[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: HARNESSING WIRELESS INNOVATION ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 19, 2013 __________ Serial No. 113-20 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce energycommerce.house.gov _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80-805 WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FRED UPTON, Michigan Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BILL JOHNSON, Missouri BILLY LONG, Missouri RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina Subcommittee on Communications and Technology GREG WALDEN, Oregon Chairman ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California Vice Chairman Ranking Member JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts LEE TERRY, Nebraska MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan CORY GARDNER, Colorado FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio officio C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1 Prepared statement........................................... 3 Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 3 Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement............................... 4 Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 6 Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement............................... 7 Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement................................... 175 Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, prepared statement.............................. 175 Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement.............................. 176 Witnesses Robert Jarrin, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Qualcomm..... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 12 Bradley Merrill Thompson, General Counsel, mHealth Regulatory Coalition...................................................... 56 Prepared statement........................................... 58 Ben Chodor, Chief Executive Officer, Happtique................... 69 Prepared statement........................................... 71 Jonathan Spalter, Chairman, Mobile Future........................ 104 Prepared statement........................................... 106 T. Forcht Dagi, MD, MPH, DmedSC, Partner, HLM Venture Partners... 123 Prepared statement........................................... 126 George Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies............................. 132 Prepared statement........................................... 134 Submitted Material Report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 11, 2013, submitted by Ms. Matsui.................................. 178 Letter of March 18, 2013, from SDI Diagnostics to the subcommittee, submitted by Ms. Matsui.......................... 183 Study entitled, ``Diagnostic Inaccuracy of Smartphone Applications for Melanoma Detection,'' JAMA Dermatology, January 16, 2013, submitted by Ms. Matsui...................... 185 Letter of March 18, 2013, from CTIA--The Wireless Association to the subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Walden...................... 189 Letter of March 19, 2013, from Ideomed to the Committee, submitted by Mr. Walden........................................ 191 HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: HARNESSING WIRELESS INNOVATION ---------- TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Terry, Shimkus, Terry, Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, Kinzinger, Long, Ellmers, Matsui, Lujan and Waxman (ex officio). Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Debbee Hancock, Press Secretary; Sydne Harwick, Staff Assistant; Brittany Havens, Staff Assistant; Sean Hayes, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Robert Horne, Professional Staff Member, Health; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant, Legislative Clerk; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, Democratic Senior Counsel; Patrick Donovan, FCC Detailee; Margaret McCarthy; and Kara van Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. Walden. We are going to call to order the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology for our hearing on ``Health Information Technology: Harnessing Wireless Innovation.'' I want to welcome our witnesses and our participants in today's hearing. It is not every day that the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology holds a hearing addressing FDA regulation, but the fact that we are having such a hearing is a testament to the breadth of innovation using wireless smartphones and tablets, and all that that is bringing to nearly every aspect of our lives. There are literally thousands of apps in the various smartphone and tablet app stores in the health and wellness categories, actually tens of thousands, everything from simple calorie counters to complex analytical tools. The more than 300 million wireless devices we depend on every day are revolutionizing health and wellness. If I stopped here, this hearing could be about the success of bringing the innovation and investment of the wireless ecosystem to bear on the ever more costly health care system. And make no mistake about it, that could still be the outcome. But the specter of costly and time-consuming regulation, to say nothing of a 2.3 percent excise tax, looms large over this industry. We have heard from investors, wireless device manufacturers, and application developers that are concerned about the uncertainty of a FDA regulatory regime, that may or may not apply to them, and the possibility of an additional excise tax that cuts into already thin margins. The collision of worlds in the mobile health, or mHealth, is a study in contrasts. The app economy is characterized by low barriers to entry, quick time to market, and the ability to adapt to quickly changing user needs. Medical devices, on the other hand, face a long and costly premarket approval process at the FDA. Now, we all want to make sure that patient safety is taken care of first, but why would we treat mobile applications the same as a dialysis machine? These are the kinds of questions we need to get answers to about where that sweet spot is and that fine. The answer may be that the wireless economy represents a tempting target for the 2.3 percent excise tax that the President's health care law placed on medical devices. While the IRS and the FDA have provided some draft guidance on how they will apply the medical device definition and the medical device tax, their analysis is not a poster child of clarity and it leaves large parts of the economy wondering if they will be on the hook for what is essentially a tax on innovation, and we certainly are hearing that from our witnesses and others. The FCC and the Obama administration have both joined the wireless industry in trumpeting the virtuous cycle of innovation and investment in mobile technologies: investment in wireless networks and devices creates opportunities for app developers to create new and innovative uses for wireless services, which in turn spurs further investment in networks and devices. MHealth is part of this virtuous cycle that is driving faster speeds, lowering costs, spurring innovation and creating patient benefits. Given the interconnected nature, we should be aware that an impact on one segment of this industry has the potential to slow the entire cycle. The overbroad application of FDA regulation and the health care law's medical device tax are not, as some have suggested, outside the realm of possibility. In a 2012 report by the Institute of Medicine, one expert author suggested that all health IT products should be treated as class III medical devices, which receive the highest level of regulatory scrutiny and therefore should be subject to the tax. Now, that is just one person's opinion but it is in the prestigious Institute of Medicine report. Luckily, while these are not hypothetical concerns, they are also by no means foregone conclusions, which is why we are having a hearing today. Wireless has and can continue to be a system that brings the mobile revolution to our Nation's health and wellness sector, but we must ensure that as we bring the innovation of the wireless economy to health and wellness that we not place unnecessary hurdles in the way of the developers and investors that are fueling mHealth. [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden It's not every day that the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology holds a hearing addressing FDA regulation. The fact that we are having such a hearing is a testament to the breadth of innovative uses wireless smartphones and tablets are bringing to nearly every aspect of our lives. There are literally thousands of apps in the various smartphone and tablet app stores in the health and wellness categories-- everything from simple calorie counters to complex analytical tools. The more than 300 million wireless devices we depend on every day are revolutionizing health and wellness. If I stopped here, this hearing could be about the success of bringing the innovation and investment of the wireless ecosystem to bear on the ever more costly health care system. And make no mistake, that could still be the outcome. But the specter of costly and time-consuming regulation--to say nothing of a 2.3 percent excise tax--looms large over this industry. Investors, wireless device manufacturers and application developers all face the uncertainty of an FDA regulatory regime that may or may not apply to them and the possibility of an additional excise tax that cuts into already thin margins. The collision of worlds in the mobile health--or mHealth-- market is a study in contrasts. The app economy is characterized by low barriers to entry, quick time to market, and the ability to adapt to quickly changing user needs. Medical devices, on the other hand, face a long and costly pre- market approval process at the FDA. We all want to ensure patient safety, but why would we treat mobile applications the same as a dialysis machine? The answer may be that the wireless economy represents a tempting target for the 2.3 percent excise tax that the president's health care law placed on medical devices. While the IRS and the FDA have provided some draft guidance on how they will apply the medical device definition and the medical device tax, their analysis is not a poster child of clarity and leaves large parts of the economy wondering if they will be on the hook for what is essentially a tax on innovation. The FCC and the Obama administration have both joined the wireless industry in trumpeting the ``virtuous cycle'' of innovation and investment in mobile technologies: investment in wireless networks and devices creates opportunities for app developers to create new and innovative uses for wireless services, which in turn spurs further investment in networks and devices. mHealth is part of this virtuous cycle that is driving faster speeds, lowering costs, spurring innovation and creating patient benefits. Given their interconnected nature, we should be aware that an impact on one segment has the potential to slow the entire cycle. The overbroad application of FDA regulation and the Obamacare medical device tax are not, as some have suggested, outside the realm of possibility. In a 2012 report by the Institute of Medicine, one expert author suggested that all health IT products should be treated as Class III medical devices, which receive the highest level of regulatory scrutiny and could be subject to the tax. Luckily, while these are not hypothetical concerns, they are also by no means foregone conclusions. Wireless has and can continue to bring the mobile revolution to our nation's health and wellness sector. But we must ensure that as we bring the innovation of the wireless economy to health and wellness that we not place unnecessary hurdles in the way of the developers and investors that are fueling mHealth. # # # Mr. Walden. So I want to thank our witnesses for being here, and I would now recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Latta. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I also thank our distinguished panel for testifying today. The mobile application industry is a modern American economic success story. Just this year alone, mobile apps were projected to be a $25 billion industry. No one, at least no one in Washington, could have predicted the incredible growth and the extraordinary uses for these apps, particularly in the mobile health world. The health and wellness opportunities for mobile apps have great potential for our health care delivery system. I am concerned that the regulatory uncertainty coming from the FDA will discourage innovation and investment in mobile apps and that Americans will lose out on potentially lifesaving technology. This climate of regulatory uncertainty could also have adverse effects on the overall wireless ecosystem, which continues to drive economic growth in this country. Furthermore, I believe the medical device tax will be extremely detrimental to our economy. The potential application of the medical device tax to mobile apps will only further deter investment and development in the industry. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our testimony today and our witnesses, and I yield back. Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee today, Ms. Matsui of California. