PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 426.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Apr 18, 2016
FDA Device Accountability Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to eliminate the requirement for the Institutional Review Board supervising the clinical testing of an investigational or humanitarian medical device to be local.
(Sec. 3) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must revise the guidance entitled “Recommendations for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Waiver Applications for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices.”
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) The FDA must ensure that employees who review premarket submissions of medical devices receive training on least burdensome means requirements. (Currently, the FDA is required to consider the least burdensome appropriate means for a sponsor to demonstrate the effectiveness of a medical device or demonstrate a device’s substantial equivalence to an approved medical device.) The FDA must periodically assess the implementation of those requirements. The ombudsman for any applicable unit of the FDA must audit and report on the training.
The FDA must consider the least burdensome appropriate means necessary to demonstrate medical device safety and effectiveness when requesting additional information from a device sponsor to support a premarket approval application, including the role of postmarket information in such a demonstration.
The FDA’s documented rationale for a significant decision regarding a medical device must include a statement regarding how the least burdensome requirements were considered and applied.
People & committees
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 426.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Alexander with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Alexander with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 21, 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 S.1622 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 S.1622 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 S.1622 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 S.1622 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.