You are looking for

If there is one thing that the medical devices industry agrees on it is that the new proposals for medical devices and IVD regulations are welcome and necessary evolution of regulation. What the industry also agrees on is that although it generally supports the new proposals, it is not certain at all that the proposed scrutiny procedure will achieve the intended goals.

The European Commission’s proposal to revise the medical device legal framework is a welcome step towards strengthening and improving the EU regulatory system. Recognised globally as being the fastest in providing life-saving technologies to patients without compromising safety, this thorough overhaul of the regulatory system seems to be mostly in line with Europe and President Barroso’s stated policy of ‘Smart Regulation’: ensuring the quality and relevance of EU legislation, which should benefit people and businesses.

Last month I wrote a blog on pre-market authorisation (and why this approach does not work for devices!) and thought it would be a good idea to just lay out how the European approval process for medical devices actually works. It might be a bit ‘dry’ but at least after reading this post you’ll understand the mechanics of the European system.

Lately I hear and read a lot of people asking for a Pre-Market Authorisation process for medical technology in Europe, or PMA process as it’s known, similar to the one in the US. Even the European Parliament voted (narrowly) for a resolution in which they call for a PMA approach. And that made me think, hold on a second, don’t we already have an approval system in Europe for high risk products?

There has been so much media and political focus on the medical device legislation in Europe in the first four months of 2012 that one could be forgiven for losing track of what’s exactly going on and where we are exactly in the process.

January 2012 was a fruitful month for EU guidance on medical devices and produced among other MEDDEVs the MEDDEV 2.1/6 Qualification and Classification of stand alone software. This MEDDEV contains the latest thinking on how stand alone software, i.e. software that does not necessarily run on a medical device (but may have medical device functionality), qualifies as medical device under the three medical devices directives. If you are interested in a lot more background about the MEDDEV than I can provide in this blogpost (and especially nice flowcharts, which make life more simple for everyone), you can find it here.

Centralised procurement of medical technologies is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in the EU, and one that all stakeholders in this field, whether for or against it, have strong opinions on. Purchasers have embraced centralised procurement as a means to drive down costs. Suppliers fiercely oppose it as it would limit market opportunities and slow down adoption of innovations. Some experts believe that centralised procurement might actually have a negative effect on quality of care in the long run, as it focuses too much on short term cash savings.

Having read Commissioner Dalli’s analysis of the PIP case and the Commission’s plans for strengthening the medical devices directives, it becomes clear that the medical technology industry and the Commissioner share the same view on safety and innovation.

Since the French authorities made their announcement just prior to Christmas, the PIP case has generated a large amount of press and political attention. Quite rightly, the main focus is on the women affected and on governments providing the right health advice and appropriate follow-up. As I am writing this posting a couple of days after we released our first statement, I understand that the European Commission is to seek an independent scientific opinion on the human health risks of silicone breast implants.