﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--RSS generated by Microsoft SharePoint Foundation RSS Generator on 5/18/2013 12:08:54 PM -->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/publications/cln/CLNStat/_layouts/RssXslt.aspx?List=dbe597b1-92e8-4276-a9ef-7129c657345b" version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>CLN Stat: Posts</title>
    <link>http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/All Posts.aspx</link>
    <description>RSS feed for the Posts list.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 16:08:54 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Microsoft SharePoint Foundation RSS Generator</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    <language>en-US</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Industry Optimistic on FDA User Fee Agreement</title>
      <link>http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=23</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class="ExternalClassE859295029A14DEDBAA67204007B50DB"><p>Industry and lab groups have expressed support for several provisions wrapped up in legislation that sets the user fees paid to FDA by companies seeking approval of new drugs, tests, and medical devices. For example, the House version of the bill contains several measures meant to force FDA to show its hand on proposed laboratory-developed test (LDT) regulation. Under this bill, FDA would be required to notify Congress 60 days prior to issuing a guidance on the regulation of LDTs and allow the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to waive user fees for labs performing LDTs if and when FDA decides to step up regulation. FDA would also be required to include the anticipated details of any draft or final LDT guidance.<br /></p>
<p>“We support this provision because any FDA guidance in this area would be a major change in policy, one that ACLA has serious concerns about,” said Mertz, president of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA). The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) also expressed support for the bill.<br /></p>
<p>In addition to the provisions on LDTs, FDA would be required to speed up its reviews of tests and other medical devices, a process which has slowed in recent years. Other changes to FDA review in the legislation include an FDA report on its total time for reviewing devices, a requirement for greater interaction between sponsors and the agency, an independent appraisal of the device approval and clearance process, and an FDA corrective action plan to address deficiencies. In exchange, industry has agreed to pay $595 million in user fees for in fiscal years 2013-2017.<br /></p>
<p>More information on the bill is available from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/">website</a>.<br />​</p></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 6/5/2012 1:03 PM</div>
<div><b>PostAuthorName:</b> Bill Malone</div>
<div><b>MonthYear:</b> June 2012</div>
<div><b>Year:</b> 2012</div>
]]></description>
      <author>i:0#.f|aaccmembershipprovider|101877</author>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:05:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=23</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Task Force Opposes PSA Screening at Any Age</title>
      <link>http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=22</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class="ExternalClass57F6116884A248678195ED0239AEB14A"><div><div>Despite the controversy that erupted when its draft recommendations were released last year, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) did not change its grade “D” recommendation against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in its final recommendation statement. The recommendation does not cover the use of PSA for surveillance after diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>In laying out the case for its recommendation, USPSTF noted that it considered five randomized, controlled trials of PSA screening, but that no study found a difference in overall or all-cause mortality. USPSTF also focused on harms of screening. According to the task force, 1 man in 1,000 avoids death from prostate cancer due to PSA screening. However, for every 1,000 men who are screened, 30-40 will develop erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence due to treatment and 2 will experience a serious cardiovascular event. For every 3,000 screened, 1 will die due to complications from surgery.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>Many groups of surgeons, oncologists, and urologists came out against the USPSTF recommendation, contesting the task force’s interpretation of the clinical trails. They warned of a future of more men presenting with advanced disease who might have been treated earlier if screening had not been curtailed.</div>
<div>The most recent update on PSA testing from USPSTF came in 2008, when the task force found insufﬁcient evidence to recommend screening for men younger than 75 years and recommended against screening older men.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">	</span>More information is available from the USPSTF <a href="http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsprca.htm" target="_blank">web​site​​</a>.</div></div></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 6/5/2012 12:52 PM</div>
<div><b>PostAuthorName:</b> Bill Malone</div>
<div><b>MonthYear:</b> June 2012</div>
<div><b>Year:</b> 2012</div>
]]></description>
      <author>i:0#.f|aaccmembershipprovider|101877</author>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:52:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=22</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>One More Year to Prepare for ICD-10</title>
      <link>http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=19</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<div><b>Body:</b> <div class="ExternalClassA82E9E6E6490447C9284ED484144BF10"><p style="font-size:13px;margin-left:4px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the nation’s transition to the ICD-10 medical coding set will be delayed for a second time until October 1, 2014. The most recent deadline was October 1, 2013, a two-year deferral from the original 2011 date. ICD-10 promised to introduce more than 100,000 new diagnostic and procedure codes, affecting everything from medical research to reimbursement. </p>
<p style="font-size:13px;margin-left:4px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">In addition to physician groups, some in the lab community had warned that payers were not prepared for ICD-10 and the delay could be a boon for providers. <br /></p>
<p style="font-size:13px;margin-left:4px;color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><br /></p></div></div>
<div><b>Published:</b> 5/1/2012 1:41 PM</div>
<div><b>PostAuthorName:</b> Bill Malone</div>
<div><b>RelatedLinks1:</b> <a href="http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/2012/april/Pages/ICD10Delay.aspx">CLN April 2012: The ICD-10 Delay--Could it Be Good News for Labs?</a></div>
<div><b>MonthYear:</b> May 2012</div>
<div><b>Year:</b> 2012</div>
]]></description>
      <author>i:0#.f|aaccmembershipprovider|101877</author>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:39:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/CLNStat/Lists/Posts/ViewPost.aspx?ID=19</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>