As cyberattacks on U.S. hospitals continue to increase with health care’s growing reliance on technology, a new report from the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) has flagged Medicare’s requirements for being silent on the cybersecurity of networked medical devices. The OIG’s study found hospitals are not required to identify networked device cybersecurity in their emergency preparedness risk assessments, and as a result, they don’t include this information “very often.”

The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have reintroduced the Verifying Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, a bill that would authorize the FDA to regulate lab-developed tests (LDT). The question of the agency’s statutory authority to regulate LDTs is part of a long-running debate, but the immediate question is whether Congress will see fit to deal with the question this year rather than wait until 2022, when the next device user fee will require legislative authorization.

The U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee passed an appropriations bill for the FDA that would add $257 million to the agency’s budget authority for fiscal year 2022, an increase of 8% over the currently enacted level. The Alliance for a Stronger FDA said in a June 25 statement that it will work to ensure the Senate comes up with similar numbers, characterizing the push to fully fund the agency as “a multi-year marathon, not a sprint.”

Pattern Computer Inc.'s test for SARS-CoV-2 infection gives new meaning to rapid results. Taking 15 seconds from start to result, the test offers balanced accuracy of better than 96%, according to the company. The test is also not dependent on timing, unlike current antibody tests, and takes less time than point-of-care PCR tests. Its light-based system creates patterns based on a saliva sample, which is then matched against a previously developed model.

The FDA’s device center recently updated its guidance for testing and labeling of devices for compatibility with magnetic resonance (MR) fields. Some items, such as orthopedic plates and screws, might not have been evaluated for compatibility up to now. The FDA’s Sunder Rajan said that existing 510(k) and PMA devices are grandfathered in under the legacy policy, but that all implants will have to be evaluated for MRI compatibility going forward, even devices not previously subject to testing.

There is “a wide gap” in the availability of pediatric medical devices that suggest most of these were developed for adolescents, according to a new study on FDA premarket approval applications (PMAs). The findings stem from an evaluation of 297 PMA documents for 149 high-risk devices, 68% of which include pediatric age indications. Pediatric medical devices have lagged behind their adult counterparts in terms of availability, options and innovation. The new findings add to the current relatively limited body of research considering the ample medical device space but are consistent with previous findings that most devices indicated for children are limited to those over 18 years of age.

The follow-up to the U.S. 21st Century Cures Act, dubbed Cures 2.0, encodes several anticipated features such as a Medicare coverage mechanism for breakthrough devices and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Less expected was a provision for the use of real-world evidence in evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biologics after FDA approval, a provision that could prove useful in post-approval evaluations of products such as Biogen’s Aduhelm.

The FDA and industry are deep into the negotiations over the next device user fee, with the usual array of concerns such as premarket program performance and the volume of user fees. Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), has once again given voice to a perceived need for a significant boost in user fee volumes in an interview with a major trade association, suggesting that device makers can expect a significant uptick in fees for PMAs and 510(k)s in the years ahead.

In a split decision delivered June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the dilemma created by the constitutional non-reviewability of decisions rendered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Supreme Court’s solution is to make those PTAB decisions reviewable by the director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), although the PTO director’s discretion regarding which PTAB cases should be reviewed may itself prove highly controversial in the months and years to come.