LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/FDA User Fees Rise 4.2% for 2016
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA User Fees Rise 4.2% for 2016

August 12, 2015 1 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA User Fees Rise 4.2% for 2016
Photo creation by RRY Publications, LLC / Logo courtesy of FDA
Secondary

Starting October 1, 2015, your FDA user fees are going up by 4.2%. The FDA expects to collect a total of almost $130 million from industry over the course of fiscal 2016.

A notice by the FDA in the Federal Register on August 3, 2015 announced the fee rates and payment procedures for medical device user fees for fiscal year 2016. The rates will apply from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. The 4.2% increase comes after a 2.9% fee cut in fiscal 2015. Fees climbed 4.2% in fiscal 2014.

For 510(k) clearances, the fee rises from $5, 018 to $5, 228. For premarket applications (PMAs), the fee goes from $250, 895 to $261, 385.

Small Business Break

There is a break for small businesses.

If your business has gross receipts or sales of no more than $100 million for the most recent tax year, you may qualify for reduced small business fees. If your business has gross sales or receipts of no more than $30 million, you may also qualify for a waiver of the fee for your first premarket application or premarket report.

Important Links

To pay the annual establishment fee, firms must access the Device Facility User Fee (DFUF) Web site at: https://userfees.fda.gov/OA_HTML/furls.jsp.

To read the entire Federal Registry Notice, including payment levels and procedures, click here. — WE

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy