Health IT Regulators Face Challenges as Medical Apps Proliferate

None

An iHealth rep offers a man a blood pressure checkup from a blood pressure monitoring system for iPod touch, iPhone and iPad during a demonstration of various health-related products on the opening day of the International Consumer Electronics Show on January 10, 2012 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The show kicked off with a dazzling array of high-tech gadgetry including ultra-thin laptops, snazzy smartphones, iPad rivals and flat-screen and 3D TVs with a record 3,100 companies from around the world displaying their goods over a space equivalent to more than 35 football fields in the cavernous Las Vegas Convention Center for the four-day event.
National Journal
Darius Tahir
See more stories about...
Darius Tahir
Oct. 17, 2013, 6:39 a.m.

The reg­u­la­tion of health IT was al­ways bound to un­spool slowly, giv­en the in­volve­ment of mul­tiple agen­cies with over­lap­ping jur­is­dic­tion and a rap­idly chan­ging and im­port­ant in­dustry. The first piece of fi­nal­ized health IT reg­u­la­tion, which laid out rules for mo­bile ap­plic­a­tions, was re­leased Sept. 23 fol­low­ing two years of de­bate. The gov­ern­ment is re­quired to out­line its plans for the rest of the sec­tor by Janu­ary.

Health IT has the po­ten­tial to lower costs and im­prove pro­ductiv­ity in the health care sec­tor, which has re­cently stag­nated. New de­vel­op­ments in health IT could make doc­tors’ tasks more ef­fi­cient or re­place them en­tirely, a shift that would square with Obama­care’s in­cent­ives for pro­viders to de­liv­er qual­ity care at a lower cost.

Three agen­cies are charged with reg­u­lat­ing the sec­tor: the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion, which will ap­prove some apps and soft­ware and over­see the use of IT in clin­ic­al prac­tice; the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion, which man­ages wire­less spec­trum; and the Of­fice of the Na­tion­al Co­ordin­at­or for Health In­form­a­tion Tech­no­logy, which over­sees elec­tron­ic med­ic­al re­cords. The agen­cies have in­dic­ated they will take a flex­ible ap­proach to health IT reg­u­la­tion in the hopes of en­cour­aging in­nov­a­tion.

The FDA said on Sept. 23 that it will largely waive en­force­ment for apps with non-dan­ger­ous func­tions: those that trans­mit in­form­a­tion from a pa­tient’s elec­tron­ic health re­cord; help man­age a health con­di­tion without of­fer­ing pa­tient-spe­cif­ic ad­vice, such as of­fer­ing gen­er­al diet tips for a dia­bet­ic; or provide simple cal­cu­la­tions, like body-mass in­dex.

The agency will be more strict with apps that con­trol or mim­ic reg­u­lated med­ic­al devices, such as an app that can show elec­tro­car­di­o­grams, and apps that provide pa­tient-spe­cif­ic ana­lyses or dia­gnoses — for ex­ample, an app that takes pic­tures of skin moles and de­term­ines wheth­er they are likely be­nign or ma­lig­nant. The FDA may re­quire pre­market clear­ance or ap­prov­al for these.

The reg­u­la­tions is­sued in Septem­ber left the some ques­tions un­answered; the agency still hasn’t de­cided how to reg­u­late soft­ware that helps doc­tors make treat­ment choices. And the de­cisions it has made don’t cov­er the en­tire sec­tor, which also in­cludes soft­ware that con­trols med­ic­al devices or elec­tron­ic health re­cords. That’s where the oth­er agen­cies come in.

A 2011 law, the FDA Safety and In­nov­a­tion Act, man­dated that the FDA, FCC, and ONC de­liv­er a re­port to Con­gress by Janu­ary 2014 out­lining their frame­work for reg­u­lat­ing health IT. The agen­cies con­vened a work group com­prised of ex­perts and in­dustry rep­res­ent­at­ives, which de­livered a re­port in Septem­ber re­com­mend­ing how the agen­cies should con­struct their fi­nal re­port (bur­eau­cracy at its finest).

The work group’s re­com­mend­a­tions echo the FDA’s mo­bile med­ic­al app guid­ance. Mem­bers think the agen­cies should ex­er­cise light over­sight over simple soft­ware and more closely mon­it­or com­plic­ated, risky tech­no­logy, the soft­ware that sub­sti­tutes its judg­ment for hu­mans’ in med­ic­al situ­ations.

They have a lot of snake oil to look out for. A Janu­ary study in the journ­al JAMA Der­ma­to­logy ex­amined four apps pur­port­ing to dia­gnose skin can­cer based on a pic­ture of a mole. The res­ults were poor; the odds of a pos­it­ive dia­gnos­is be­ing cor­rect ranged from 6.8 per­cent to 98.1 per­cent; neg­at­ive dia­gnoses sim­il­arly var­ied in ac­cur­acy. The au­thors blamed a “lack of reg­u­lat­ory over­sight” for the wide range in qual­ity.

Earli­er this year, FDA cracked down on the mo­bile app uChek, which uses an al­gorithm and the iPhone’s cam­era to per­form ur­inalys­is. The app’s makers lacked the agency’s clear­ance to mar­ket those cap­ab­il­it­ies, and the tech­nic­al spe­cific­a­tions on their web­site re­vealed that the com­pany’s data fell short of typ­ic­al FDA stand­ards. FDA sent them a let­ter re­quest­ing it come in­to com­pli­ance.

Sim­il­ar cases are likely to pro­lif­er­ate now that FDA has an­nounced its ap­proach to reg­u­lat­ing this mar­ket. The agency said in Septem­ber that it will al­low of­fend­ers “reas­on­able time” to com­ply be­fore fa­cing the con­sequences. The agency de­clined to an­swer in a Sept. 26 Twit­ter chat ex­actly how it would con­duct en­force­ment against mo­bile apps.

The Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion is ex­pec­ted to join the FDA in en­for­cing rules for mo­bile apps and health IT gen­er­ally. The FTC has cracked down on false mar­ket­ing claims by mo­bile med­ic­al apps in the past; in 2011, the agency pur­sued ac­tion against sev­er­al “acne cure” apps that led to set­tle­ments. Of­fi­cials from the agency have sug­ges­ted it may re­quire ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als to back up cer­tain med­ic­al claims.

FDA’s guid­ance on mo­bile med­ic­al apps spe­cific­ally ex­empts phys­i­cians who tweak apps for their own use from man­u­fac­turer re­quire­ments, and that sep­ar­a­tion of de­veloper and prac­ti­tion­er is con­sist­ent with the work group’s re­com­mend­a­tions for health IT. But that un­der­scores part of the dif­fi­culty with over­see­ing the sec­tor: Small, loc­al changes may res­ult in er­rors — or mis­use — that have noth­ing to do with the de­veloper.

That’s where loc­al reg­u­lat­ors, who are closer to the ac­tion, are likely to come in and help de­term­ine where something went wrong. Health IT of­ten in­volves chained-to­geth­er func­tions; a piece of soft­ware might con­trol a med­ic­al device, which feeds data in­to an elec­tron­ic health re­cord, which is mon­itored by an­oth­er med­ic­al device’s soft­ware, which could af­fect how a pa­tient is treated. It isn’t known how many er­rors or ad­verse events are at­trib­ut­able to health IT for the same reas­on, the agen­cies’ work group said.

It’s something that needs to change if health IT is to work well. Reg­u­lat­ors, even as they re­cog­nize the po­ten­tial in the sec­tor’s fu­ture, will have to pay close at­ten­tion to the pit­falls of the present.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×