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. Technology is changing health care as we know it. A smart spectrum policy that is driving wireless revolution is also transforming our health care sector. We are seeing the benefits of health care providers utilizing WiFi and high-quality, unlicensed spectrum to spur the development of next-generation patient care monitoring applications that could transmit patients' vital health data to their doctor or hospital. Whether it is monitoring diabetes, glucose levels, tracking blood pressure or providing real-time hydration levels, the list goes on and on. We are seeing cloud technologies transforming health IT through the creation of select community health clouds forming in regions across the country, enabling hospitals to better treat patients while ensuring HIPAA-compliant transfers of secure medical information. It will only become more important as the mobile app economy continues to drive consumer demand for smartphones and tablets. The fact is, the ever-evolving app economy is helping to transform the health care sector, integrating science, medicine and technology to provide individuals with real-time access to vital health information, much of which was previously unavailable outside of a hospital or a doctor's office. House calls are becoming a thing of the past. Virtual checkups are becoming the new digital-age house call. Doctors are using iPads to issue prescriptions and diagnose patients. Smartphones are creating new paths of virtual interactions between doctors and patients. Texting your doctor has become a more common practice as more Americans, particularly young people, are finding greater comfort and accessibility in communicating electronically with their doctors. The Affordable Care Act also has allowed the health care industry to become more innovative using technology. I believe we will see a growing ecosystem of health IT innovation now that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. My home State of California has been a pioneer in ACA implementation. Our exchange, Covered California, has already begun using mobile devices to launch online features so consumers can estimate their monthly premiums and compare health care options. Physicians and hospitals in my district of Sacramento are using the exchange to improve their health IT capabilities. For example, the Live Health Online Initiative already permits doctors to care for patients through a secure online visit using laptop Web cams and ultimately through video-enabled tablets and smartphones regardless of where the doctor and patient are located. With more than 50 million additional Americans expected to obtain health insurance this year due to the law, an efficient and effective health IT network is even more imperative. In order to realize the full potential of innovative health technologies, the regulatory environment must keep pace with rapidly changing technology. In 2011, the FDA released draft guidance to provide rules of the road for medical app developers clarifying which medical apps would require its attention and which would not. I believe the draft guidance attempts to strike the appropriate balance between enabling innovative medical apps and ensuring patient safety, and I urge the agency to move forward expeditiously. Now, moving forward, I believe the FDA must be mindful of the fact that technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace and the need for them to provide clarity to the marketplace. Another way to foster greater innovation in the health sector is through creating a workable federal definition for telehealth services. I am developing legislation to do just that. I believe having certainty here would spur innovation and research in the private sector and in programs like Medicare. We must continue to chart a technology-friendly course that promotes better patient care for all Americans. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following three items: a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on the medical device excise tax, a letter from SDI Diagnostics, a small medical device manufacturer, regarding FDA regulatory oversight of the medical device market, a study published in the peer- review journal, JAMA Dermatology, identifying risks and depending on smartphone apps for diagnosis. Mr. Walden. Without objection. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Ms. Matsui. Thank you. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to promote health IT. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, for 5 minutes. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We are deeply appreciative that you all are here, and we are appreciative of what you are doing in the industry and in this space in which you are working. You know, I was stunned in doing some work on this and talking with some of the innovators in Nashville. Five hundred thousand jobs are attributed to your sector, and you are one of the few areas where there has actually been some job growth since the misery that was there in 2008 and 2009 and when you look at mHealth, you are talking about a $27 billion industry within the next couple of years, so we thank you for this. Not only is it productive and not only is there opportunity to profit from your innovations, there is the opportunity to encourage R&D and to provide better outcomes and better wellness and maintenance of effort in health to expand the use of telemedicine and mobile health. So hearing from you where you think we need to travel with this is going to be helpful and it is going to be instructive as we look at this entire space for health care informatics and the opportunities that exist there. I think that we are all concerned about what would help with the medical device tax being applied to this. Of course, it is muddy as muddy water when you are trying to figure out where the FDA is actually looking to go. I know there are about 300,000 apps that are available, or 50,000 apps, I think it is, and 300,000 downloads, that are through the Apple app store. So people like the convenience of this, and we want to do what we can to make certain that it remains accessible and affordable and is not levied with a tax that is going to end up being a hindrance. So we appreciate your ability to make way for us in your schedules to be here, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentlelady yield? Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I would just like to weigh in. The medical device tax is a very pernicious tax by itself. One of the problems I have is the gross nature, taxing just gross versus obviously net after costs and expenses. I mean, where else but in Washington can you dream up such a bad tax provision? But as was stated earlier by my colleagues, what is critical for you all in your testimony today is to help us sort through your concerns, your risks, your level of being able to capitalize or not, and then where is this line? I mean, it is very vague, and so when there is uncertainty, there is higher risk. When there is higher risk, there is more cost of capital and it could be damaging to any business model that you would address. So we really appreciate you being here. We are probably going to ask some pretty specific questions, especially for those of you who are in that space innovating and creating jobs. We thank you for coming. And with that, I yield back to my colleague. Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Did Mr. Lance, one of my other colleagues, want any of the remaining time? OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a hearing to look at mobile medical applications, and this is the first of three hearings on this subject this week. The high-speed wireless broadband access is creating new opportunities in consumer services in nearly every segment of our economy including health care. Mobile medical applications hold incredible promise for patients and health care providers, potentially reducing costs, improving health care delivery and saving lives. That is why we made a significant investment in medical communications, because this is a really important area. We all want to see this exciting innovation continue. At the same time, we have to be cognizant of the need to protect patient safety. That is why the Food and Drug Administration has released a draft guidance regarding mobile medical applications. So their guidance says if it is a dietary tracking app or a reminder service for medical appointments, they certainly don't need FDA approval for that. But an app that purports to diagnose cancer? Well there ought to be some review and have regulatory scrutiny. Let me give an example. A group of dermatologists recently published a study of four apps that claim to be able to diagnose melanomas. Well, the dermatologists found that three of the four incorrectly classified 30 percent or more of melanomas as benign when they were actually malignant. Well, we can't tell the American people buyer beware when potentially life-and-death care decisions are at stake. My Republican colleagues say that FDA is hoping to subject smartphones and tablets to the medical device tax. Well, that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. I think they have their facts wrong. Allegations that ordinary smartphones and tablets could be subject to added red tape or new taxes under Obamacare are absolute myths. In fact, FDA's draft guidance specifically states that the agency does not intend to regulate distributors of mobile medical apps like the iTunes store or the makers of smartphones or tablets like Apple. Smartphones and tablets are not listed with FDA as medical devices, so they are completely outside the scope of the medical device tax. Furthermore, it is my understanding that most mobile medical apps would also be exempt from the medical device tax because of the IRS ``retail exemption.'' This provision says that devices are exempt from the tax if they are regularly available for purchase and use by ordinary consumers, including over the Internet, and if they are not primarily intended for use in a medical institution or by a medical professional. To go back to the case of the dermatologists, those apps would not be subject to the medical device tax, but they would be subject to FDA scrutiny to be sure that the patients are not being harmed. There are legitimate concerns that we ought to examine, instead of using today's hearing to invent new fallacies to attack the Affordable Care Act. We have already had a number of hearings this year on a tax on Obamacare. Well, my Republican colleagues didn't like it. They all voted against it. They hoped that the Supreme Court would have thrown it out. The Supreme Court upheld it. They hoped the election would replace the President so they could have repealed it. The electorate voted for President Obama. This is all going to go into effect at the end of this year and it will be fully in place by January of 2014. We have already seen a lot of improvements in health care by virtue of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is going to serve a very important purpose. It is not going to require mobile apps to be regulated or to be taxed. FDA released the draft guidance for mobile medical apps, and we should commend them for this action. Both industry and consumers would benefit from the clarity of final guidance. I hope that FDA is working expeditiously toward that goal. You have to make distinctions. You don't blur it all to serve the political point of view to attack the Affordable Care Act. We have got to look at the law, draw the distinctions, and make sure that the public is protected while innovation is still encouraged. And I think that we are looking to a lot of very important innovation and we want to see that come into action. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The Chair would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the CTIA CEO and former Representative Steve Largent, raising concerns of the wireless industry, and a letter from Keith Brophy, CEO of Ideomed from Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is a medical app device developer, and also has concerns about the uncertainty, which is why we are having this hearing today. Without objection. [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objections. I just wanted to point out to the witnesses that there is another hearing going on so I will be back and forth, and I apologize for not being here. Mr. Walden. No problem. Feel free to take the full time in the other hearing if you like. No, I am just--we actually have a little fun together here, so it is fine. Thank you. And we have got other members that are going to be coming and going. It is a good reminder, because there is an Energy and Power Subcommittee meeting as well. So with that, we welcome our witnesses, and I know Dr. Dagi's plane was a little delayed getting out of Boston, apparently a little snow up there, but he has arrived, and he will be joining us momentarily, but we will go ahead, and again, we thank you all for being here. I have read through your testimony. It is most helpful in our efforts to shine some light on this issue. So we are going to start with Mr. Robert Jarrin, Senior Director of Government Affairs for Qualcomm. Mr. Jarrin, we are delighted to have you here this morning and look forward to your testimony, sir. STATEMENTS OF ROBERT JARRIN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, QUALCOMM; BRADLEY MERRILL THOMPSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, MHEALTH REGULATORY COALITION; BEN CHODOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAPPTIQUE; JONATHAN SPALTER, CHAIRMAN, MOBILE FUTURE; T. FORCHT DAGI, MD, MPH, DMEDSC, PARTNER, HLM VENTURE PARTNERS; AND DR. GEORGE FORD, CHIEF ECONOMIST, PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL AND ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES STATEMENT OF ROBERT JARRIN Mr. Jarrin. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. First and foremost, I would like to thank you for having me participate as a witness in today's hearing. I have worked in various capacities over the span of two decades, at times preparing others to sit before you. Today, I am truly honored to be the one sitting here. I will begin by starting with mobile technology. It is the largest platform in the history of mankind. The population of the world is approximately 7 billion people, and there are nearly 6.6 billion mobile connections. In the United States alone, there are 323 million mobile subscriptions for a population of 315 million people. Consumer research suggests that two-thirds of people sleep with their mobile device next to them, and one-third interact with their device before they even get out of bed. Those with a mobile phone tend to check it about 150 times per day, roughly about once every 6\1/2\ minutes. Mobile devices are powerful and sophisticated. Today, a typical smartphone has more computing power than Apollo XI did when it landed on the moon. Computing devices are now built around mobile experiences with always-on connectivity, location awareness, augmented reality and powerful processing. Soon there will come a day when virtually everyone and everything in our world will be connected through a ubiquitous wireless technology. Let me also share some startling statistics of a different nature yet related, chronic disease in America. According to the CDC, about out of every two adults in the United States has at least one chronic illness. Seven out of 10 deaths among Americans are due to chronic disease. Obesity, for example, affects one in three adults as well as one in three children who are either overweight or obese. Although chronic diseases are among the most common, they are also the costliest of all health problems. The CDC states they are also among the most preventable. This presents an interesting opportunity. Many Americans are sick yet more have access to a personal, powerful, mobile computing device. Hence, it was only a matter of time before the health care technology innovators would take notice of the potential to personalize a mobile platform and facilitate the delivery of affordable health care. Nowhere is this growth more obvious than in the mobile health applications landscape. Quite simply, the growth of mobile health apps has skyrocketed. Approximately 27,000 unique health apps are available. Over 7,000 health apps are specifically intended for use by students and health care professionals. Five hundred new mobile health apps launch every month. Interestingly, however, a survey conducted by MobiHealthNews shows that to date, FDA has only cleared fewer than 80 mobile medical apps