The Unwritten Rules of Global MedTech Regulation: Why 93% of Submissions Fail
Success with medical devices is about more than just great tech. With the global MedTech market projected to be nearly $887 billion by 2032, the opportunities are huge—but so are the challenges.
Here’s the most telling stat is this: 93% of submissions fail on their first try. That’s proof that, for biomedical engineers and MedTech companies, success is more than technical know-how. It requires regulatory savvy, strategic thinking, and a firm knowledge of what we call “the unwritten rules” of medtech regulation.
The Regulatory Maze
The medical device regulatory landscape is far more complex than just compliance checkboxes. Consider this: 98.9% of devices go through the 510(k) pathway, but the average time to make a decision is 147 days, well beyond the FDA’s 90-day goal. This delay is reflective of the complexity of medical devices and the regulatory framework designed to keep them safe.
What makes this even more challenging is the regional inconsistencies. North America has the largest market share at around $198 billion, but each region has its own regulatory requirements and approval process. The FDA has one set of expectations while the EU MDR operates under a completely different principle. This creates a web of requirements that companies must navigate simultaneously to access global markets.
And then there’s the rise of digital health technologies. Modern medical devices aren’t just mechanical or electrical anymore—they’re complex systems that often include AI, cloud connectivity, and real-time data processing. Each of these features brings its own regulatory considerations. For example, cybersecurity is now a critical concern, with the FDA requiring robust security measures both pre- and post-market.
The Unwritten Rules
The gap between regulatory compliance and regulatory success often comes down to experience. Here’s a reality that many don’t talk about: the FDA’s reviewer pool is getting younger as experienced regulators retire. This demographic shift means while the rules remain the same, their interpretation and application are changing. Understanding the unwritten expectations is more important than ever.
In other words, it’s not just about following the rules—it’s about understanding how those rules are being applied in real life. A device that meets every written requirement may still get delayed or rejected because it doesn’t address unwritten expectations, or doesn’t anticipate the common concerns that regulators look for.
One of the biggest misconceptions is treating medical device submissions like consumer product approvals. At Concise Engineering, we see new engineering firms bringing fresh innovation to the market yet stumbling when it comes to regulatory documentation. The rigor for medical devices is far greater than for consumer products, and this misunderstanding often leads to costly delays and multiple submissions.
Consider this: while a consumer product might need to demonstrate basic safety features, a medical device must prove not just safety but also efficacy, biocompatibility, and risk management through extensive documentation and testing. Missing any of these, or even not presenting them in the expected format, can trigger additional rounds of review—even if your device is technically sound.
The best companies know that regulatory strategy is about knowing which path to take. Sometimes, that means pursuing a less complex indication first and gathering data for more advanced applications later. This strategic approach, which is born from experience, often proves more efficient than trying to do everything in one submission.
Strategic Approaches
To repeat, the path you take is just as important as the destination. A comprehensive regulatory strategy must be established before development begins—not after. This proactive approach is more important than ever as the industry is under more scrutiny and changing standards.
At the heart of a good strategy is understanding that there are multiple paths to clearance. The key is to choose the one that aligns with your product’s unique characteristics and your business goals. For example, 97% of devices are cleared through the 510(k) pathway, but this isn’t always the best choice. Sometimes, a de novo classification or even a full PMA is better for your long-term goals.
Risk management is a big part of this strategic approach. Modern medical devices have complex supply chains and technology stacks. Each component and supplier brings risks that must be evaluated and mitigated to build a robust quality system that can withstand regulatory scrutiny and patient safety.
Cybersecurity is part of this risk landscape. Medical devices are connected to networks and handle patient data so security can’t be an afterthought. It must be baked into the device design and development process with clear protocols for addressing vulnerabilities before and after market release.
Future-Proof Compliance
The medical device industry is moving from reactive to proactive compliance—and to stay ahead you need to do more than keep up with current regulations. Success depends on building a framework that can adapt to future changes and maintain quality and compliance.
The best approach combines regulatory expertise with strategic thinking. This means not just knowing today’s requirements but anticipating tomorrow’s challenges. Building robust quality systems from the start prevents these issues rather than reacting to them.
The Takeaway
In an industry where only 7% of submissions pass on the first try, experience, and strategic thinking are what make the difference between success and costly delays. The path to regulatory approval doesn’t have to be a journey of uncertainty—with the right guidance and approach, it’s a clear path to market. Get in touch with our team at Concise Engineering to book a call and find out how we can help your innovation get to market.
Justin Bushko
President, Concise Engineering
Next Steps
We hope you find this newsletter valuable and insightful.
If you have any questions, if you have feedback or would like to explore any specific topics further, please feel free to reach out to us.
Please email me at jbushko@concise-engineering.com or to book a call with me, click this link.
Stay tuned for future editions where we'll continue to share valuable information and industry updates.