News Flash: HHS Issues Statement Removing Premarket Review Requirements for Laboratory Developed Tests (“LDTs”), Including COVID-19 LDTs

August 27, 2020 Alerts and Newsletters

What happened?

On August 19, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued a single paragraph statement rescinding U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) guidance documents concerning premarket review of Laboratory Developed Tests (“LDTs”) and eliminating the requirement for premarket review of LDTs, in the absence of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Submission by labs of a premarket approval application, premarket notification, or Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) request may be done on a voluntary basis – and FDA will adjudicate voluntary submissions.

FDA oversight of LDTs, defined by FDA as in vitro diagnostic tests that are intended for clinical use and designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 (CLIA) program, is a matter of on-going debate. Given the timeframe generally required for notice-and-comment rulemaking, in the near term the announcement effectively, and dramatically, decreases FDA’s current discretion with respect to oversight of LTDs, including those used to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic, and its antibodies (“COVID-19 LDTs”). HHS provided little explanation for the sudden shift in approach, noting only that the decision is “part of HHS’s ongoing department-wide review of regulatory flexibilities enacted since the start of COVID-19” consistent with the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce regulatory burdens (see Executive Orders 13771 and 13924).

The announcement does not impact in vitro diagnostic tests that are not LDTs, including tests manufactured by one company and then sold to a lab, or labs with active EUAs for COVID-19 LDTs. Further, HHS’s announcement does not change any existing CLIA program requirements; labs releasing patient-specific results of LDTs for health care purposes still need to abide by any applicable CLIA registration, validation, and other requirements, found at 42 U.S.C. § 263a and 42 C.F.R. pt. 493.

Former FDA Commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, MD, took to Twitter to express his concern with the announcement, stating that “FDA might not be able to provide critical advice to test developers or take needed enforcement actions against bad tests” and questioning “how can FDA take action over something HHS says it doesn't regulate?” Likewise, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) issued a statement denouncing HHS’s actions, commenting “[t]his week’s announcement from HHS that lab developed COVID-19 tests no longer need review by FDA prior to coming to market is deeply concerning and suggests that the Trump Administration is once again interfering with FDA’s regulation of medical products.” Chairman Pallone demanded “a briefing from Secretary Azar on . . . why HHS is doing this now when the need for accurate tests is so critical.”

Why does it matter?

LDTs have been in a legal “gray area” for many years. FDA has asserted oversight authority for LDTs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the agency’s medical device regulations, but generally has exercised “enforcement discretion” with respect to most premarket and post-market requirements. FDA’s approach on LDTs has been defined through a series of website statements, informal guidance documents, public safety notices, discussion papers, and occasional enforcement actions, rather than formal rulemaking. FDA has maintained that it “has not created a legal ‘carve-out’ for LDTs” and that the “agency always retains discretion to take action when appropriate, such as when it is appropriate to address significant public health concerns.” This approach has created an uncertain oversight environment for labs, in part because they cannot readily predict when the FDA might intervene.

Over the last decade, both FDA and Congress have taken steps aimed at addressing the uncertainty and providing a more defined oversight framework. As recently as March 5, 2020, members of Congress re-introduced the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, which would create a risk-based framework for the regulation of in vitro clinical tests (a new category of tests including both LDTs and non-LDT in vitro diagnostics), overseen by FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, FDA has exercised oversight authority over COVID-19 LDTs, requiring premarket EUAs for in vitro diagnostics produced both by labs and by commercial manufacturers. This is consistent with FDA’s approach to the use of diagnostic tests in prior public health emergencies. However, some have blamed FDA’s review process for the delay in bringing COVID-19 diagnostic tests to market and the announcement appears to be aimed at responding to those concerns.

What’s next?

Labs producing COVID-19 LDTs without active EUAs for SARS-CoV-2 will need to evaluate whether to pursue an EUA (on a voluntary basis) or offer testing without a premarket submission, in reliance on the announcement. Moving forward without an EUA may come at a cost, however, since HHS indicates in the statement that labs offering diagnostics without FDA premarket review or authorization will not be afforded immunity under the PREP Act, a law intended to shield health care providers and others from liability in connection with SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures. However, the impact of the HHS statement on the FDA’s authority also raises questions about the value of an active or voluntarily obtained EUA with respect to asserting PREP Act immunity. One certainly can envision a challenge to immunity on the grounds that an EUA, which FDA now lacks authority to require absent rule making, confers no formal permission warranting PREP Act coverage.

Labs producing non-COVID LDTs will need to consider the long-term implications of the announcement. The announcement does not dictate FDA’s ultimate authority over these tests, an issue that is now deferred until such time as FDA may initiate a formal rulemaking process, the announcement itself is rescinded, or Congress agrees upon a more comprehensive framework for LDT oversight.

Labs will want to follow closely further developments in this area. If you have any questions, please contact your regular Verrill attorney.

Firm Highlights


On-Site Counsel

Provided coverage to in-house research counsel and the research compliance department at various institutions during times of staffing transitions, working hand-in-hand with the client to manage daily legal needs related to research compliance.


Research Non-Compliance Investigations

Test Tubes

Secondary Research With Clinical Specimens

Advised various medical centers on the implications of clinical consent language related to the repurposing of excess clinical specimens for research purposes.


Research Misconduct

Represented various hospital systems in connection with research misconduct investigations, including advising on the internal investigation, assisting with the drafting of required reports, and communicating with federal regulators and respondents' legal counsel.


Institutional Review Board

Assisted a prominent university with the development of a NIH-funded national IRB reliance model in facilitation of NIH's Single IRB Review Policy.


European Union GDPR—Institution

Counseled a preeminent health system and academic medical center on its compliance with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in relation to its clinical and research activities, including its international research studies...


Conflicts of Interest

Reviewed medical center's systems, policies and procedures for identifying, assessing, and managing investigator and institutional conflicts of interest.


Common Rule

Guided multiple clients through the implementation of the revised HHS regulations (the "Common Rule"), including reviewing and revising policies and procedures, and assisting with institutional approaches to implementation.


Multi-Site Global Research

Developed and negotiated site and coordinating center agreements in connection with a multi-site, international, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study, and advised on regulatory issues related to the conduct of the study and subsequent...


Research Biorepository/Database

Analyzed and advised on various legal, regulatory, and ethical factors related to the development of a health system's centralized research biorepository and database and the migration of existing local repositories and databases, including potential...

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700