Trade shows present potential promotional pitfalls
Device Regulation Alert: Safety, Compliance and Reimbursement News, September 22, 2008
Clinical or medical personnel should be on hand at trade shows to provide information about unapproved uses of approved devices or investigational devices, according to William Kitchens, JD, a partner at Arnall, Golden, Gregory LLP.
Kitchens, who spoke during the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society’s annual conference in Boston, held September 14-17, says companies should separate information about approved devices and those devices or uses still awaiting FDA approval. They should also be the ones answering any unsolicited questions about those uses.
Manufacturers need to be especially careful about written distribution and oral communication of information at trade shows because exhibits are subject to FDA advertising and promotional regulations. Kitchens says companies can display information about devices or uses pending approval, but must state the device or the use is not FDA-approved.
FDA restrictions on off-label information are not intended to restrict scientific exchange, Kitchens says, but manufacturers must be careful not to editorialize, exaggerate, or commercialize information about investigational devices or unapproved uses. He recommends clinical or medical personnel, not salespeople, handle all unsolicited requests for off-label information.
Medical device manufacturers should establish procedures to review all promotional material prior to distribution, regardless of the content or type of promotion, Kitchens says. The easiest way to stay out of trouble, Kitchens says, is to stick to the FDA approved label. He also recommends training employees so “everyone is on the same page.”
“You don’t want renegade salespeople out there getting the company into trouble,” Kitchens says.
Comments
0 comments on “Trade shows present potential promotional pitfalls ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
