42 CFR 405.201 - Scope of subpart and definitions

Cite as42 CFR 405.201
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
48 practice notes
  • Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, No. 3:99CV2546 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 31, 2001
    ...depending on whether initial questions as to the device's safety and effectiveness have been resolved. 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.201(b); 405.203. The intermediaries may approve coverage for any non-experimental/investigational IDE device in Category B if all other coverage requirements have been met......
  • Harris v. Olszewski, No. 04-2479.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 21, 2006
    ...a definition of "medical devices" that incorporates the definition of "devices" found in the FDCA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(m)(2); 42 C.F.R. § 405.201(b). Having failed to enact a definition of "medical devices" that precludes the phrase from covering "incontinence products," having used a phr......
  • U.S. v. Medtronic Inc., Civil Action No. H–08–3408.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • September 30, 2010
    ...devices as to which the initial questions about the devices' safety and effectiveness had been resolved. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.201(b), 405.203, 405.211(b). In contrast to the total exclusion from coverage of such devices under the Manual provision, the new regulations classified such devices......
  • Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt, Docket No. 05-1224-CV-LEAD.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 16, 2006
    ...that constituted refinements or replications of technologies that had already been demonstrated as being safe and effective.3 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.201(b), 405.211(b). The FDA classified all other devices in Category A (experimental/investigational), which continued to be excluded from Medicare ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Almy v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. RDB–08–1245.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 3, 2010
    ...Instead, FDA approval is considered a necessary, but not sufficient, factor for purposes of determining Medicare coverage. See 42 C.F.R. § 405.201(a)(1) ( “CMS uses the FDA categorization of a device as a factor in making Medicare coverage determinations.”); see also 68 Fed. Reg. 55634, 556......
  • United States ex rel. Modglin v. Djo Global Inc., Case No. CV 12–07152 MMM (JCGx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • September 2, 2014
    ...submit premarket approval (“PMA”) applications to the FDA and obtain premarketing clearance before offering the devices for sale.16 42 C.F.R. § 405.201(b). Class III devices that do not have PMA approval cannot be marketed and are considered “adulterated.” 21 U.S.C. § 351(f)(1)(B) (“A ... d......
  • Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, 3:99CV2546 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 31, 2001
    ...depending on whether initial questions as to the device's safety and effectiveness have been resolved. 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.201(b); 405.203. The intermediaries may approve coverage for any non-experimental/investigational IDE device in Category B if all other coverage requirements have been met......
  • United States ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Global Inc., Case No. CV 12–07152 MMM (JCGx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • May 8, 2015
    ...must submit premarket approval ("PMA") applications to the FDA and obtain premarket clearance before offering the devices for sale.23 42 C.F.R. § 405.201(b). Class III devices that do not have PMA approval cannot be marketed and are considered "adulterated." 21 U.S.C. § 351(f)(1)(B) ("A .........
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • Updated FDA Guidance Helps Device Study Sponsors Better Anticipate Coverage For Investigational Devices
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 22, 2017
    ...10, 2013 Final Rule, published with FDA's concurrence, that centralized IDE review.6 Under the 2013 Final Rule, as codified at 42 C.F.R. 405.201(b): "Category A (Experimental) device refers to a device for which 'absolute risk' of the device type has not been established (that is, initial q......
  • CMS Proposes to Expand the Scope of Medicare Coverage Determinations
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • September 8, 2020
    ...Integrity Manual, § 13.5.4, available at: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/pim83c13.pdf. [4] 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.201 – [5] 21 U.S.C. § 360e-3(b). [6] This includes premarket approval, Section 510(k) designated devices, and De Novo classification. [7] If, ......
  • CMS Updates Policies and Procedures for National Coverage Determinations and Announces a New Expedited Process for Removing Certain Older NCDs
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 13, 2013
    ...can be safe and effective because, for example, other manufacturers have obtained FDA approval or clearance for that device type. 42 C.F.R. § 405.201(b). 5 In rare situations, CMS may issue a proposed decision concurrently with the opening of an NCD. This generally occurs when CMS determine......
  • The Undefined, Definition of “Medical Necessity”
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • November 3, 2020
    ...determinations by commercial insurers as a factor in making Medicare coverage determinations. The Proposed Definition (To be Codified in 42 CFR 405.201) “We are proposing to codify the longstanding Program Integrity Manual definition of “reasonable and necessary” into our regulations at 42 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT