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 510(k) Clearances Fees to Double in 2018
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA 510(k) Clearances Fees to Double in 2018

September 1, 2017 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA 510(k) Clearances Fees to Double in 2018
Source: Wikimedia Commons, Scott5114, and RRY Publications, LLC
Secondary

It’s going to cost device companies more than double what they paid for 510(k) Clearances in 2018 than in 2017.

In August, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize the FDA’s user fees agreement with medical device manufacturers for another five years. The President promptly signed the bill which called for an overall user fee increase of more than $320 million from the previous year. Now we’ve learned how those fees will be spread out for approvals, clearances and updates.

According to the FDA’s website, 510(k) clearance fees will rise from $4,690 in 2017 to $10,566 in 2018. For PMAs (premarket approval) applications, a product development protocol (PDP) or a biologics license application (BLA), the fees will rise from $234,495 in 2017 to $310,764 in 2018.

There is also a new fee, that did not exist in prior years for de novo classification requests, which will run companies $93,017.

" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/ryortho.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FDA510K_Table_WEB.jpg?fit=256%2C108&ssl=1" src="https://i0.wp.com/ryortho.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/FDA510K_Table_WEB.jpg?resize=256%2C108&ssl=1" alt="" width="256" height="108">
FDA User Fees / Source: FDA

The fees are less for small businesses. On August 28, 2017, the FDA issued a 39-page guidance for device companies in determining how to qualify and be certified as a small business. “This is defined as having gross receipts or sales of no more than $100 million for the most recent tax year,” the guidance says.

In return for the higher cost, industry is being promised faster review times. For 510(k) products, the total time goal is currently 124 days. The new agreement lowers that goal by 13% to 108 days by the fifth year. For PMA products, the total time to decision goal is currently 385 days. The new agreement lowers that goal by 25% to 290 days by the fifth year.

As we reported back in August, the device industry’s trade association, AdvaMed was happy. “Passage of this important legislation will enable FDA to continue its critical mission of ensuring safe and effective medical devices and diagnostics remain available to patients everywhere,” stated a company press release.

Advertisement

“The robust FDA performance goals, process improvements, increased accountability and additional resources provided for under the new user fee agreement represent a victory for the agency, innovation and, most importantly, patients. The bill also includes pro-innovation provisions to improve the FDA inspections process and streamline device accessory classification.”

Speaking in support of the legislation at a congressional hearing, AdvaMed President and CEO Scott Whitaker said the new agreement would lead to timelier patient access to devices.

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