FDA Regulatory

The July 2025 edition of FDA in Flux highlights five significant developments shaping the regulatory landscape for medical, life sciences, and consumer product sectors.

The obvious result of the legal shootout between the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and clinical laboratory trade associations, the American Clinical Laboratory Association and the Association for Molecular Pathology, in the Eastern District of Texas to determine whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permits the agency to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs) is a complete victory for clinical laboratories. The U.S. district judge’s decision, issued on March 31, 2025, vacated the May 2024 final rule through which FDA sought to specify that LDTs are agency-regulated in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) and to describe a plan for phasing-in enforcement of existing medical device regulations for such products over four years (see our previous posts on the LDT final rule here and here). In adopting the plaintiffs’ arguments wholesale, however, the judge created some incongruities in the relevant regulatory frameworks, as well as several quandaries for FDA and the clinical laboratory industry going forward. These inconsistencies could have greater consequences down the road if the Trump administration decides not to appeal the ruling.

We have written at length about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) actions to promulgate regulations specifying the agency’s authority to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices and to phase out the agency’s historical approach of enforcement discretion towards such tests (see here, here, here, and here). However, one infrequently considered regulatory compliance issue for LDTs is their reliance on separate specimen collection devices or convenience kits. All LDTs require the use of some form of biological specimen, such as blood or saliva, which may be collected by health care professionals in a clinical setting or by consumers in their homes before being submitted to a laboratory for testing. 

Now that the final rule on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) has been available for over a month and the stages of the enforcement discretion phaseout process and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) newly proposed policies for continuing limited enforcement discretion for certain types of LDTs have been thoroughly described and dissected (including by us in our previous post), it’s high time to dig into FDA’s perspectives on the comments it received on the proposed rule. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its final rule on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) in the Federal Register on May 6, marking a watershed moment in the agency’s arduous decade-plus-long journey toward winding down its historical enforcement discretion posture for LDTs. But FDA’s crusade is far from over. It will have much to do to implement the four-year phase-out period described in the final rule and those efforts may be delayed by litigation seeking to enjoin implementation of the rule altogether. While we wait for the litigation shoe to drop, let’s take a look at what the final rule says and the changes FDA made in these highly significant policy decisions since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on October 3, 2023 (see our previous posts on the NPRM here and here).

In vitro diagnostics, or IVDs, have a somewhat unique position among the gamut of products that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees and regulates on behalf of the U.S. public. IVDs are classified as medical devices and include “reagents, instruments, and systems intended for use in diagnosis, including determining the state of health, through the collection, preparation, and examination of specimens taken from the human body.” Unlike human drug and non-IVD device products, which generally must be authorized for a specific medical use prior to commercialization, IVD products may be sold for certain scientific research studies without FDA authorization, but such IVD products may not be sold for clinical diagnostic use. 

In this episode of Health Law Diagnosed, host Bridgette Keller is joined by Mintz Health Law attorneys Joanne Hawana and Benjamin Zegarelli to discuss the FDA’s long-awaited proposed rules that actively regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs).

The American public knows that 2024 is a critical election year, with the next race for the presidency in November expected to be another face-off between President Biden and former President Trump. What the majority may not know quite as well, however, is how many important regulatory programs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tasked itself with completing sometime this year. Given the centrality of much of FDA’s work to the average American consumer and all users of health care services, not to mention the various business stakeholders whose operations can be shaped in part by policy decisions executed by the agency, this blog post will preview upcoming milestones that FDA is expected to meet in 2024.

In 2023, the FDA navigated challenges while achieving significant public health milestones. Member Joanne Hawana and Of Counsel Benjamin Zegarelli highlight key takeaways from the year, addressing multifaceted issues such as CBD regulation, the overhaul of in vitro clinical tests, and the management of manufacturing failures. These pivotal topics underscore the FDA’s proactive approach to evolving healthcare regulations and technological advancements. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a proposed rule that would seek to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This rule could reshape the landscape of LDTs and, as expected, has generated substantial attention and feedback from the public, with both supportive and negative comments flooding in. We previously provided a summary of the proposed rule and FDA’s lengthy justification for it here. In this blog post, we will examine some of the key arguments presented in the public comments submitted to Docket FDA-2023-N-2177, as well as public statements published by industry trade associations.