through its 510(k) process. They further estimate that as little as 5 percent of all health-related apps could potentially be considered medical, and possibly subject to FDA regulation. On July 21, 2011, the FDA issued a draft guidance on mobile medical applications. The agency went on to receive more than 700 pages of comments from over 100 interested stakeholders. They also held a 2-day workshop and engaged the public at large in briefings and events. FDA officials have expressed their views that the final MMA guidance would be deregulatory. In fact, it would delineate how the agency would exercise enforcement discretion to not proactively regulate many low- level-risk mobile medical apps. However, it is now March 19, 2013, and unfortunately, FDA has yet to release a final MMA guidance document. Qualcomm and others are concerned that the failure to release final guidance has created uncertainty among countless budding entrepreneurs and large corporations that fear the prospect of facing FDA regulation. Qualcomm offers the following recommendations for consideration. First, FDA should promptly finalize the MMA draft guidance document. Second, the final guidance should offer specific examples of low-risk regulated mobile medical devices that FDA, through enforcement discretion, would not regulate. Third, there should be clarity on intended use in light of ambiguous and general health claims and terms. Fourth, for apps that do not warrant listing as low-risk class I medical devices-- rather, that do warrant listing as low-risk class I medical devices, the agency should consider how it will assess exemption from Good Manufacturing Practices. Fifth, accessories should be classified according to their individual level of risk and not according to the device with the highest classification level. Sixth, FDA should continue its commitment to consistency, predictability and transparency by coordinating internal and external efforts through a single dedicated office within FDA the agency. Seventh and lastly, the agency would benefit to utilize external facing resources such as CDRH Learn, Device Advice and the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance to work with app developers and their communities. FDA has a proven and successful policy, regulatory, and legal framework, that has been formed from over 100 years of innovation, science and learning, a framework that puts the patient first and ensures the safety and effectiveness of all health and medical products in the U.S. marketplace. We recommend that FDA be given the fullest support it needs to continue doing its fine work while allowing innovation to drive the U.S. healthcare system. In closing, I would like to say a few words about Qualcomm. Qualcomm, Inc., is the leading supplier of wireless chips, having shipped worldwide well over 11 billion chips to date. Qualcomm is the leading developer of 3G, 4G and other next- generation wireless technologies. In addition, Qualcomm has a wholly owned medical device subsidiary focused on producing medical device data systems. We are committed to the health care space through various public and private efforts as further described in my written testimony and on Qualcomm's Web site. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jarrin follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Mr. Jarrin, thank you for the thought you put into your testimony and for being here today. We will now go to Mr. Bradley Merrill Thompson, General Counsel, mHealth Regulatory Coalition. Mr. Thompson, thank you for being here today. We look forward to hearing your testimony. STATEMENT OF BRADLEY MERRILL THOMPSON Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much for inviting me. As you can tell from the name of our organization, the topic today is of very great interest to us. Our coalition is a very diverse coalition, which is both fun and challenging. It is fun, because we have a lot of spirited discussions. It is challenging because it represents a lot of different points of view. We have folks in there from the traditional medical device industry, we have app developers in there, we have the telecommunication firms in there, patient groups and so forth. And frankly, the way I navigate consensus- building in our group is to say, look, we only have one rule, and that is, put the patient first, leave economics at the door and let us figure out what policy puts the patient first. In that vein, I have three simple points that I want to make this morning in my testimony. The first one is that we would urge FDA to publish its guidance just as soon as possible and indeed expand on that guidance in the future. I cheated a little bit, and I read the testimony of my other fellow witnesses here, and it seems like there is going to be good agreement on that score. What I would offer, as the nerdy lawyer maybe among the panel, is that I think that maybe FDA is delaying because they are going for the complete and final definitive for-all-time answer to these questions, and it is really tough because the industry changes on almost a daily basis. So they write a draft, it goes through a couple of months of review. By that couple months, the environment has changed a bit and they want to go back and erase some of what they wrote previously. I think what they need to do is get a final version out there and then use the guidance process to update it periodically as the environment changes, as the regulatory issues shift, as the questions shift, simply update the guidance periodically. We have talked about creating a Web site, where they would on a more real-time basis, offer some guidance. There are some tools that are available to them but bottom line is, I think FDA is struggling a bit with how to get hits guidance out, and in our opinion, it needs to get out because there is an awful lot of business that is frozen on the sidelines waiting to see what that guidance says. The second point I want to make to you is a bit counterintuitive probably for someone from industry to say, and that is, we would like to see more FDA enforcement in this area, and particularly more balanced FDA enforcement in this area. And the way I can make this point is best through an example, and it is an example I read about of a new app just a few weeks ago announced from India where you can do urinalysis with your iPhone, and everyone was talking about it on the Internet because I think a lot of people were trying to figure exactly where you pee on this thing in order to get the reading, and it turns out you do a very traditional technique: you pee in a cup and put a strip in that cup, it changes color, and then use the camera on the iPhone to more accurately assess what the color changes were. And they introduced this thing. It hasn't yet hit the U.S. market but they have announced their intention to go through the Apple app store in introducing it. The problem is, FDA has regulated urinalysis for 30-some years. That is a very traditional medical device, and the typical one looks about the size of a cash register, so I got to tell you, doing it on an iPhone, that is cool, that is really cool, but what they did is, on the front page, at the bottom of the front page, they basically said in legalese this is not a medical device. Well, honestly, if it were that simple, I know a lot of other companies that would like to do that same thing, right? If you could avoid FDA by putting a disclaimer at the bottom of your home page and yet the whole rest of the Web site explains how it is used in urinalysis, that is a problem. So this is in part a competitive issue, right? Because different companies are held to different standards. But it is a public health issue because this is an important app, and if it gets the urinalysis reading wrong, people with diabetes, people with serious conditions could be relying on that app. So either deregulate it, which would take an act of Congress, I believe, because it is clearly a medical device, or more evenly enforce the rules. The third and final point that I want to make is that we favor sticking with FDA as the regulator for both the traditional device industry and the less traditional mHealth area. There was a rumor circulating, and who knows where these start, that people wanted to move mobile health regulation away from FDA. We couldn't support that. We couldn't support it because it would create two systems where if you do it on an iPhone system, if you do it on a cash registered-sized machine, you have a completely different system. To us, that actually increases the uncertainty and the complexity and the confusion, and so we have found that FDA has the knowledge that they need. This is a new technology. We are all learning the technology, but they have the public health knowledge in order to do this and to do it right, so we favor sticking with the agency. Those are the three points I wanted to make this morning, and I appreciate the time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Mr. Thompson, thank you for your testimony. We will now go to Mr. Ben Chodor, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Happtique, like health app boutique. Mr. Chodor. Exactly. Mr. Walden. Everybody with me now. All right, Mr. Chodor, you are on. STATEMENT OF BEN CHODOR Mr. Chodor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ben Chodor and I am the CEO of Happtique. It is an honor to testify today on mobile health technology, which Happtique believes can change health care delivery systems. My testimony addresses two important issues in our industry---- Mr. Walden. Will you make sure your microphone is on? Mr. Chodor. Is that better? Mr. Walden. There we go. Mr. Chodor. My testimony addresses two important issues facing our industry: questions about regulations, and the applicability of medical device tax to mobile devices. Happtique is a mobile health solution company whose mission is to integrate mobile health into patient care and daily life. Happtique is owned and operated by GNYHA Ventures, a business arm of Greater New York Hospital Association. GNYHA has a robust family of companies to assist its members in addressing business and operational issues. Happtique, the newest member of the companies, was established in direct response to members' needs to develop comprehensive mobile health strategies to support clinicians, facilitate patient engagement and improve their own operations. Happtique's principle offerings include individually branded, secure, multiplatform applications for hospitals, physician and patient: our MRX, it is our patent pending technology that enables physicians to actually prescribe apps to their patient, a unique system of classifying apps in more than 300 categories, and our brand-new private sector solution to a big problem, we have just launched our certification program for health apps. Happtique created these solutions to harness the unprecedented potential for mobile health technologies. Think about it: 87 percent of physicians use smartphones or tablets every day. One out of five smartphone users has at least one health app on it. There are over 40,000 health apps on the market and it is growing every day, and there is little to no barrier of entry for these apps. This has incredible opportunity for innovation in health care but comes with certain concerns, namely how credible is this app for myself or for my patient. So who should monitor the mobile health industry? Clearly, the industry needs to balance three things: innovation, safety and effectiveness. The FDA released its guidelines in 2011, which Mr. Jarrin went over, and Happtique's belief is that the FDA is in the best position of any agency to regulate health apps because of its long health expertise in assuring patient safety, but we have to say from our point of view, the FDA has to release these guidelines sooner than later. It is about time that they come out. We don't believe the FDA should regulate mHealth products that are not considered medical devices. The FDA's draft guidance addressed which mobile apps the FDA does not anticipate classifying as mobile apps for purpose of regulation. The industry is pleased that the FDA recognizes its own limits. Complementary to the FDA regulatory framework, Happtique, our company, has created a certification program with industry stakeholders to offer clinicians and patients a way to identify technically and validation of an app. Happtique developed a health app certification standard under the direction of a blue ribbon panel, and we are reviewing operability, privacy, security, and content. In the development of the standards, we consulted with key public-private sector organizations--the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the AMA, the AAMC and many, many other organization. This conducted the certification process. Again, Happtique is an engaged, well-known security company to ensure operability, privacy and security, and we are engaging specialists, so if it is a cardiology app, cardiologists should review the material. Apps that pass both the technical and testing content review will be awarded the Happtique certification seal. Our goal here is that the users will be reassured that a certified app delivers credible content, safeguards user data and functions as described. I would like to switch gears for a second and now talk about the medical device tax and how it relates to mobile apps since I know several members of the committee also care a great deal about this issue. Happtique does not believe that Congress intended to impose a device tax on iPhones, iPads, Android phones or tablets, or BlackBerrys, or apps that run on these devices. If congressional intent is ambiguous, we firmly believe the retail exemption applies. If the IRS wants to implement this tax on this technology, Congress needs to pass a law that specifically states that tax applies. Imposing a device tax on apps will undoubtedly stifle innovation, developers and publishers, and frankly, the threat of tax stifles innovation too. In closing, thank you for my allotted time, and I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member and the subcommittee for asking me to testify today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Chodor follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Mr. Chodor, thank you for your very good testimony, and that is why we are having this hearing is to try and shine some light and bring some clarity. Mr. Jonathan Spalter is next. He is the Chairman of Mobile Future. Mr. Spalter, thank you for being here. STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER Mr. Spalter. And thank you, Chairman Walden, and members of the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of Mobile Future and our member companies. My name is Jonathan Spalter and I am Chairman of Mobile Future. We represent innovators across the wireless ecosystem, and I sit before you, I think, at a very, very hopeful time for our community. It is now believed by many scientists that there has already been a child born in the world who will live to 150 