to fraud, waste and abuse, or impede innovation and advancements in health information access, exchange or use.
These track closely to the types of practices ONC identified as raising information blocking concerns in the 2015 Report, which also provided a few illustrative examples, including:…