Many MedTech companies focus heavily on FDA clearance but overlook a critical layer of U.S. market entry: state-level compliance. In this episode, Etienne Nichols speaks with Adam Steadman, CEO of MDD Options, to unpack the real-world challenges that derail commercialization after regulatory approval.

From navigating state-specific registration, sales tax laws, and distribution logistics to choosing between direct and distributor-based strategies, Adam shares hard-earned insights for avoiding the "second valley of death" post-clearance. Whether you're a domestic startup or an international company entering the U.S., this episode arms you with a tactical understanding of compliance landmines and scalable go-to-market strategies.

• 00:02 – Intro: The real MedTech “valley of death” after FDA clearance
• 04:45 – Why U.S. state-level registration is misunderstood and overlooked
• 08:15 – State-level definitions of medical devices and why they differ
• 11:20 – Strategic go-to-market options: Distribution vs. Direct
• 17:00 – How regulations vary drastically by state (CA, TX, etc.)
• 21:50 – The real risks of noncompliance: lawsuits, bad PR, and due diligence failures
• 26:15 – Why distribution agreements can stall your growth (and how to avoid it)
• 34:30 – Sales tax & use tax: The hidden compliance trap
• 39:10 – Logistics, warehousing, and long-term liabilities in contracts
• 44:55 – Overlooked pitfalls: Secretary of State filings and income tax in 36+ states
• 51:15 – Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): U.S. compliance still applies
• 55:30 – Selling to the U.S. government vs. private sector buyers
• 59:20 – Veterinary devices and why they still need regulatory controls
• 1:03:10 – What a winning go-to-market strategy actually looks like
• 1:10:25 – Adam’s final advice to MedTech startups (foreign and domestic)

"You're not entering one country—you're entering 50 states and D.C. Each with its own rules, definitions, and tax laws."

—Adam Steadman explains why U.S. MedTech entry requires a state-by-state strategy, especially for international companies.

"None of the strategics want your warehouse management system—they want your product, your sales, and your proof of market fit."

—Steadman on why building non-core infrastructure slows down commercialization and valuation.

1. FDA Clearance ≠ Market Readiness – State-level registrations, sales tax laws, and pharmacy board definitions often delay or block commercialization.
2. Distribution Isn’t Always a Shortcut – National distributors may have misaligned incentives and can lock you into exclusivity that hinders growth.
3. Sales Tax is a Regulatory Minefield – 46 states require separate sales tax registration, exemptions tracking, and monthly filings—even if you're tax-exempt.
4. Beware of Long-Term Contracts – Logistics and distribution contracts often lock companies into rigid terms that prevent pivots or acquisitions.
5. Speed to Market Is Strategic – Getting to market fast is often the difference between becoming #1 or #3—and #3 often gets nothing.

What Is “Nexus” and Why It Matters for Sales Tax?

“Nexus” refers to the minimum level of economic activity that triggers tax obligations in a given state. For example, selling $100,000 of devices or 200 transactions may establish nexus, requiring you to register for sales tax. Unlike VAT in Europe, U.S. sales tax laws are state-specific, making this a major compliance hurdle for MedTech companies.

In this episode of the Global Medical Device Podcast, Etienne Nichols and regulatory expert Mike Drues take a critical look at the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. While intended to serve as a vital tool for post-market surveillance, the MAUDE database is fraught with issues—from late reporting and missing data to unclear mission alignment.

Mike challenges MedTech professionals to rethink how we engage with the system, exposing how widespread underreporting and data hygiene problems not only weaken safety efforts but also increase legal risk. This eye-opening discussion reveals where the breakdowns are occurring, who’s responsible, and what industry and regulators can do to fix it.

• [02:30] What is the MAUDE database, and why does it matter?
• [06:10] The critical difference between reportable and non-reportable adverse events
• [11:20] Limitations of MAUDE: Why FDA warns against using it for rate comparisons
• [17:45] Underreporting, late submissions, and missing data: The disturbing stats
• [25:00] High-profile companies dominating late reporting violations
• [32:10] Legal consequences: What expert witnesses look for in MAUDE data
• [38:50] Is it poor systems or lack of regulatory understanding causing failures?
• [46:00] Recommendations for manufacturers: What responsible reporting looks like
• [53:20] How FDA could modernize the MAUDE database to better serve patients
• [1:01:30] Carrots or sticks: Creating incentives vs. penalties for compliance
• [1:09:00] Final thoughts: The true mission of MAUDE and how to fulfill it

"A report in the MAUDE database is just a historical record. It doesn’t say why it happened or who’s at fault—just that it happened."

— Mike Drues

This quote underscores the limited utility of MAUDE reports and why interpretation requires caution.

"If you're not a medical device professional without your tools, then you're not really a medical device professional."

— Etienne Nichols

A poignant reminder that compliance and quality are human-led, not software-enabled by default.

Late Reporting is Widespread and Risky

• Nearly 30% of MAUDE reports are filed late, with 10% submitted more than six months past due. This creates legal exposure and potential patient harm.

MAUDE Is Misused—Despite FDA Warnings

• Manufacturers commonly use MAUDE for competitive analysis or trend detection, even though the FDA explicitly warns against it.

Three Companies Account for Over Half of Late Reports

• Large, well-resourced companies like Medtronic and Becton Dickinson are responsible for a disproportionate share of noncompliance.

Electronic Tools Help, but Culture Matters More

• Software can support MDR timelines, but organizations still need internal processes and urgency to act responsibly.

FDA and Industry Both Need to Evolve

• Suggestions include AI-driven cross-referencing, tiered reporting urgency, and incentive-based compliance recognition.

• FDA MAUDE Database
• 21 CFR 803.16 – MDR Reporting Requirements
• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn

Think of the MAUDE database as a public logbook of adverse events involving medical

In this episode recorded live at LSI Dana Point, Etienne Nichols sits down with Ed Muzio, author of Iterate, to explore how iterative management helps MedTech companies move faster as they scale. Muzio breaks down the pitfalls of traditional management—including siloed execution and backward-looking metrics—and offers a proven alternative grounded in over 70 years of research.

With real-world analogies, like orchestras and dashboards, Muzio explains how leaders can create alignment, drive faster decisions, and unlock collaborative problem-solving by focusing on the future instead of the past. Whether you're part of a startup or an established MedTech firm, this episode delivers actionable strategies to help your team iterate with purpose.

• [00:01] Introduction and sponsor message from Greenlight Guru
• [01:13] Meet Ed Muzio and the premise of Iterate
• [03:15] Why most management meetings don’t drive real action
• [06:40] The “Alice” video case study and how it exemplifies iterative management
• [11:50] Common objections and barriers to implementing iterative processes
• [17:00] Using forward-looking data instead of status updates
• [22:08] MedTech example: anticipating 510(k) review delays
• [29:15] Making decisions early to gain planning time
• [34:20] How to get started if you’re a small or early-stage company
• [37:40] Cultural barriers in iterative team models
• [41:20] Handling matrixed environments and CEO-level priorities
• [47:10] Why clarity of decision-makers matters in early teams
• [51:45] The biggest mistake mature companies make in team meetings
• [55:05] Final advice: focus on behavior, not buzzwords

These quotes challenge conventional meeting norms and emphasize a proactive mindset crucial to success in fast-moving MedTech environments.

1. Backward-looking metrics kill momentum. Most leadership teams spend meetings reviewing past progress. Instead, focus on forecasting future outcomes and addressing variances before they become problems.
2. Accountability must be systemic, not personal. A team can only normalize issue-raising if the entire culture shifts to expect it—making it safe and standard to surface concerns early.
3. “Succeed or fail together” breaks silos. When departments align to shared goals, cross-functional collaboration becomes natural. Incentives that isolate progress undermine execution speed.
4. Don’t vote—decide. In small teams, designate a clear decision-maker and avoid democratic processes that lead to politicking instead of clarity.
5. Adopt flexible systems over rigid charts. Org charts don’t reflect reality. Iterative management embraces the messiness of matrixed teams and adapts meetings and collaboration structures fluidly.

In this live episode from the LSI conference, Etienne Nichols sits down with Justin Bushko—known as the "MedTech Man" and author of Medical Device Fireside Chats—to dive into what separates thriving medical device companies from those that fail.

From costly engineering missteps like ignoring tolerance stack-ups to the human factors issues that derail usability in the OR, Justin shares battle-tested advice based on his experience reviewing hundreds of device designs. He also delivers a wake-up call to startups overly focused on licensing or acquisition as the endgame. Whether you're an engineer, founder, or CEO, this episode offers critical insights into how to build a product that works—and a company that lasts.

