FDA Aims To Stifle Medical Innovation Again
After botching COVID test approvals, the Food and Drug Administration wants power over thousands of other tests.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that massively screwed up COVID-19 testing now wants to apply its vast bureaucratic acumen to all other laboratory developed tests (LDTs). By insisting on its recondite approval procedures, the FDA at the beginning of the pandemic stymied the rollout of COVID-19 tests developed by numerous academic and private laboratories. In contrast, public health authorities in South Korea greenlighted an effective COVID-19 test just one week (and many more in the weeks following) after asking representatives from 20 private medical companies to produce such tests.
LDTs are diagnostic in vitro tests for clinical use that are designed, manufactured, and performed by individual laboratories. They can diagnose illnesses and guide treatments by detecting relevant biomarkers in saliva, blood, or tissues; the tests can identify small molecules, proteins, RNA, DNA, cells, and pathogens. For example, some assess the risks of developing Alzheimer's disease or guide the treatment of breast cancer.
The FDA now wants to regulate these tests as medical devices that must undergo premarket agency vetting before clinicians and patients are allowed to use them. The FDA estimates that between 600 and 2,400 laboratories currently offer as many as 40,000 to 160,000 tests. Overall, some 3.3 billion in vitro tests are administered to patients annually.
Out of billions of tests given, how often do laboratory developed tests appear to cause harm? In its submissions, the FDA justifies this burdensome oversight by citing problematic medical device reports and unconfirmed "allegations" for a grand total of nine and four different tests respectively between 2009 and 2023. The remaining examples cited by the FDA are tests that had actually been submitted to the agency for analysis and were subsequently rejected or revised as recommended.
A 2023 study in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology analyzed how frequently these tests were deployed in the University of Utah health system. The researchers reported that out of the more than 3 million lab tests ordered in 2021, 94 percent of them had already been approved by the FDA. Only 4 percent of the lab tests were LDTs. They believe their figures are similar across the U.S. health care landscape.
The FDA has received strong and widespread pushback from laboratories and clinicians. In a letter to the agency, American Hospital Association Executive Vice President Stacey Hughes wrote of the proposed regulations that "the unfortunate outcome likely would be the decline in the rate of clinical innovation, which would negatively impact the U.S.' ability to keep our health care system at the forefront of discovery, provide quality care to patients, and respond quickly to emerging public health risks."
The Biden administration is aiming to have the regulations finalized in April. However, MedTech Dive reports, analysts at the investment bank TD Cowen suggested that it remains "unclear if and when FDA will finalize the rule as it has faced considerable opposition and would likely be challenged in court."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "FDA To Test More Tests."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ronald still fantasizes that testing for COVID actually accomplished something.
Oh, it accomplished a lot. Unfortunately.
One of my favorite moment of the pandemic was when West Virginia was the last state without any confirmed cases of covid. I was living there at the time, and the reason it was the last state without confirmed cases is because it was the last state to start testing.
It generated a lot of revenue - - - - - - - -
Yeah. South Korea approved a test in just one week… and
South Korea’s Tracking Of COVID-19 Patients Raises Privacy Concerns…COVID-19 shrinks life expectancy in S.Korea for first time since 1970… nothing else happened.- Reason's [drink] Science [drink] Reporter, Ron "I don't give a shit about the results as long as my intentions don't feel deliberately evil to me." Bailey.
I mean it shut down entire states for absolutely no fucking reason.
Testing for COVID could have done several good things – but these weren’t wanted by the bureaucrats running the CDC and other government agencies trying to manage (or exploit) the epidemic.
1. It could have punctured much of the hysteria by using test results from the Diamond Princess and testing random samples of the population to confirm that the majority of infections were symptomless or mild. But that was ignored; I can only conclude that the health agencies _wanted_ hysteria.
2. It could have been used to test those in contact with highly vulnerable nursing home patients, as part of an effort to protect that small vulnerable population, while not disrupting the lives of those with little to worry about. But instead, governments shoved infected patients into nursing homes to kill as many as possible, while flexing their power by disrupting schools, businesses, social lives, and church services, all this to protect those with about 0.1% chance of serious illness if infected.
3. It could have been a guide to find if infection control efforts such as masking were effective – but I think that if that research had been honestly undertaken, it would have revealed that nearly everything government agencies did to slow the spread was useless, and some was counterproductive.
4. It could have been used for early identification of individuals infected with COVID, to actually slow the spread with short quarantines of those in the infectious stage of the disease, rather than trying to quarantine everyone. Then the infected could have been treated early to either prevent their immune systems from going self-destructive or keep the virus from multiplying as quickly inside a patient. But the agencies hated any suggestion that there might be such a treatment; it would have reduced the panic that led people to give them unprecedented power.
Remember that day the people amended the definition of the USA (US Constitution) to authorize the Union of States government to regulate their food and drugs?
Yeah; me neither.
F'En Nazi's.
You forget that they used the abridged version of the Constitution.
"Congress shall do everything necessary and proper to promote the general welfare and regulate commerce."
That gives them unlimited regulatory power right there.
There was no commissioner of the FDA for 13 months during the middle of a pandemic. Presumably because they were looking for someone with a high intersectionality score. Did anybody notice?
An empty seat is very intersectional.
More testing needed!
This would kill specialized tests only a few people with rare diseases need. These tests can already cost thousands of dollars. The FDA would prefer if you were dead.
Can't this just add this wording to the tests instead of getting approval? "This test isn't intended to diagnose any condition or disease and is for entertainment purposes only".
Not that I agree with the policy, but as long as a/the doctor doesn't take any action based on the (knowledge of the) results of the test, sure. Otherwise, a doctor relying on the results of a
productthat says, "For entertainment purposes only." to make a medical decision is its own straightforward risk/reward calculation.What's the risk factor of the doctor guessing at the disease and treatment because he has no test at all?