years old. What an exciting notion for our children and our grandchildren. These leaps and bounds in the quantity and the quantity of our lives are in no small part due to the astounding progress we are all witnessing at the nexus that we are talking about today of health care and mobile innovation. This morning I would like to very focus very practically my comments on what mobile innovators need from government to help us all advance our health. We know that the virtuous cycle of investment in the mobile ecosystem from networks to devices to applications provides an unparalleled foundation for health innovation, and I believe government can help build on it by providing our mobile health innovators four key and achievable certainties. First, a clear understanding of where regulation begins and where it ends. The mobile medical app guidance now has been pending for 2 years. Clear guidelines and regulatory certainty are needed now, commonsense and affordable approval processes that are measured in months, not in years, timely decisions across government that of course encourages a careful balance to safeguard patient safety and privacy on the one hand, which we all care about, without inhibiting the development and use of mobile medical apps, and finally, basic fairness when it comes to the taxes we pay, all consumers pay, on wireless services and applications. Bottom line: Americans would benefit from clear guidelines on when applications go to which government agency and for what set of approvals. But let us also not forget that none of this progress would be possible without spectrum and without investment, and therefore it is imperative that the incentive auctions, which are being designed now at the FCC, are open and inclusive so that all Americans can take advantage of wireless health applications, and it is also worth noting that the needed spectrum is held by government agencies, significantly held by government agencies, so all of our eyes, all of America's eyes are on the federal agencies who hold much of this underutilized spectrum hoping they will make a meaningful contribution. I know that all of us can personalize this progress that we are talking about today. My daughter Willa was diagnosed 2 years ago at age 8 with type 1 diabetes. She has been extremely fortunate that from her very first week with the disease to have been in a clinical trial at Stanford University that is pursuing the holy grail of diabetes research: the artificial pancreas. Even having worked in mobile innovation and technology myself for years, I wasn't prepared, my family wasn't prepared, for just how personally and profoundly relevant mobile innovation would become so quickly to my daughter. On the first day of her trial, there was her endocrinologist, Bruce Buckingham, and her research nurse, Jen Block, explaining the research and the hope that it holds for 3 million Americans who are dealing with this disease. And then Dr. Buckingham, not really knowing what I do for a living, spoke about the importance of spectrum as he explained the wireless sensors that were all around my daughter's hospital room and the wireless glucose monitor that she now wears in her body. The medical team included software coders, application developers, algorithm writers, network engineers, all pushing together towards what could be and I indeed hope will be nothing short of a revolution in diabetes management, and this is the future of American health care. We all have a personal stake in speeding its process, and ultimately this is not about government stepping away, rather it is a profound opportunity for government to lean in and demonstrate that it too can innovate, that it can act flexibly, that it can move quickly with common sense and with the understanding that innovation is born of many, many things including a healthy dose of humility and restraint when it comes to regulation. So on behalf of application developers and wireless innovators across our country, on behalf of my little girl and the millions of Americans who are managing chronic diseases, I really thank you for the opportunity to testify about our Nation's promising mobile future, and I really look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Mr. Spalter, thank you for sharing your very powerful story with us. It really sheds clear light on our task here, and of course, it also shows that we are the most important subcommittee in the Congress because we did make available new spectrum and we are continuing to pursue the government excess spectrum as we might find. Mr. Spalter. And that has the added advantage of being true, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walden. Thank you. You are welcome to come back on a weekly basis. Seriously, thank you very much and thanks for the work you are doing. We will now go to Dr. T. Forcht Dagi, I believe, MD, MPH, DmedSC--I will let you explain all of those things--Partner at HLM Venture Partners. We are delighted you were able to get another flight and get down here from Boston. Thank you very much. Go ahead and push that button in front of you there. STATEMENT OF T. FORCHT DAGI Dr. Dagi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, I am Dr. T. Forcht Dagi. I am a Partner of HLM Venture Partners based in Boston, Massachusetts, and San Francisco, California. I am a board- certified neurosurgeon trained at Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts General Hospital and hold or have held leadership positions in clinical and academic medicine for over 20 years. I am Chair of the Committee on Perioperative care of the American College of Surgeons at present, and I hold a professorial appointment at Harvard Medical School. On behalf of HLM Venture Partners, the venture industry and the entrepreneurial community, and also as a physician devoted to the betterment of health care, it is my privilege to testify before this committee on the subject of mobile medical apps, MMAs. Venture capitalists are committed to the funding of American's best and most innovative entrepreneurs. They work closely to transform breakthrough ideas and to emerging growth companies that drive job creation and economic growth in the United States. One of the top priorities for health care and life science investors is to work and discover innovative solutions that address unmet medical needs, enhance health care outcomes and lower overall health care costs while preserving the safety and the quality of the American health care system. For investment to grow in the formative stages of emerging medical mobile applications, there need to be well-defined regulatory pathways to market. Uncertainties in the regulatory environment create significant risk for innovative companies and deter investment in many promising ideas. We believe that regulatory pathways should be risk based, transparent, consistent, predictable, and above all, balance the problem of patient safety and its protection against innovation. I believe that medical mobile applications will prove to be a central, important, and potentially critical tool in optimizing communications among clinicians, and especially between clinicians and patients. Also, they will help broaden and sustain shared decision making, which is a critical part of any type of health care reform. I believe that MMAs will prove invaluable for patient engagement in education. They can materially enhance integrated strategies for health care, help coordinate the management of chronic disease and promote patient safety while lowering health care costs. Here are some examples of the critical roles they already play. They are used to help diabetics follow and refine insulin regimens. Mr. Spalter, I didn't know you were going to speak to that. Thank you. They are used to screen for diseases of the retina, for telemedical consultations, to help patients with congestive heart failure avoid readmission, to diagnose moles and screen for cancer, and to coordinate across groups of physicians in different institutions. They provide a means for sending sentinel emergency alerts to providers. They also facilitate home health care and remote monitoring of patients in other settings like the intensive care unit. They hold tremendous promise in patient care, and I emphasize, safety. I would also like to emphasize my concern about the 2.3 percent medical device tax with regard to medical innovation and U.S. job creation. We also believe Congress did not intend to burden the emerging MMA companies with this new tax. Their products are not included in the traditional medical devices. The 2.3 percent tax on revenue has already started to have detrimental effects on early-stage medical device companies. They are regressive and repressive. It creates a major market inefficiency by increasing the capital intensity of innovation and discourages venture capitalists from investing in these companies now and in the future. The tax would be even more devastating for companies developing MMAs because of their revenue structure. The tax of 2.3 percent sounds modest but it is not. This is a tax on revenue. It is not a tax on profits. The vast majority of entrepreneurial ventures developing MMAs are very small and very early. Some of the companies in which we invest may in fact generate some revenue but very unlikely to generate profit. Revenues are plowed back into the company for growth, and therefore the 2.3 percent tax on small startup companies delays their ability to reach profitability and increases the amount that must be invested before a company can become cash flow positive. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs stand ready to participate, along with other public and private stakeholders, to find solutions that will help move these important innovations into the health care system. We would like to offer the following recommendations to help stimulate investment in this very important sector. First, promote a regulatory framework that is predictable, consistent, transparent and risk based. The Food and Drug Administration issued draft guidance for mobile medical applications on the 21st of July 2011. This guidance addresses some regulatory concerns and reduces some regulatory uncertainty but leaves open questions around enforcement discretion decisions. The uncertainty must be resolved. Second, the FDA and other stakeholders are encouraged to collaborate and formulate alternative oversight frameworks that meet the goals of patient safety and mobile medical applications, but also encourage and foster innovation and invention. Third, we would ask that the FDA solicit very broad input in evaluating new regulatory frameworks, especially from those at the forefront of the innovation that promotes health care transformation. And finally, we would ask that mobile medical applications that are defined as medical devices be exempted from the 2.3 percent medical device tax. Mr. Chairman, Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you to address these critical issues. [The prepared statement of Dr. Dagi follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Dr. Dagi, thank you very much for your very learned testimony. We will now go to Dr. George Ford, who is the Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced and Legal Economic Public Policy Studies. Dr. Ford, we are delighted to have you. Please go ahead with your testimony. STATEMENT OF GEORGE FORD Mr. Ford. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Matsui and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak today and appear before this committee again. At issue in this hearing is the role of FDA oversight in health-related applications for mobile devices and the platforms on which they run. MHealth applications are believed to have great potential to promote better health and improve the efficiency of the health care system. MHealth can also help address the documented health in lower-income segments of the population where the provision of health services and treatment compliance can be challenging. In my testimony today, I touch upon a couple of thoughts about the possible regulation of mobile applications and platforms as medical devices by the FDA. First, by its very nature, regulatory intervention into mHealth by the FDA will have direct implications for the Nation's mobile communications industry. Mobile applications, mobile devices and mobile networks are all part of the mobile communications ecosystem. In a greater or lesser degree, to touch one, is to touch them all. United States mobile industry is a true American success story, and the mobile app economy is said to employ about a half a million persons. Many believe that the continued growth in the mobile sector, both in size and innovative capacity, is critical for the U.S. economy. One study suggests that the diffusion of new technology and mobile wireless communications supports about 400,000 jobs annually, and the billions invested annually in mobile and fixed networks supports and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. Accordingly, regulating mobile applications is not only a health care issue but a much broader economic one. The difference between a good decision and a bad decision regarding the FDA's regulation of the mobile sector may have significant economic impacts. Indeed, economic theory and ample literature demonstrate that the inevitable and arguably intended effect of FDA involvement is to raise the cost of innovation, to alter the trajectory of innovation, to reduce competition and to favor larger firms that can afford the overhead of dealing with a federal regulatory agency. In a tradeoff with efficiency and efficacy and safety, these negative effects may be acceptable. Gains from improvements in safety and quality may be sufficient to offset the lost innovation and higher prices from less competition. Normally, the cost-benefit tradeoff is limited to the health sectors, but in the mobile ecosystem, the FDA's intervention could spill over into the entire mobile broadband industry. The dangers are significant, and I applaud this committee for taking this matter seriously. Second, while the scope of the FDA's regulation of mHealth is a complex issue on its own, the decision is made ever more complex by the Affordable Health Act's medical device excise tax. Regulation and taxation are completely different questions, and there is no reason to believe, and every reason to suppose, that the proper methodologies for choosing when is appropriate or not will be quite different in scope and severity. Taxes may or may not raise revenues, but taxes always discourage the activity being taxed and play no apparent role in ensuring the safety of the product being sold. Yet the role of the FDA in assessing mobile health applications cannot be treated today as independent of the tax question since defining applications medical devices may very well lead to the taxation of such applications under the Affordable Health Act. In addition, given health disparities for low-income Americans and given the expectation that mHealth will be particularly effective with low-income Americans, the medical device tax may prove to be a regressive tax. Moreover, the medical device can be described, or what I describe as, a virtue tax. Normally, the government applies taxes to items it wants people to consume less of, that is, sin taxes. The medical device tax, in contrast, applies to items a government agency has declared to be good for people. If we want innovation to drive a healthier America, then why tax such innovation? It doesn't seem to be very good policy, perhaps doing more harm than good. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I believe the FDA's draft guidance leaves the door wide open for inserting the FDA into the innovation flow of mobile handsets, tablets and other devices, or what we refer to as platforms. There are good reasons to believe that formal role for the FDA in the mobile handsets and tablets would significantly curtail the pace of innovation in that sector, an innovative pace that is rapid and highly beneficial. My written testimony discusses this concern in detail. A critical question is: could a regulator or tax collector, or even an overzealous regulator or tax collector, make a legally defensible argument that these general purpose devices, or even the entire mobile network, are medical devices and thus subject to regulation or the medical device tax? In an ecosystem like the wireless industry where all the components are tightly intertwined, where does the line get drawn on what is and what is not a medical device? Obviously, clarity is needed, and there needs to be some limitations on the scope of the FDA's reach, lest regulation and taxation become very broad in a mobile ecosystem and do significant damage to innovation in the sector. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I welcome any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Walden. Dr. Ford, thank you very much for your testimony and that of all of our witnesses today. I think it has helped explain why we are doing this hearing to begin with because we kept hearing that there is a lot of uncertainty in the marketplace that may indeed be slowing down, stifling investment, innovation and new U.S. job growth and technologies, so that is why we are doing this hearing, and I know Mr. Waxman, who had to leave, and I understand that we all have to juggle here, thinks the law is very clear. Obviously, you all don't, especially when it comes to the FDA's lack of a final rule in this area. Look, we are all for patient safety, and there is no separation here. We are all patients eventually. We want patient safety. We don't want fraudulent devices on the market. We recognize the importance of appropriate regulation. But Dr. Ford, you reminded me of something I always was told, that if you want less of something, tax it more, and you really summed it up and basically said, look, you are taking innovation in health care, don't we want more of that. Is that not what you were---- Mr. Ford. Yes. Mr. Walden. And a gross-receipts tax, which could completely stifle innovation. Mr. Ford. The gross-receipts tax will significantly deter involvement of companies in this space. It is a fairly severe tax, particularly when we are dealing with innovation, new products, new companies and even hospitals and doctors themselves have entered into the business to design their own applications. This virtue-tax issue is an interesting one, and I think it is weird when you have a government agency say OK, here is the good stuff and now we want you not to use it so much. Mr. Walden. We have run into that in my own State of Oregon. There was a medical device manufacturer who for various reasons, but they said including the new gross-receipts tax, I believe laid off, what a couple hundred people already, and I am hearing about it around the country. Dr. Dagi, are you seeing a move to take this offshore in terms of innovation and development and offshore these jobs and all that now, or not? Dr. Dagi. I am, sir, seeing two things. We are seeing that many companies attempted to take this offshore, and they are also attempting--they are also thinking about launching offshore where profits will not be taxed and where the regulatory path is both simpler and more direct. Mr. Walden. So is it accurate to say that Obamacare is driving this sort of medical technology and innovation to other countries because of this tax? Mr. Ford. I am not expert enough to say that it is Obamacare specifically. Mr. Walden. Well, but the 2.3 percent tax is part of the President's health care law. Mr. Ford. Yes, sir. Mr. Walden. All right. And so Mr. Spalter, what does that mean, people like your daughter and the innovation that could come from that? Are you concerned about a reduction in innovation in this area and that these really smart people who are probably, I don't know, 14 sitting in a garage somewhere creating apps, are going to create another Angry Birds as opposed to something in this area? And I would open that up to anybody here. That is my concern is that public policy has an impact. Is it going to have a negative impact here, which is not what we want. Mr. Spalter. America's wireless consumers, all of are actually paying roughly 17 percent of our monthly bill of our wireless services to taxes. Wireless services are taxed at two and a half times other goods and services on average across our country. We are very concerned, Mr. Chairman, that these types of taxes, if they are applied to mobile medical applications and devices, will stifle innovation, will tempt entrepreneurs to pursue, as you suggested, other types of innovation and apply their genius and their efforts to other parts of the mobile ecosystem rather than efforts to make our children, our families, our parents healthier. So there is an impact and we need to be very, very vigilant and cautious about going down this path. Mr. Walden. Mr. Jarrin, in your testimony you mentioned that as many 5 percent of the 27,000 health-related apps could be subject to regulation, yet as our data would indicate, fewer than 80 medical apps have gone through the FDA process. I was a journalism major, not a math major, but I think that leaves 1,200 apps in a state of regulatory uncertainty, roughly. Mr. Jarrin. Correct. Mr. Walden. Is that accurate, and are you concerned about the time delays and all of that? Mr. Jarrin. Yes, we are very concerned about the fact that we haven't found any clear guidance. The draft guidance document needs to be finalized, and we were hoping that through that finalized document we would have a better understanding of whether or not these apps that are on the market should be regulated or the agency will use their enforcement discretion to not regulate them. That is a very important thing, because when you are talking about a device, a medical device will always be a medical device. It is up to the agency whether or not they are going to proactively regulate that medical device, and I am speaking about the very low risk end of devices, not medium risk or higher risk devices, which I think we all agree are not the ones that we are discussing. But when we are talking about a mobile application, a health application, there is a lot of ambiguity. For example, if I were to use some of the terms like ``well being'' in my marketing claims or ``heart health'' or ``sleep deprivation'' or ``patient satisfaction'', ``stress'', even mentioning---- Mr. Walden. Do those trigger FDA? Mr. Jarrin. Unsure, and that is the kind of clarity that we are looking for from the agency, and they seemingly were ready to deliver that clarity. I believe in this very building, less than a year ago, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the center director, spoke about some of the things they were contemplating to take off the table, and they spoke about some of the things like medication adherence software potentially could be off the table, BMI calculators, I mean body mass index calculators, drug-drug formula, drug dosing calculators. That would have been very helpful for the industry. Mr. Chodor. Can I add something? Mr. Walden. If you are real quick, because I am over my time. Mr. Chodor. Well, we are hearing from developers and hospitals and docs that a lot of them are waiting on the sidelines until there is final--when are the guidelines going to come out, is there going to be a tax until they start developing in the space. Mr. Walden. And those are separate issues? Mr. Chodor. Separate issues, but they are not going forward because they are waiting. Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you all, and I thank the courtesy of the committee, we went over, but we will turn now to Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes. Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just go through this. You know, the Affordable Care Act was carefully drafted so not to add to the deficit. It imposes a small tax on a wide range of industries that will benefit from expansion of health insurance coverage for nearly 30 million Americans under the reform. Now, one such levy is the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. Now, let me just--without getting into the merits of the device tax, I would like to ask some questions to clarify quickly the applicability to smartphones, tablets and app stores. Mr. Thompson, is FDA proposing to regulate devices like smartphones and iPads or app stores like the iTunes store? Mr. Thompson. I think in the draft guidance, they did about the best they could to explain no, that they don't want to regulate those articles if they can avoid it. Admittedly, it is not the model of crafting but I think their intent came through. Ms. Matsui. OK. So if the FDA is not regulating smartphones, tablets or app stores, would they be subject to the medical device tax? Mr. Thompson. So if they are not medical devices, they would not be subject to the medical device tax. Ms. Matsui. So Mr. Thompson, it is also my understanding that IRS looks at something called the retail exemption when examining the applicability of medical device devices. Mr. Thompson. Right. Ms. Matsui. Could you explain that exemption? Mr. Thompson. Well, the exemption is meant to cover medical devices that are basically sold at retail for use by laypeople in managing their health, and so those are exempt from the tax, and it covers most things other than, for example, the professional use apps that we have referred to a few times. So whether it is for reading an ultrasound image for a doctor or whatever, those apps would be subject to the tax. But stuff sold to consumers through the app store would not, as I understand it. Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Chodor, you state in your testimony that a fair reading of the final regulations implementing the tax should lead one to conclude that the retail exemption applies to all smartphones and tablets that are on the market today. So do you agree with Mr. Thompson that based on current IRS rules, smartphones and iPads are not subject to the medical device tax? Mr. Chodor. Absolutely, Happtique agrees with that. Ms. Matsui. OK. So from all you have stated then, smartphones and tablets will not be taxed as medical devices. Now, I understand the frustration here, and I am frustrated too regarding the draft of 2011, and I agree the FDA needs to move swiftly to finalize the mobile medical app guidance. I understand that. The clarity of the final guidance can improve confidence for investment and bringing new innovative applications to the consumer, and I wholly agree with you there, and I think we really need to encourage that in a very expeditious manner. I want to move on to something else here. Spectrum is something that I am very much involved in, and we are all involved on this committee. We understand how important that is and how important it is to free up the federal spectrum. Mr. Spalter, your testimony discusses the importance of making more spectrum available to expand mobile broadband, and I couldn't agree more. Do mHealth applications have particular spectrum needs? Are hospitals and other health care providers going to be affected if we do not address the looming spectrum crunch? Mr. Spalter. I believe profoundly yes. Mobile health applications are at their nascent stage now. We are expecting there are going to be extraordinary levels of adoption, innovation, new products, new services, new applications brought to the market, and we need to have a predictable and reliable continuum of access to spectrum for enabling and deploying these innovations. Similarly, for hospitals, patient communities, professional health care providers, the need for secure, reliable, profoundly strong and scalable networks, is only going to become more important, and that is based on the availability of spectrum. Ms. Matsui. Right, exactly, but the unlicensed spectrum is also necessary for you too, correct? Mr. Spalter. Both unlicensed and licensed spectrum are going to be critical to advancing the prospect and the promise of innovation in America's health care. Ms. Matsui. So you think that this is going to be the future, and in essence, as fast as we can do this, the better it is going to be? Mr. Spalter. The President has spoken about the fierce urgency of now for the sake of our patients, for the sake of our families. Nowhere is that urgency more important than in the health care of our citizens, and mobile innovation based and built on spectrum assets and reliable networks is what will get us there. Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you very much. I see my time is exceeded. I yield back. Thank you. Mrs. Ellmers [presiding]. Thank you. I now turn to Vice Chairwoman Blackburn for her questions. Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all again for being here with us. You know, listening to you all and listening to some of the questions, I think that we are kind of walking through a period of the what-ifs, and some of the what-ifs are, well, if it is light touch, if they stay out of our business, we are going to do this, and if it is overregulating, talk to me. If the FDA says we are going to go after all of our mobile devices as well as go after some of these 80,000 apps, what is that going to do? Because we are talking about a gross-receipts tax, not a tax on your profits. So talk to me. If they go heavy-handed on this, does it stifle all the innovation? Does it shut it off? Anybody that wants to speak, raise your hand and then I will recognize you. Go right ahead. Dr. Dagi. The problem is that there is a risk to developing any kind of a medical application or medical device. For investors to come in and to provide the investment capital, they have to see a reward. Sooner or later, reward is going to be based on profits, but in the early stages it is going to be based on gross revenues. If you cut the gross revenues, first of all, you cut the valuations of the company. They become less valuable and less likely to be---- Mrs. Blackburn. So it is like anything else? The money is going to find an easier path? Dr. Dagi. It will find an easier path. Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I appreciate that. Anybody, anything else to add to that? No? OK. I want to-- Mr. Chodor, I think that probably you are the one to go to on this. I saw the national coordinator's Patient Safety Action Plan, and of course, with all of your health information management systems, a lot of that work is done down in my district in Tennessee, and we appreciate that they are there, and I know that for the HIMS members, many times with meaningful use, you have got the private certifications that are working in that space. Do you think a similar model would work for the mobile medical apps and have it go through that process as opposed to a more lengthy regulatory process? Mr. Chodor. From Happtique's point of view, we don't think it would be the same because when you take an app, as we were mentioning earlier today, where it takes a mole and takes a picture of it and says is it a melanoma or not, and someone is going to make a clinical decision based on an app, we believe that is something that should go in the hands of the FDA, an organization that has done that, and that should be done by the government as opposed to private sector. Just like Happtique's certification program, we aren't covering apps that should be FDA. We think those apps that are really making clinical decisions should be regulated. Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Anybody else want to add to that? No? Nothing else? OK, Mr. Jarrin. The IOM recommendations, when did you suggest FDA move forward with its draft guidance? Mr. Jarrin. When did we suggest? Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Mr. Jarrin. We suggested when we offered comments to the agency back in October of 2011. The agency released their draft guidance document in July. They opened up a 90-day comment period, and I believe they accepted over 700 pages of comments from over 100 stakeholders in the industry and the public, et cetera, and we were one of those, meaning Qualcomm Incorporated. We submitted a document, which I actually appended to my written statement, so you will find it at the back of my written statement. Mrs. Blackburn. OK, then. You and Mr. Thompson, let me ask you this. Do you think the FDA or Congress should set the policy on how we move forward with IMS regulation? Mr. Jarrin. IMS regulation? Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, with the management systems, health management systems, the mobile apps. Do you think it should be us or FDA? Mr. Jarrin. I think FDA is squarely within its jurisdiction right now to move and to act, and that is what they had begun to do. We took a lot of their initial actions as a very promising indication to the industry at large that they were willing to work with all of us. Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Let me get Mr. Thompson in. Mr. Thompson. I agree with Mr. Jarrin. I think FDA is taking a fairly measured look at health information technology and is trying to do in some ways the least that they can do in the hopes of allowing innovation to flourish as much as possible, so I am optimistic now. Having said that, I want to see the document because---- Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, kind of back to Dr. Dagi's point that if the overreach is there, the money, the VC, the funding stops. Mr. Thompson. Right. We need to see the document. Ms. Blackburn. Thank you. Yield back. Mrs. Ellmers. I now turn to Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, let me say that I agree that innovation is important, that overregulation can harm public health just as underregulation can. I think there can be great value in discussing how to determine the correct balance and how to achieve it. But when I read the Republican memo for today's hearing, I got the impression that the only two issues of interest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with respect to health IT whether the FDA will inhibit innovation and whether all of our smartphones will be subject to a device excise tax. I understand Mr. Walden agreed with my earlier statement that there is a federal interest in ensuring patient safety, and I very much appreciate that. I would like to hear from our expert witnesses whether you think there is a need for any FDA oversight of any mobile medical apps. In my opening statement, I mentioned the example of the apps that claim to be able to educate the consumers as to whether a mole is a sign of a melanoma. Clearly, if such an app is accurate, it could lower health care costs by minimizing unnecessary trips to the doctor for the nine moles and could save lives by encouraging people to go to a doctor when they might otherwise have ignored a mole that could kill them. On the other hand, an app that is inaccurate can do just the opposite. So Mr. Chodor, do you think such an app warrants going through an FDA premarket clearance process just as it would have to do if it were a conventional standalone medical device? Mr. Chodor. Yes, we believe that any app that is going to make clinical decisions should go through a FDA type of program. Mr. Waxman. Thank you. Mr. Thompson, what do you think? Mr. Thompson. I agree with that. I think if you look at the 80 apps, for example, that have already been submitted to FDA, they represent fairly high-risk technologies that should be reviewed by FDA. Mr. Waxman. And Mr. Jarrin? Mr. Jarrin. Yes, I would agree with that assessment as well. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Spalter, do you agree? Mr. Spalter. I do agree. I think that the important issue, in addition to whether there should be preapproval is, we also need to keep our eyes and our minds focused on the costs to application developers who are going through those approval processes, the time it takes, and the importance of having a precedential document finally that will set forth the clear guidance and outline and suggest what the real balance is between assuring, as we need to, patient privacy and security at the same time not inhibiting innovation. Mr. Waxman. Good points. Dr. Dagi, do you agree that there ought to be an FDA premarket clearance for some of these devices? Dr. Dagi. Absolutely. There is a balance between innovation and patient safety. Patient safety comes first, and the balance has to be there as well. Mr. Waxman. And Dr. Ford, do you agree or disagree? Mr. Ford. Sure. There is a balance that has to be maintained. I think it depends on perhaps what representations are made by a particular application, things like that. Mr. Waxman. To Mr. Thompson, in Mr. Jarrin's testimony, he stated that 500 new mobile health apps are being launched every month compared to 400 apps that were being launched every month just a year ago. Those statistics indicate to me that the mobile medical app industry is growing at a healthy rate. We all want to see this pace of innovation in the mobile medical app market continue and accelerate. Do you think that the certainty of final guidance from FDA would help the mobile medical app industry continue to attract investment? Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. Getting a document out there in final form will relieve a lot of the uncertainty, and I think folks who have been sitting on the sidelines will be encouraged to jump in at that point. Mr. Waxman. Are the members of your coalition concerned that FDA has plans to aggressively regulate this industry or do they just want certainty? Mr. Thompson. It is a little bit of both, in all honesty. For the most part, we want certainty. We always live in some fear of overregulation but we haven't seen any evidence of that, so as of right now, we feel pretty good about it. Mr. Waxman. Good. Mr. Chodor, you discussed Happtique's app certification program and the need for an objective validation process for mobile medical apps. Do you see Happtique's certification as a substitute of any and all regulation of mobile medical apps? Mr. Chodor. Absolutely not. It is an add-on. Mr. Waxman. And what types of mobile medical apps should be subject to FDA oversight? Mr. Chodor. I think anything that is going to make a clinical decision, anything a doctor is going to use or patient is going to use that can lead to surgery or a clinical decision. Mr. Waxman. Do you believe an unfettered market creates incentives to ensure patient safety, and if not, who should step in to ensure patient safety? Mr. Chodor. That is a great question. I think it is a combination. I mean, in that case there is a place for the government and the federal agencies to participate in that, and for the public. Mr. Waxman. Of course, if a patient and a doctor can't trust the efficacy of a product, that is not going to do much good. Mr. Chodor. Exactly. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. I now turn to Mr. Latta for his questions. Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and just following on. I think that as Chairman Walden said earlier, we want to make sure that there is a clear line out there for patient safety, and we also agree that there is the need out there for FDA to ensure that patients are safe, and we also have to make sure there is a clear line to make sure that those apps that are out there that need to be regulated and those that don't have to be delineated, and I think that is what we are hearing from our panel today, and I just want to again, as I had mentioned earlier, thank you all for being here today because again I think it is an excellent panel and excellent information that we are receiving here today, and if I can just start, Mr. Chodor--I would like to go back to what you said a little bit earlier, saying that there is a clear need for the FDA to be reviewing these regs sooner than later. Would you want to just go into that a little bit? Mr. Chodor. Well, it has been July 2011 that they came out with their draft guidelines, comment period came back. The public needs to know, the developers need to know, hospitals need to know, doctors need to know what is going to be regulated and what is not going to be regulated. Right now, we are just sitting in this middle ground and no one knows, and I think that is the scariest part because the longer it takes, more apps are going to be developed, and should they be FDA approved or shouldn't they be FDA approved, nobody knows. Mr. Latta. Let me go to Dr. Dagi, and thank you very much for your effort. Many of us know what it is like to be on planes that are delayed or canceled, so we appreciate you making the effort to be here today. You know, just following on to that, when you are looking at the venture capitalist side, if folks don't have that line out there knowing how fast these things are going to be approved, what is that going to do for folks wanting to invest into these apps into the future? Dr. Dagi. It is going to increase the risk of investment and venture capitalists will put their money elsewhere. Mr. Latta. OK. And when you say putting their money elsewhere, does that mean taking that money offshore to have these apps developed? Mr. Dagi. They might. Mr. Latta. And in your testimony, you were giving some numbers. How much money are we talking about, do you think, that these medical device apps would be bringing in for venture capitalist and they would be investing into in a year's time? Dr. Dagi. That is a hard number to get a hold of right now because there are a number of things that may or may not be medical apps. We don't know whether the extension, for example, of patient engagement is a communication or whether it is a medical device. But probably I am sure we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but I can't give you a specific number at this point. Mr. Latta. Well, following up a little bit when you were just talking about folks wanting to make an investment in this, what about when they have to look at that 2.3 percent medical device tax and they have to add that in to the equation? What does that do to an investor? Dr. Dagi. If 2.3 percent is taken off the top, you have a regressive and repressive tax that is going to tell the venture capitalist the return that you can get investing in this area will be curtailed at the very early stage, at the very vulnerable stage of company development. That is the fear: the risk increases. Mr. Latta. And Mr. Jarrin, again, thanks for your testimony today too, and also, I think that Chairman Walden had brought this up, but it is really looking at, again, on the FDA side, not getting these things done quickly and slowing down that development, and we used to talk about slowing down development, again, as you just have heard from Dr. Dagi and Mr. Chodor, what does that tell people out there if they want to get into this or not? I think the chairman had mentioned a little bit earlier about, does that mean somebody doesn't get into the mobile medical app side and they go and develop some type of a game or something like that, what does that mean to the industry? Mr. Jarrin. Well, it is really tough on the industry. I have got a great example. There is a company out in California called MedCell, which changed to Vocel, that had an application called the Pill Phone, and they brought it to market, and in construction with the FDA, they actually pushed the FDA and said we are thinking about making this app and we hope that you can help us make this app, and they ended up being a regulated app. The CEO of that company claims that that was very helpful to them because it made them make a better product. However, the FDA has mentioned that those apps potentially may not even have to undergo regulation. So he ended up spending several thousands of dollars going into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to go through all of the Good Manufacturing Practices and quality systems to actually ensure that it would really fall under the FDA guidelines and regulations, and if in fact, he wouldn't have had to go through that, then that is a major capital expense that he incurred technically for nothing, so we can also argue that it was actually better because his product came out better in the long run. So you would have to weigh both sides, but I think that is very hard on the industry not knowing whether or not you are or are not going to be regulated because you have to take that into consideration. Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and Madam Chair, I see my time is expired and I yield back. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. I now turn to Mr. Lujan for his questions. Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to everyone that is here today, we really appreciate your time today. Mr. Chodor, I think the questions have been asked but I think just for clarification because of the memo that we received about today's hearing, I think that is why you are getting a lot of similar questions just to make sure that we are able to get answers to these questions. Do you think that some types of mobile medical apps deserve different levels of scrutiny than others? Mr. Chodor. Yes, I do. Mr. Lujan. And is there anyone on the panel that disagrees with that? I don't hear anyone. That is good to hear. For example, some apps might not need any premarket oversight as you have described. For some apps, consumers and health professionals might expect a version of a voluntary Good Housekeeping seal that is adequate like your organization is providing, and some apps might warrant a little more mandatory federal oversight. Do you think the FDA's draft guidance recognizes these distinctions? Mr. Chodor. I think they do. We can't wait to see the final guidelines. Mr. Lujan. Well, and I appreciate the testimony today because one area where I have seen agreement by the entire committee today is that we want to push the FDA, we want the certainty associated with this document to be put into final form, so that way we are able to move on and work together. With that being said, Mr. Thompson, you mentioned in your testimony that there is already 40,000 apps available on smartphones and tablets under the broad mHealth category, and we saw them double just last year. Have you seen any slowdown in mHealth innovation since the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Mr. Thompson. I haven't seen any slowdown. I am not in the best position. I think actually Mr. Jarrin follows those statistics better than I do, but my impression is that it is growing quite rapidly. Mr. Lujan. With that being said, Mr. Jarrin, have you seen a slowdown? Mr. Jarrin. No, no slowdown at all. As a matter of fact, it is almost like a hockey stick. Two years ago when I formed our comments to the agency, I believe that the figures I was using were about 13,000 apps in one of the app stores and 10,000 in the other, and those were not unique apps. When you hear the current statistics of 40,000 apps, I think it is even higher. It might be actually 45,000 apps, but some of those are the same company, just different types of the same app in essence, so you can't really count them as unique. My understanding from MobiHealthNews, which is one of the sources for the industry right now, is that there are 27,000 unique apps, so in 2 years it has basically doubled, and that is just unique apps, so I see no slowdown at all. I think that this is a very dynamic, vibrant space. Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Jarrin. The memo that we received today said that the Food and Drug Administration could potentially classify smartphones and tablets that run the apps as medical devices. I think that is one of the reasons that we are here today, and when you look at the FFDCA section 201(h), it states that if a device addresses the diagnosis of a disease or other conditions or in the care and mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, that it could be subject to one of these classifications. I just bought these really great pair of Nikes that have this little chip in them that communicates to my phone, so do we need to provide clarification that that shoe is not going to be classified as a medical device? Mr. Jarrin. Are you speaking to me, sir? Mr. Lujan. Yes, Mr. Jarrin. Mr. Jarrin. No, because that is a general health and fitness type of device. Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, and that is the point that I wanted to make today is, when I ride my mountain bike and I have a Bluetooth connection to it and it sends some information to my doctor and he says Ben, you have gotten a little bit chubby since you have gone to Congress, you need to start watching what you are eating, you need to start running a little bit more, and so these other devices that are communicating to a mobile device, I think what has been clear today is that there is no evidence even in what the FDA has put out when we talk about a difference between component manufacturers and device manufacturers, that there is a concern there, but we can all agree again that we need to put the FDA together. And lastly, Madam Chair, as my time expires, I hope that there is agreement with the committee and we work with the chairman and Ranking Member Waxman that we put as much pressure as we can on the FDA to get this document out, that I heard a lot of concerns from my Republican colleagues about the 2.3 percent tax, and I completely hear their opposition to this. I am hoping that they can join me in voting against the Paul Ryan budget this week because the Republican budget released last week relies on the revenue generated by the medical device excise tax to achieve its revenue targets. So, look there are some ways to talk about this today and some ways to show opposition, but when it is included in the blueprints associated with the future of what we are looking at here, there has to be a better way to do this. The only good thing I can say today, Madam Chair, is that I think we have seen some clear agreement in this area, and just one last thing. When we talk about the apps even in the startup companies and the concerns associated with the 2.3 percent excise tax that was included in the Affordable Care Act, there is one other thing that startups making retail mobile applications have an explicit retail exemption in the law that excludes these types of apps along with products like contact lenses and hearing aids. That is the truth. So we as Members of Congress also need to be careful with how we create uncertainty when we are out saying things that sometimes mislead the public, and I hope that we can work together and make sure I can join with some of my friends and use those new Nike shoes and go for a little jog. Thanks, Madam Chair. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Lujan, and I would like to say as far as clarity and factual information, the Ryan budget does not in fact do that. I now turn to Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus. Yes, it is a nice attempt. We just think it is important to balance your budget by 10 years and start paying down debt, so I guess if balancing the budget in 10 years and not paying down debt is not important to you, then I guess you go to your processes. Mr. Lujan. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Shimkus. No, actually not. I was going to try to ask for time, but I think I will use mine on this debate. Mr. Dagi and Mr. Ford, in follow-up to my colleague's other questions, talk about that chip in the phone. Does it--I mean, he is assuming that the whole panel agrees. Where do you stand on what could happen, Mr. Dagi first and Mr. Ford, with that example that my colleague just expressed? Dr. Dagi. It depends on the application, sir. If you have, for example, chips in shoes that can be used for a runner but can also be used to look at a child with cerebral palsy and use it to treat them---- Mr. Shimkus. My colleague is not paying attention to your answer, and since I would hope that he would do that, go ahead. Dr. Dagi. The same chip can have multiple applications, and traditionally, the FDA has regulated applications and clings as well as devices themselves, so the safety piece of it and the efficacy is one part. The second part is the application. We would ask for clarity on the way these are going to be regulated, and we would ask that the goalpost not be moved in the process of bringing devices to the market. Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Ford? Mr. Ford. Well, I think it is interesting that we keep asking the FDA for certainty about things and then we make certain claims about what they will or will not do. It has got to be one or the other. We either need certainty or we don't. The other issue with uncertainty that I think is important to clarify, resolving the uncertainty is not helpful in itself. What if we become very certain that they intend to regulate everything very heavily as class III devices and tax mobile phones and everything else? I don't think that would be very helpful for innovation. So resolving the certainty/uncertainty issue depends on what we become certain about and what we remain uncertain about. So resolving uncertainty is not really that helpful if we become more certain that the regulation is going to be very heavy-handed. Mr. Shimkus. And that is a great segue. Mr. Jarrin, you talked about the hockey stick, all these new apps. How many of you actually have apps right now? And what is the approval process to have an app right now? Mr. Chodor. None. Mr. Shimkus. Why do you think we have so many apps? Now, I have got my iPad here. I have got 21 updates, map updates. If you had go through--let me ask another question. How often do you update an app, Mr. Chodor? Mr. Chodor. I mean, all developers do it differently. Some developers update it three, four, five times a year. Some developers are only updating once a year. Mr. Shimkus. So if you have to go through the same regulatory regime on approval of the original app and then all the updates, doesn't that segue back into the uncertainty of the risk the raising of capital? That is a problem. Would you agree? Mr. Chodor. If the app is going to make clinical decisions, then that is the cost of being in a heavily regulated industry called health care where we are dealing with patients and physicians. Mr. Shimkus. But you are living I a world right now where you don't have it, right? Mr. Chodor. Well, we---- Mr. Shimkus. We are in a new world, a new, brave world of health care delivery that everyone is going to be happy with. But health apps developed in the absence of Obamacare and they are plentiful throughout the system, and our concern is, as the federal government gets involved, it creates uncertainty, it raises the cost of capital, it slows up the delivery process, and it could be very problematic for delivering the same care that we are all espousing. Mr. Dagi, you are nodding yes. Do you agree with that? Dr. Dagi. Absolutely. I believe that the medical application can be seen as a provider extender in some cases, so we don't have enough primary care physicians, we don't have enough specialty physicians. This is a way of getting to the patient. Mr. Shimkus. So we are all saying FDA should publish final guidance to clear up confusion. However, Mr. Dagi, you noted that we should be looking at alternatives to the FDA framework. I mean, there are some of us that realize government is big, costly, bureaucratic, slow, the Telecommunications Subcommittee. The great thing about this sector is it moves faster than we can regulate, and this is a concern that we are going to slow it down. Mr. Dagi, do you believe that the FDA framework is the best way to balance patient safety and innovation in this space? Dr. Dagi. They have the credibility and the experience. They need to take information outside the FDA. It can't be positivist. It can't be only from the inside. But with the appropriate inputs, yes. Mr. Shimkus. And you can bring the technology community in and be tech savvy, and that would be helpful. Dr. Dagi. That is correct. Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back my time. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. I now turn to my colleague, Mr. Gardner, for his questions. Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today at this hearing. A couple weeks ago I met with a constituent of mine in Colorado. He was a software developer in his earlier life, earlier years, and since has focused his attention on developing applications for a variety of uses, and one of the things he was talking about was a recent health care scare that he had. He had a conversation with a doctor in Colorado where the doctor was showing him some of the new technologies that he is able to use today when it comes to medical applications, apps, software apps, things like that, but also in the near future things that we will be using, and he described a scenario where you could walk into your bedroom and you would have a scale and you would get on the scale and you would check your weight. That scale would have a Bluetooth connection to it, to the iPad, and it would send your weight to the iPad, and then you could actually use the iPad for as little as 100 bucks, I think you said, with a device that was attached to it where you could check your blood pressure, your heartbeat, your heart rate, oxygen levels, and that that would be collected through the iPad as well. There may be some other things in the room that you could have that would also check your health status, and then that would send it through Bluetooth to the iPad, it would collect it and then send it directly to the doctor's office. At what point then are any of those things an app that could be subject to regulation, subject to a device tax? Would the scale qualify at that point as a device, Mr. Jarrin? Mr. Jarrin. The scale would qualify as a device if it is a medical device, if that is the intended use of the device. There are medical-grade weight scales and there are non- medical-grade weight scales on the market. Mr. Gardner. So but just if you had just a scale that was attached to Bluetooth, then that scale would become a regulated medical device? Mr. Jarrin. Not necessarily. You need the intended use from the manufacturer. Mr. Gardner. So the intended use would be just you go buy a scale and the intended use is to check your weight. That is what a scale is. Mr. Jarrin. Right. Mr. Gardner. That weight then gets sent. Is that a medical device? Mr. Jarrin. Not necessarily. It depends again on the intended use by the manufacturer. Mr. Gardner. So not necessarily but it could be? Mr. Jarrin. Correct. It could be. Mr. Gardner. OK. So there is no clarity there. Mr. Jarrin. Well, it really--what we would need is more information about what the manufacturer intends with---- Mr. Gardner. Well, it is intended as a scale. It is intended to check your weight. Mr. Jarrin. But there are some scales that are just for informational purposes and there are others that are---- Mr. Gardner. Well, all scales are for informational purposes. Mr. Jarrin. Correct, but some make medical claims, and if that---- Mr. Gardner. A medical claim as in, you weigh 150 pounds, which clearly I do not. Mr. Jarrin. But this could be used for medicine. Mr. Gardner. But aren't scales used for medicine? Mr. Jarrin. Not all. Mr. Gardner. Well, why would you check your weight then? Mr. Jarrin. For informational purposes. You want to lose weight---- Mr. Gardner. For informational purposes, so it is like reading a description of a coloring box, this is red, this is blue, this is yellow. That has nothing to do with the color, it just is information? Mr. Jarrin. It is information. Mr. Gardner. That makes no sense to me. A scale is used to check your weight. Dr. Dagi, at what point does everything in your room then, the Bluetooth connection, the iPad, could it check your oxygen level? Is the scale a medical device subject to a tax? Dr. Dagi. You are 72 years old. You have just come out of the hospital with congestive heart failure. If your weight goes up 6 pounds, you may be about to go back into the hospital with another cycle of congestive heart failure. That scale has to be sufficiently accurate and precise to be able to adjust your medications, and at