• 00:00 – Introduction & Greenlight Guru Sponsor Message
• 01:26 – Live from LSI: Introducing Justin Bushko
• 02:55 – Why Early-Stage Engineering Mistakes Derail Companies
• 04:12 – The Critical Role of DFM and Tolerance Analysis
• 06:20 – Real-World Usability Failures: FDA Warning on Cranial Fixation Devices
• 08:10 – Human Factors Oversights & Surgeon Behavior
• 10:25 – What CEOs Should Focus On vs. Engineers
• 12:20 – Economic Buyers, KOLs, and Commercialization Challenges
• 14:05 – Don’t Chase the Exit: Why Founders Should Build for Longevity
• 16:00 – Final Thoughts and Takeaways

1. DFM & Tolerance Analysis Are Non-Negotiable: Skipping detailed design-for-manufacturing and tolerance stack analysis often leads to failure right before tooling and commercialization—when funds are already tight.
2. Human Factors Must Be Built-In Early: Surgeons may not use your product as intended. Validate with a wide range of KOLs to uncover unintended use or misuse.
3. Test for High-Risk Use Cases Early: For devices like inserters, test mechanical thresholds that could lead to field failures. Don’t wait until post-market feedback.
4. Understand Economic Buyers, Not Just KOLs: A surgeon’s support doesn’t guarantee adoption. You need champions who can advocate to hospital boards and procurement teams.
5. Stop Chasing Exits—Build Real Companies: Investors and acquirers see through the “quick flip” mentality. A sustainable business model attracts more serious interest.

• Greenlight Guru – Sponsor and end-to-end MedTech quality management platform
• Justin Bushko on LinkedIn
• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn
• Medical Device Fireside Chats –

Christian Espinosa, founder of Blue Goat Cyber and leading voice in medical device cybersecurity, joins Etienne Nichols to unpack the urgent and often misunderstood topic of cybersecurity in MedTech. From FDA’s 2023 regulatory overhaul to real-world hacking scenarios that could harm patients, Christian provides practical advice for innovators, RA/QA professionals, and software teams. He also shares why waiting until the last minute on cybersecurity could cost startups millions—or even kill a project entirely.

Whether you're a quality professional trying to build compliant systems or an innovator racing toward FDA submission, this episode lays out exactly what you need to know to stay ahead of cyber threats and within regulatory guardrails.

Key Timestamps:

• 00:01 – Intro to guest Christian Espinosa and Blue Goat Cyber
• 06:28 – Why medical device cybersecurity is different from traditional IT security
• 11:49 – Real-world hacking example: acne laser device turned skin-burner
• 13:57 – FDA expectations post-September 2023: what changed
• 17:12 – Secure boot: a microcontroller mistake that derailed a launch
• 20:35 – Common cybersecurity vendor mistake MedTech companies make
• 23:40 – SBOM: Software Bill of Materials and why it's legally critical
• 27:58 – Cyberattacks in hospitals: assuming a hostile network
• 35:44 – AI in medical devices: data bias and cybersecurity challenges
• 41:10 – Developers ≠ cybersecurity experts: the training gap nobody talks about
• 45:20 – What RA/QA professionals need to know now
• 49:30 – Why cybersecurity must be iterative, not a final-phase add-on
• 55:20 – Espinosa's final advice for MedTech professionals
• 57:52 – The story behind “Blue Goat Cyber”

Standout Quotes:

Top Takeaways:

1. Cybersecurity isn’t just about data—it's about patient safety. From burning skin to missed sepsis diagnoses, vulnerabilities in devices have real-world harm potential.
2. FDA now requires more than just a basic security plan. Post-September 2023 rules mandate testing (SAST, DAST, fuzzing), SBOMs, and risk assessments tied to patient harm.
3. Start cybersecurity planning during the requirements phase. Hardware like microcontrollers must support secure boot and other protections—retrofits can cripple product plans.
4. Iterate cybersecurity like any core development activity. One-time testing near submission is too late; build security into your pipeline just like QA or usability.
5. Traditional cybersecurity vendors aren’t enough. Many fail to meet FDA’s nuanced expectations for medical devices, causing costly submission rejections.

References & Resources:

• Christian Espinosa on LinkedIn
• Blue Goat Cyber
• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn

MedTech 101 – Understanding SBOM (Software Bill of...

