PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 14, 2011
Premarket Predictability Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assign a tracking number to a medical device upon submission of: (1) an application for an exemption of a device for investigational use, (2) a request to classify a device, or (3) a premarket report or notification related to a device. Requires the Secretary to use the tracking number to record interactions between the Secretary and applicant with respect to the device.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) assign a reviewer with prior review experience with the type of of device or technology involved or other relevant expertise to review an application for an exemption of a device for investigational use, and (2) evaluate whether the investigational study can be conducted ethically with reasonable risk in determining whether to grant an exemption for investigational use.
Prohibits the Secretary from disapproving an application because the investigation does not or may not meet any requirement relating to the approval or clearance of a device because the Secretary believes that a different clinical testing design or plan could produce data more relevant to an approval or clearance decision.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises the procedures relating to submission of an application to investigate a class II or a class III device, which may include a plan for determining whether the device is substantially equivalent to or is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval requirements.
Sets forth requirements for the Secretary to meet in determining the least burdensome appropriate means of evaluating medical device effectiveness that would have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in approval.
Requires the Secretary to document the scientific and regulatory rationale for any significant decision of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health regarding device review, approval, or exemption. Sets forth appeal procedures. Requires the Secretary to regularly publish detailed decision summaries for each clearance of a device not requiring premarket approval.
People & committees
Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-19] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3209 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3209 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3209 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3209 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.