that point it becomes a medical device. If you put a penny in a scale at an arcade, that is not a medical device. Mr. Gardner. So is there clarity, though, of whether the iPad at that point that collects the information from the scale? Dr. Dagi. It depends on whether the iPad has a built-in algorithm that does something with the information. It is not only the data, it is converting the data into usable information and how that information will be used. Mr. Gardner. So I am hearing from several of the panelists that it depends. It might be, it could be. To me, that is not clarity. To me, that means that you have an entire room of iPhones, iPads, BlackBerrys that communicate with each other but it just depends on whether or not something is used for its intended purpose. Dr. Dagi, is there the clarity that we need in this field to ensure innovation? Dr. Dagi. We do not have the necessary clarity. Mr. Gardner. And Mr. Jarrin, would you agree with that at that point? Mr. Jarrin. It depends. Mr. Gardner. It depends? ``It depends'' is not clarity. If it depends, that doesn't seem to me to give you the kind of certainty and innovation and funding that we are seeking. Mr. Jarrin. There is insufficient clarity with low-risk medical devices or low-risk devices. Mr. Gardner. But is low risk a scale? Mr. Jarrin. Yes, it could be, if it is for recreational purposes. Mr. Gardner. Mr. Spalter, so is there sufficient clarity in this realm to know that innovation can continue unfettered? Mr. Spalter. Clearly not, and we have a group of experts here that are struggling with this question. Imagine what it must be like for the members that we represent, the app developers who are sitting on their laptops in their living rooms trying to dream up the next innovations. How are they dealing with this level of uncertainty? What we are asking for is not necessarily one framework or another. What we are asking for is let us create that balance, let us find the line, let us put down on paper where we actually--what we need to understand, and once we get there, I think the hockey stick that we talked about, 40,000 medical apps, will become 100,000, 200,000 medical apps. In fact, I would even say that if we had that clarity, that the smartphone that is enabled to test urinalysis that we talked about earlier today, there would already be three or five new apps that have been developed just this morning. Mr. Gardner. Madam, if I can just ask one follow-up? So I mean, the line clearly is in the wrong place at this point, and we have got to adjust it. Would you agree with that, Mr. Spalter? Mr. Spalter. I believe that we need clarity, yes. Mr. Gardner. Dr. Dagi? Dr. Dagi. Yes, sir. Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you. Mr. Lujan, did you have additional questions or comments that you wanted to make? OK. I will finish up with my questioning. Mr. Thompson, I have a question for you. In the wireless world, most wireless devices are replaced in a 2-year cycle, and mobile operating systems are replaced in as little as 1 year by their next version. Considering the high rate of technology advancement that is taking place, in your experiences with the FDA's regulatory processes, how long does the premarket approval process take on average for a noninvasive medical device? Mr. Thompson. There is quite a range but the range could be anywhere from about 90 days at the earliest for the actual FDA review, to up closer to a year and a half would also be reasonably typical. Mrs. Ellmers. So basically a year and a half is going to elapse before some of these very important medical applications can be put forward. I would just like to finish by asking all of you to respond to a couple of questions. Yes or no or unclear, I would like the response. I think one of the things that this very important subcommittee hearing has really brought to light is, one, we all care about patient safety and we want to practice appropriately. We agree that there is FDA approval and regulatory processes that need to be in place for certain levels, especially when we are looking at something as important as diagnosing a disease. Mr. Spalter, I listened to your testimony and I have personal experience with diabetes. My older brother was diagnosed 40 years ago. Where would he be today had we had some of that innovation in place. This is one where I would like to start to get a yes, no or unclear answer. Do you all agree that it is still unclear where we are with what is a medical device, starting with Mr. Jarrin? Mr. Jarrin. Yes. Mr. Thompson. Yes. Mr. Chodor. Yes. Mr. Spalter. Yes. Dr. Dagi. Yes. Mr. Ford. Yes. Mrs. Ellmers. The other question that I have for you is this. FDA regulation and medical device tax, or gross tax are the two issues that we are really talking about today. In your opinion, if it is FDA regulated, should the medical device tax be in place? I guess I should preface that by saying, do you believe that the medical device tax is going to hamper innovation? And I would like for each of you to answer that question first. Mr. Jarrin. Unclear. Mr. Thompson. I would say it definitely hampers innovation. Mr. Chodor. Unclear. Mr. Spalter. It is still unclear. Dr. Dagi. Definitely yes. Mr. Ford. The tax will hamper innovation. Mrs. Ellmers. In your opinion then, if FDA regulation is in place, and certainly we have seen the need for FDA regulation. We need to make sure we are practicing safely and best practices are being adhered to. Do you believe if the FDA regulation is in place that a medical device tax for such a product should be in place as well? Mr. Jarrin. Unclear. Mr. Thompson. We oppose the tax. Mr. Chodor. Unclear. Mr. Spalter. Unclear. Dr. Dagi. Separate the tax from the regulation. Mr. Ford. Two completely different questions. Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you very much. I truly appreciate the testimony that all of you have given here today. This really opens up that door on this discussion that we need to have as to whether or not this medical device tax is something we need to move forward with, and of course, all important FDA regulations, so thank you very much. This subcommittee hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton Imagine the potential to improve Americans' wellbeing if we were to bring wireless innovation to health care. Wireless carriers invested $25.4 billion in capital expenditures from mid-2011 to mid-2012, and that investment was made in a poor fiscal environment. The mobile application business has experienced explosive growth since its inception a half decade ago--responsible for the creation of approximately 500,000 jobs and it is now a projected $25 billion industry for this year. The 321.7 million connected mobile devices in the United States as of mid-2012 exceeds the number of citizens, as many consumers now use a combination of smartphones, tablets, and laptops. And 60 percent of adults already say they track health data, seven percent using an ``app'' or other tool on their wireless device. That figure is only going to continue to rise as apps become more and more a part of our daily lives. Helping people take better care of themselves with their mobile devices can make them healthier while at the same time cutting costs. The question is: how do we harness this innovation? The mobile application economy is characterized by low barriers to entry, quick time to market, inexpensive retail prices, and rapid upgrade cycles. That will not be sustainable, however, if we indiscriminately regulate and tax mobile applications, smartphones, and tablets as if they were artificial hips or pacemakers. Arbitrarily applying the definition of ``medical device'' and the medical device tax to the wireless world could prove disastrous and grind this innovation cycle to a halt. We certainly want to ensure patient safety, but the approach we take must be a smart one. My hope today is that our witnesses can shed light on how the medical device definition and tax is being applied to mobile devices and applications and what the impact is. I look forward to their testimony. # # # ---------- Prepared statement of Hon. Leonard Lance Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses who have all come to share their experience and expertise with us today. The mobile app market place is growing at an exponential pace. We are seeing more innovative new apps on the market every day that help American consumers with innumerable daily tasks. This is one space where we are truly seeing fast paced development and where new, tech savvy entrepreneurs can quickly make their brainstorm into a reality and bring it to the market almost immediately upon completion. There is a significant sector of this market aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives; this is the mobile health sector. A simple search for health and fitness apps for the iPhone produces page after page of options ranging from heart rate monitors, to calorie counters, to exercise apps and so much more. These technologies, as well as more advanced equipment and programs that are being used in doctor's offices and hospitals every day are helping to improve consumers' health and well being and in my cases bring down the overall cost of providing health care in this country. Unfortunately, the prospect of arduous regulatory processes, or worse, the prospect of being subject to a poorly thought out regressive tax loom as potentially chilling barriers for some new entrants into this market. There rightly is a role for the FDA to have a regulatory role with many of these new technologies but they must be clear about what kinds of apps and devices will be required to undergo their full regulatory review and what others would be exempt. Some of our witnesses point out that FDA is still finalizing many of its regulations that determine what is a ``medical device'' and what is not and that this final analysis may have a significant impact on what qualifies under Obamacare's medical device tax. Uncertainty like this is one of the largest drags on our nescient economic recovery. This brings me to the Medical Device Tax itself. I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, view the imposition of the 2.3% tax on the medical device industry as arbitrary and wrongheaded. Mr. Ford makes that case pretty succinctly in his testimony in my opinion. This $20 billion tax should be repealed as soon as possible. The fact that there is any question as to whether or not a mobile device like an iPhone, iPad, or blackberry may be subject to this regressive tax would be comical if it weren't such a potentially serious issue. I have a constituent back home in New Jersey who is working with companies on the leading edge of some of this innovation. John Letko is President & CEO of U.S. Healthcare Supply located in Milford, NJ. His company provides care for roughly 150,000, most Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Mr. Letko is currently working with another company in development of a new glucometer that attaches to a smartphone and a corresponding app to help patients with diabetes monitor and track their glucose levels and seamlessly share that information with caregivers or family members. Fortunately for him, recent IRS guidance appears to put this new device under the so called retail exemption from the medical device tax and hopefully the same applies to the app. However, he recently wrote me a letter expressing serious concerns he has with the medical device tax's possible effect on his industry. He rightfully points out that for a company like his, the President's sequester has already resulted in a 2% cut the provider side of Medicare and recent cuts to the reimbursement for mail order diabetes supplies have created a very challenging environment. A further 2.3% tax could be very damaging to the industry. While my colleagues and I work to finally repeal this damaging tax provision I would encourage the FDA to carefully consider how it regulates these new and innovative technologies. We must ensure safety but should not impede technological progress unnecessarily. We must find the right balance between protecting consumers and harnessing the power of America's innovators to ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of the boom we are seeing in the development of such technologies. ---------- Prepared statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo Mr. Chairman, today's hearing provides an opportunity to examine the exciting intersection between mobile technology and healthcare. Representing Silicon Valley and serving as Co-Chair of the House Medical Technology Caucus, I see first-hand the impact that the next generation of mobile health applications and devices are having on healthcare accessibility and improvements to care. In July 2011, the FDA announced it was seeking input with respect to how the agency should approach oversight of certain mobile medical apps used on smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. In the nearly two years since the FDA sought comment, there have been over 700 pages of comments, the vast majority of which support the FDA's draft guidance. The FDA also conducted a two-day workshop on mobile medical apps which provided feedback from a variety of stakeholders, including manufacturers, healthcare providers and app developers. Unfortunately, in a hearing intended to examine how ``FDA regulations and taxes could impact innovation in mobile applications and services,'' we don't have the FDA here to tell their story. Also absent from this discussion is the importance of unlicensed spectrum to hospitals and other healthcare professionals around the country. For example, in Logan, Ohio, through the power of unlicensed spectrum below 1 gigahertz, the Hocking Valley Community Hospital has a robust broadband solution that is improving the efficiency and quality of care throughout the hospital. Elsewhere in the country, unlicensed spectrum is supporting nurse call systems, mobile duress pendants, as well as fluid pump, respirator and other medical equipment alarm telemetry. I understand the desire of innovators to have a predictable regulatory process for the apps they're developing. But mobile medical applications are an emerging and exciting new field of technology and we're still trying to get a handle on what the landscape looks like. As technology advances, the clear lines of what's considered a medical device are becoming blurred. We have to be careful not to lock ourselves into a misguided pathway without a more complete picture of what these new technologies are capable of. The FDA's primary goal is to ensure patient safety and I believe they are working diligently on final guidance for regulation of mobile health applications. Despite the FDA's absence from today's hearing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and their enthusiasm for this emerging field of innovation that could one day transform our healthcare system. I share this enthusiasm and hope to see patients and the industry flourish. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]