In part 2 of a critical two-part series, Etienne Nichols and regulatory affairs expert Mike Drues explore the nuanced pathway of switching a medical device from prescription (Rx) to over-the-counter (OTC).

This episode dives deep into what triggers a new submission, how usability testing and human factors play an expanded role for lay users, and the regulatory logic that guides these transitions. The conversation highlights the importance of aligning regulatory strategy with business goals, and offers practical insights on leveraging real-world evidence, understanding the limits of FDA databases, and optimizing pre-submission meetings.

• 02:10 – Starting from a cleared 510(k): Do you need a new submission for OTC?
• 06:45 – Implications of removing the healthcare provider from the equation
• 12:00 – Risk management: Expanding risk profiles when lay users are involved
• 18:15 – When a 510(k) becomes a De Novo or PMA
• 22:50 – Usability testing and the risk of user error in OTC devices
• 31:20 – Clinical investigations and good clinical practices (GCPs)
• 36:00 – Real-world evidence vs. real-world data—what’s usable?
• 41:30 – Using Pre-Subs effectively and what “quality data” really means
• 47:10 – Labeling, cleaning, and UDI for OTC products
• 53:40 – OTC software and digital health—when is it a regulated device?
• 01:00:00 – Summary: Aligning regulatory logic with common sense and business strategy

“With an OTC device, we are taking the healthcare professional totally, completely, and utterly out of the loop.”

– Mike Drues

This quote encapsulates the core regulatory challenge in moving a device to OTC: every element, from labeling to usability, must assume zero clinical supervision.

“If the clinical trial won’t tell you anything you don’t already know from good real-world evidence, why spend the time and money?”

– Mike Drues

A powerful argument for using well-documented real-world evidence over unnecessary trials—provided the data truly meets evidentiary standards.

1. Label Expansion ≠ Shortcut: Moving from prescription to OTC usually requires a new submission—especially when removing the healthcare provider introduces new risks.
2. Usability Testing Is Critical: OTC usability studies must go beyond IFU comprehension to include risk of misuse, poor device selection, and user decision-making.
3. Real-World Evidence Can Help—If It’s Clean: Real-world data isn’t always usable. FDA will expect reproducibility, traceability, and strong justifications.
4. Labeling & Design Must Assume No Clinical Oversight: Cleaning procedures, warnings, and directions must all be validated for home use and layperson comprehension.
5. Use Pre-Subs Wisely: Especially for label expansions or gray-area digital health tools, pre-subs provide critical alignment with FDA and prevent costly errors.

• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn
• FDA Guidance on Real-World Evidence for Regulatory Decision-Making
• Greenlight Guru Webinar: What is and Isn't a Regulated Medical Device (feat. Mike Drues)
• FDA Guidance: Clinical Decision Support Software

Analogy: Think of prescription vs. OTC devices like driving a manual vs. automatic car. Prescription devices assume a trained “driver” (the healthcare provider), while OTC devices must be intuitive and safe enough for anyone to “drive”...

In Part 1 of this two-part series, Etienne Nichols sits down with regulatory strategist Dr. Mike Drues to explore the nuanced differences between prescription (Rx) and over-the-counter (OTC) medical devices. They demystify key terms, regulatory classifications, and the growing trend of label expansions from Rx to OTC—highlighting real-world examples like CPAP machines and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

This episode unpacks how intended users, environments, and risk tolerances shape device categorization, and why usability testing is far more complex than many realize. Whether you're developing a consumer health product or preparing a label expansion strategy, this is a must-listen for your regulatory roadmap.

• [03:05] – What defines an OTC vs. prescription medical device?
• [06:45] – Market size of OTC devices and major product categories
• 10:00 – Label expansion: moving from Rx to OTC status
• 13:22 – The role of intended use environment in OTC classifications
• 20:40 – Examples of devices in each FDA class that are OTC
• 26:30 – Prescription devices used in home settings vs. true OTC
• 31:15 – Characteristics that qualify devices for OTC status
• 37:55 – Self-diagnosis, self-selection, and patient usability challenges
• 43:00 – “Reasonably foreseeable misuse” and how to interpret guidance
• 49:05 – Do you design for the lowest common denominator?
• 56:10 – Representing diverse user populations in usability testing
• 1:01:45 – Can a device launch OTC first? The case for wellness-to-Rx strategies
• 1:08:15 – FDA’s perspective on device safety: OTC vs. Rx

“The best regulatory professionals don’t just know the rules—they know the exceptions.”

