Wound Care

Where the Reimbursement Rules Changed Before the Science Did.

Regulatory strategy for wound care — where a skin substitute can be a tissue, a device, or a biologic, and CMS just rewrote the economics.

Three regulators, one wound

Wound Care Is a Classification Problem With a Reimbursement Engine Attached.

A product placed on a diabetic foot ulcer might be a Class I dressing, a Class II wound-care device, a 361 HCT/P regulated as tissue, a 351 biologic requiring a BLA, or a drug. The distinctions turn on minimal manipulation, homologous use, and what the product claims to do — and a large part of the industry has spent years on the wrong side of them.

Meanwhile the economics were driven by Medicare reimbursement that paid generously for skin substitutes with thin evidence, creating a market that regulation had not really examined. That gap is now closing from both directions. We settle the pathway question before it is settled for you, because enforcement discretion is not a business model.

A healthcare professional in gloves applying a bandage to an injured arm, focusing on first aid care
The gap is closing

Generous codes funded a market thin on evidence. FDA enforcement and CMS reform are arriving together.

The question that decides everything

361 or 351 — the Difference Between a Registration and a BLA.

For any human tissue-derived wound product, one determination governs the entire program: does it qualify as a 361 HCT/P, or is it a 351 biologic requiring a licence?

Minimally manipulated?
21 CFR 1271
Test one

Processing that does not alter the tissue's original relevant characteristics. Cutting and cleaning may qualify; changing structure or function does not.

Homologous use?
21 CFR 1271
Test two

The product performs the same basic function in the recipient that it did in the donor. Amniotic tissue as a wound covering may qualify; as a therapy that stimulates healing, it does not.

Both satisfied
Registration only
361 HCT/P

No premarket application. Register the establishment, list the product, follow donor eligibility and GTP requirements. Fast, cheap, and narrow.

Either fails
BLA required
351 Biologic

A full biologics licence: clinical trials, CMC, potency assays, and inspections. Years and tens of millions — for the same physical product.

The homologous use test is where the industry broke. Amniotic membrane products marketed as wound coverings sit reasonably within 361; the same tissue marketed as stimulating healing or delivering growth factors is claiming a non-homologous therapeutic effect and needs a BLA. Many companies made that claim in their marketing while filing as tissue — and the FDA's period of enforcement discretion, extended through the pandemic, has expired.

Six wound worlds

Six Product Classes, Five Regulatory Regimes.

Wound care packs more classification ambiguity into one clinical problem than any other field on this site.

Class I · II

Dressings

From simple coverings to antimicrobial and interactive dressings, where an antimicrobial claim can pull a dressing toward drug review.

361 vs 351

Skin Substitutes

The field's defining question, its largest market, and the place where enforcement and reimbursement reform are landing simultaneously.

NPWT

Advanced Devices

Negative pressure, ultrasonic debridement, and oxygen therapy — Class II devices with real bench and human-factors content.

Growth factors

Biologic Therapies

Recombinant products and cell-based therapies with a boxed-warning history and a genuine efficacy bar.

Biofilm

Infection Management

Antimicrobials and antibiofilm agents where the claim decides whether you are a device or a drug.

Imaging · AI

Wound Assessment

Photographic measurement and AI-based tissue classification — SaMD, arriving in a field with no imaging tradition.

Surgeon's hands in gloves preparing bandages on a sterile field during surgery
Closed, or not closed

Ninety percent smaller is not closed. And the control arm — offloading, debridement — genuinely works.

The endpoint nobody can argue with

Complete Wound Closure Is Binary, Brutal, and the Only Endpoint That Counts.

The FDA's accepted primary endpoint for chronic wound products is complete closure — full epithelialisation, confirmed and durable, usually within twelve weeks. It is unforgiving by design: a wound that is ninety percent smaller has not closed. Percent area reduction, granulation quality, and time-to-closure are supportive at best.

That endpoint, combined with the requirement for good wound care in the control arm — offloading, debridement, moisture management — is why so many products with real biological activity fail. The control arm works. We design wound trials against complete closure and a control arm that will actually perform, because the alternative is discovering both at once.

Two forces arriving at once

The Regulatory and Reimbursement Corrections Are Landing Together.

Wound care is being repriced and re-examined at the same time, which is a difficult combination for a business built on the old settings.

361 or 351

One determination — minimal manipulation and homologous use — separates an establishment registration from a full biologics licence.

12 weeks

to complete closure, confirmed and durable, against a control arm receiving genuinely good wound care. Nothing partial counts.

Expired

The FDA's enforcement discretion period for HCT/P products has ended. Marketing claims and filing status now have to agree.

Where wound care programs stall

Six Failure Modes We Are Brought In to Prevent.

In this field the marketing department frequently writes the regulatory strategy without knowing it.

1

Non-homologous claims on a 361 filing

Marketing tissue as stimulating healing while registering it as a wound covering — the mismatch that ended enforcement discretion.

2

Complete closure underestimated

Powering on percent area reduction and discovering the agency only accepts full, durable epithelialisation.

3

A control arm that works

Failing to model good wound care in the comparator, and losing to offloading and debridement done properly.

4

Antimicrobial claim creep

A dressing that claims to treat infection rather than manage the wound environment, and lands in drug review.

5

Reimbursement-led development

Building the product around a payment code rather than an evidence base, as the code changes underneath it.

6

SaMD arriving unnoticed

Adding photographic measurement or AI tissue classification and acquiring software regulatory obligations nobody planned for.

People who have settled the pathway

Wound Care Regulatory Leadership That Starts With the Classification.

Our wound care leads have taken skin substitutes through the 361/351 determination, designed complete-closure trials, and rebuilt programs after enforcement discretion ended.

Nurse provides care for an elderly patient in a hospital room, showcasing empathy and professionalism

"In wound care, your regulatory pathway is decided by your marketing claim and your manufacturing process — usually before anyone in regulatory has been asked."

The discipline we bring across dressings, skin substitutes, advanced devices, and wound biologics.

361 vs 351 determinations HCT/P & GTP compliance Complete closure trial design Dressing classification NPWT device pathways Reimbursement-aware evidence

Bringing a Wound Product Forward? Settle 361 or 351 First.

Bring senior wound care regulatory leadership in before the claim, the process, and the filing status disagree with each other.

Senior-led. Embedded in your team. No junior hand-offs.