What's Next for LDTs? A Look Beyond the Ruling

Get the key takeaways from our expert-led webinar on the LDT final rule ruling—and why labs must stay vigilant as the story unfolds.

The recent court decision vacating the LDT final rule has sent ripples through the laboratory community. While this ruling on March 31st represents a significant win, it's crucial to understand that this isn't the end of the story.

In our recent webinar with Christine P. Bump of Penn Avenue Law & Policy, we explored the details of the ruling, its broader implications, and what labs can expect next. Christine provided a clear, insightful overview of what this decision means for labs—both now and moving forward—and how to stay ahead in a shifting regulatory environment.

One thing is clear: this situation is far from over, and complacency is not an option for labs.

Understanding the Court's Decision

The court's decision centered on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies like the FDA exercise their authority. The judge ruled that the FDA's LDT final rule exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

Essentially, the court determined that the FDA's attempt to regulate LDTs as devices was unlawful. The judge emphasized the distinction between LDTs, which are laboratory test services, and the tangible, physical products that the FDA is authorized to regulate as devices. This is a critical point that underpins the entire ruling.

What This Means for Your Lab

The immediate impact of the ruling is that the LDT final rule is no longer in effect. This means the Stage 1 deadline and other compliance deadlines are void. However, the matter has been remanded to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), leaving open the possibility of further action.

It's important to stress that this ruling doesn't fundamentally alter the FDA's existing jurisdiction. The FDA retains its authority over in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs), specimen collection kits, and laboratory instruments and platforms. Labs must continue to ensure compliance with regulations related to these products.

Furthermore, questions remain about tests already on the market that were historically LDTs but went through the FDA review process. While it's unlikely that existing PMAs or 510(k) clearances will be revoked, the ruling does raise complex issues about post-market requirements and the regulatory status of new tests or modifications to existing ones.

Looking Ahead: Potential Next Steps

So, what actions might we see from the FDA and HHS? Several possibilities exist:

• Appeal: The government could appeal the court's decision.

• New Rulemaking: The FDA could attempt to promulgate a new rule to regulate LDTs, although this would be challenging given the court's reasoning. The FDA could also use rulemaking to formally rescind the LDT final rule.

• No Action: The FDA could choose to take no further action at this time.

• Legislative Action: The FDA and HHS could work with Congress to enact new legislation, either to modernize CLIA or to establish a new regulatory framework for laboratory tests.

Taking Proactive Steps

In this period of uncertainty, it's vital for labs to stay informed and engaged. Here are some steps you can take:

• Monitor Developments: Keep a close eye on legislative and judicial updates.

• Engage with Associations: Consider joining a trade association or professional society to stay informed and amplify your voice. Organizations like ACLA, AMP, CAP, The Coalition for 21^st Century Medicine, and The Coalition for Innovative Laboratory Testing all track legislation, regulation, and litigation.

• Advocate: Actively participate in shaping the future regulatory landscape by communicating with your representatives.

The voice of the laboratory community remains critical in the ongoing regulatory dialogue. Through continued awareness and proactive engagement, the industry can collectively navigate the evolving landscape and help secure a sustainable future for laboratory testing.

Want to dive deeper into this critical topic? You can access the on-demand recording of the full webinar here and connect with Christine Bump on LinkedIn for more insights.

This recap is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. For specific guidance, consult legal or regulatory experts familiar with your lab's needs.

Beyond the LDT Ruling: Next Steps & What it Means for Your Lab (Q&A) 
Download PDF version

1. Reimbursement Challenges Beyond FDA Regulation
   While not a reimbursement attorney, the expert emphasized what most labs already know: reimbursement is complex and evolving. Historically, tests without FDA clearance or approval struggled to get paid. However, with frameworks like MolDx and ADLT, there are now more pathways to coverage, but they often require post-market data showing clinical utility. 
   
   Tip: Partner with a reimbursement expert to stay ahead of payer shifts and navigate gray areas.

2. Are Unregulated LDTs a Safety Risk?
   The FDA believes its review process is essential to ensure test safety and accuracy. But the ruling acknowledged that CLIA, CAP accreditation, and ISO standards already provide strong safeguards. The court accepted the plaintiffs’ arguments that adding FDA oversight could stifle innovation, especially in rare disease testing, by creating costly and duplicative burdens.
   
   Bottom Line: The safety debate continues, but labs remain accountable under existing regulatory frameworks.

3. What About RUO Reagents?
   RUO (Research Use Only) components used in LDTs are still under FDA’s watch. This issue wasn’t addressed in the recent ruling; the FDA maintains authority and could pursue enforcement.
   
   Reminder: Existing RUO/ASR rules remain in place. Labs should be cautious and ensure documentation aligns with intended use.

4. Can CLIA Handle Clinical Validity?
   As it stands, CLIA doesn’t require clinical validity, and CMS has acknowledged it lacks the infrastructure to assess clinical validity. A shift would require congressional action and significant funding.
   
   For now: Labs aren’t required to demonstrate clinical validity under CLIA, but they may need to for reimbursement or payer contracts.

5. Some FDA Practices Worth Adopting Anyway
   Even with the FDA’s rule vacated, labs may benefit from implementing some FDA-aligned processes, especially if there's a future goal of pursuing a 510(k), De Novo, or PMA.
   
   Good Practice: Consider adopting FDA’s recordkeeping and clinical trial documentation standards. It can boost readiness, support reimbursement efforts, and offer a competitive edge if new frameworks emerge.

6. Staying Informed Despite FDA Staff Reductions (RIFs)
   While the FDA has experienced internal RIFs, routine email alerts and device communications are still going out. That said, transparency on LDT issues may decline, especially under current leadership.
   
   Action Step: Stay subscribed to FDA lists and keep an eye out for changes in public communication.

7. If FDA Appeals—What Happens to the Rule Dates?
   If the FDA appeals, they could request a stay—which would pause the court's decision and potentially reinstate the final rule’s compliance deadlines temporarily. But without a stay, the dates remain void. 

   
   Takeaway: Labs should monitor any appeal closely, as enforcement timelines could shift quickly.

Final Thought for Labs:
Stay agile, document thoroughly, and plan for multiple scenarios. As regulation and reimbursement rules evolve, labs that build flexible, compliant processes will be best positioned to thrive.