Dr. Mike Drues reminds us that exceptional regulatory strategy lies in understanding nuance, especially in OTC classifications where edge cases can redefine categories.

“Just because a device is used at home doesn’t mean it’s over the counter.”

This insight challenges a common industry assumption, underscoring the importance of carefully defining intended use and environment early in development.

1. OTC ≠ Low Risk by Default – Many Class II and even rare Class III devices can be OTC; it’s more about intended user, use environment, and risk mitigation than class alone.
2. Label Expansion Requires Strategy – Transitioning a device from prescription to OTC isn’t just about removing a doctor’s role—it may involve new usability studies, labeling changes, and potentially a 510(k) or de novo submission.
3. Understand the "Intended Use Environment" – FDA doesn’t just care about where the device is used, but how those environmental parameters (like light, humidity, and user training) affect safe operation.
4. Usability Testing Must Reflect Real Users – For OTC devices, human factors validation must account for diverse educational backgrounds, not just ideal users.
5. Don't Rely on Labels Alone – Whether or not users read (or understand) instructions must be tested, not assumed. Intuitive design is critical for OTC success.

• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn
• Greenlight Guru Medical Device Classification Webinar with Mike Drues (for explanation on device classes)
• FDA Guidance: “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device...

Are you new to the medical device industry—or mentoring someone who is? In this foundational episode of the Global Medical Device Podcast, host Etienne Nichols sits down with Sara Adams and Chris Rush from Greenlight Guru to deliver a MedTech 101 masterclass.

They unpack the roles, regulations, and realities of medical device development in a heavily regulated space. From defining what actually counts as a medical device to navigating FDA classifications and global regulations, the trio offers practical insights, industry analogies, and personal war stories that make this episode as entertaining as it is educational. Whether you’re in R&D, marketing, clinical, or quality, this is the episode to bookmark and share with every new hire.

02:20 – What counts as a medical device? Intended use and labeling

06:48 – Differentiating roles: Quality, Regulatory, Clinical, R&D, and Marketing

15:40 – Understanding regulatory bodies: FDA, EU MDR, Health Canada, and more

20:15 – FDA Classifications: Class I, II, III, and what determines risk

26:00 – Standards to know: ISO 13485, 14971, 14155, 21 CFR Part 820

33:05 – FDA pathways: 510(k), De Novo, PMA – when and why they apply

41:55 – The design control matrix explained (User Needs through Validation)

49:00 – Reverse engineering design controls: pitfalls and best practices

55:30 – Clinical trials vs. preclinical studies: When each is required

1:00:45 – Manufacturing & supplier controls: operations meets compliance

1:04:15 – Final advice for MedTech newcomers: Read the regs and know the problem

“Just because you don’t call it a medical device doesn’t mean the FDA agrees with you.” – Sarah Adams

This quote highlights a key regulatory pitfall: your marketing claims, not just your label, determine if the FDA considers your product a medical device.

“A 510(k) is like someone checking your wristband at the door—you’re cleared to go in. A PMA? That’s a locked door and you need full approval to enter.” – Chris Rush

A memorable analogy that demystifies the difference between FDA clearance and approval pathways.

Labeling + Intended Use = Regulatory Trigger

Whether it’s software or a simple tool, if your product makes medical claims or supports medical decision-making, it may fall under FDA or other international regulatory oversight.

Regulatory Pathways Are Tied to Risk and Novelty

Know the difference between a 510(k), De Novo, and PMA. Class II “me-too” devices may avoid clinical trials, while Class III and novel devices usually require significant evidence.

Understand Design Controls Early

Reverse-engineering documentation late in development is risky and inefficient. Start early with user needs and build forward through the five pillars: inputs, outputs, verification, and validation.

Cross-functional Understanding Prevents Compliance Gaps

Marketing, clinical, and R&D all influence regulatory standing. Even social media likes can trigger off-label scrutiny—every department needs to understand their regulatory impact.

Reading Regulations Is Not Optional

A strong regulatory foundation is key to faster development, better audits, and smoother market access. Resources like 21 CFR Part 820 and ISO 13485 are surprisingly readable and essential.

• Etienne Nichols on LinkedIn
• Chris Rush on LinkedIn