Remove 2011 Remove Compliance Remove FDA Remove Governance
article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary | Monthly Update 2023 – January

SQA

” The reason: The existing document of the EU GMP Guideline dates back to 2011 and no longer corresponds to the state of the art in various areas or does not consider increasingly important new technologies for the GMP field, according to the EMA. ” The requirements for providers (e.g.,

article thumbnail

The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone

Health Law Advisor

FDA have called into question the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) scientific review process to approve new drug applications. The Texas District Court ruling had the effect of suspending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. During the past several turbulent weeks for the U.S. While the U.S.

FDA 97
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

FDA Oversight of AI Software Developed by Health Care Providers

Health Law Advisor

But the question is, to what extent do health care providers need to worry about FDA requirements as they use AI? FDA has been regulating machine learning algorithms used in a clinical context for decades. It’s important to understand that FDA regulation isn’t punitive in the sense that it’s only intended to apply to bad people.

FDA 98
article thumbnail

President Biden Signs End-of-Year Legislation Including Telehealth, Medicare & Medicaid, Mental Health, Pandemic Preparedness, and Other Health Care Provisions

C&M Health Law

trillion spending package, which consists of all 12 fiscal year (FY) 2023 appropriations bills and funds the federal government through September 30, 2023, provides additional assistance to Ukraine, and makes numerous health care policy changes. 117-164 ) (the “Act”)—an approximately $1.7

Medicaid 104
article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023) (federal government may unilaterally obtain dismissal of FCA claims, and calling the constitutionality of the FCA’s private enforcement mechanism into question) ( here ); Quishenberry v. Further, the plaintiffs’ arguments were based on scientific standards “not utilized by the FDA,” and thus preempted. Polansky v. 3d 239 (Cal.

FDA 105
article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their compliance with government and/or industry standards (“standards compliance” or “compliance” evidence, for short) in strict liability design defect cases – generally.

article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

470 (1996), was decided – removing express preemption as a defense for manufacturers of §510(k) products So defendants moved on fraud on the FDA under an implied preemption theory and won. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Bartlett , 570 U.S. 472 (2013), implied preemption decisions, cited only by the dissent in Wyeth v. Levine , 555 U.S.

FDA 72