Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JANUARY 2001 

OEI-01-00-00441 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Boston Office prepared this report under the direction of Mark R. Yessian, Ph.D., Regional 

Inspector General. Principal OEI staff included: 

BOSTON HEADQUARTERS 

Russell W. Hereford, Ph.D., Project Leader Alan Levine, Program Specialist

Elizabeth A. Robboy, M.M.H.S, Program Analyst

Maria E. Maddaloni, M.A., Program Analyst

China D. Eng, M.P.H., Program Analyst

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Boston Regional Office at 617-565-1050. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.hhs.gov/oig/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To provide a profile of the current external oversight system for tissue banking, and to 

identify limitations in that system. 

BACKGROUND 

Human tissue is an important resource for medical treatment. For example, it is used in 

burn treatment, reconstructive surgery, cancer care, and heart valve replacement. 

Tissue from one donor can be processed into many forms and used to treat many people. 

The exact number of donors is not known, but it is growing. In 1999, more than 20,000 

donors provided cadaveric tissue, up from perhaps 6,000 donors in 1994. It is estimated 

that tissue banks distributed more than 750,000 allografts for transplantation in 1999. 

Human tissue can transmit disease. In the early 1990's two events raised major concerns. 

First, HIV was transmitted from one infected donor to several recipients of organs and 

unprocessed tissues. Second, investigators from the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) found instances of domestic suppliers accepting foreign tissue that had not been 

tested or screened; in one case the FDA found tissue that tested positive for Hepatitis B. 

These concerns led FDA to issue an interim final rule in December 1993. FDA modified 

this regulation and reissued it as a new rule, effective in January 1998. It requires that 

tissue banks screen and test donors and that they maintain the appropriate records. The 

rule also provides for FDA inspections of tissue banks and retention, recall, and 

destruction of tissue that doesn’t comply with these requirements. 

This report responds to a request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

asking the Office of Inspector General to examine the oversight system for tissue banking. 

We analyzed available data related to tissue banking, and we reviewed regulations, laws, 

and standards. We interviewed staff from FDA, from 30 tissue banks, and from 

associations representing various sectors of the tissue banking industry. 

In this report, we use the term “tissue banks” to refer to entities involved in procuring, 

processing, storing, and distributing tissue. We use the term “tissue” to refer to skin, heart 

valves, and musculoskeletal tissue such as bone, cartilage, ligaments, and tendons. Our 

report does not address eyes and reproductive tissue. 

PROFILE OF TISSUE BANKING OVERSIGHT 

Oversight of tissue banking takes place at three levels: 

C The Food and Drug Administration focuses on preventing transmission of 

Oversight of Tissue Banking i OEI-01-00-00441 
communicable disease by requiring donor screening and testing. FDA has conducted 188 

inspections of 118 tissue banks since 1993. The agency has proposed two regulations and 

is developing a third that would expand its oversight of tissue banking. These regulations 

would require registration of all tissue banks, expanded screening and testing, and use of 

good tissue practices, akin to good manufacturing practices. 

C The American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB) conducts a voluntary accreditation 

program. While AATB currently accredits 58 tissue banks, we identified another 90 that 

are not accredited. Accreditation addresses not only donor screening and testing 

practices, but operational and organizational aspects, such as qualifications of tissue bank 

personnel and banks’ safety practices, equipment testing, facilities, labeling, and quality 

assurance programs. 

C New York and Florida are the only two States to license and inspect tissue banks. In 

addition to screening and testing, these States require banks to report adverse incidents. 

They also address areas such as tissue procurement processes, tracking practices, 

emergency procedures, equipment standards, conflict of interest, community involvement, 

labeling standards, laboratory testing, and disposition of unused tissue. A few States, 

including California, Georgia, and Maryland, require tissue banks to be licensed by the 

State. 

LIMITATIONS IN TISSUE BANKING OVERSIGHT 

No new cases of disease transmission through human tissue have been identified since the 

FDA’s 1993 regulation. This absence of new cases points to significant strengths and 

accomplishments in the current system which has focused on preventing the spread of 

communicable disease. Nevertheless, in the course of this limited inquiry, we identified 

situations that show the need for continued vigilance and monitoring. For example, FDA 

inspectors have found serious deficiencies in tissue banks’ screening and testing practices. 

Banks have failed to meet basic standards of the AATB and been denied accreditation. 

States have received notification of adverse incidents involving tissue. 

The rapid development of the tissue banking field means that traditional oversight methods 

may not keep pace with growth and changes in the industry. Consequently, thoughtful 

consideration needs to be given to the nature of any oversight approach. 

Below, we outline limitations and vulnerabilities in current approaches, and we offer a 

combination of options that, taken singularly or in combination, could provide a way of 

enhancing oversight of the tissue banking field. 

FDA oversight 

Some tissue banks have never been inspected by FDA. We found at least 36 tissue 

banks that have never been inspected, out of 154 tissue establishments that we were able 

to identify. FDA has indicated that regulation of tissue banks is an unfunded mandate, and 

that in order to carry out these inspections, the agency has had to borrow resources 

Oversight of Tissue Banking ii OEI-01-00-00441 
from other programs, such as blood and plasma. 

FDA lacks a prescribed cycle for reinspection of tissue banks. Of 118 tissue banks 

that FDA has inspected, 68 have been inspected only once. Due to limited resources, the 

agency has had to establish a priority list for followup inspections. The first priority is 

reinspection of firms whose previous inspection was classified as Official Action Indicated, 

the most serious level of deficiency. 

The number and location of tissue banks are unknown. Information is lacking about 

the number of tissue banks in operation and the products they produce and distribute. 

FDA has proposed a regulation to require tissue banks to register and list their products. 

The regulation would address directly this limitation in knowledge about tissue banking. 

The scope of FDA’s current regulation is limited. Because the agency’s current 

regulation focuses on donor screening and testing to prevent transmission of HIV-1 and -

2 and Hepatitis B and C, other important aspects of tissue bank quality are not monitored. 

Until FDA’s good tissue practices rule is finalized, tissue banks have no external 

requirements for quality and handling of tissue if they are not accredited by AATB or 

licensed by New York or Florida. Of the 154 tissue banks we identified, 67 are neither 

accredited by AATB nor inspected by Florida or New York. 

Private accreditation 

Many banks do not seek AATB accreditation. AATB accredits 58 tissue banks. 

However, we identified 90 tissue banks that are not accredited. These banks are under no 

obligation to meet the standards or policies set by the association. For many tissue banks 

there is no real incentive to seek accreditation. There are a number of ways to encourage 

private accreditation of tissue banks. For example, FDA could provide technical advice 

and information that could be used in developing standards. FDA also could consider in 

what areas, if any, the agency could accept accreditation as showing compliance with FDA 

regulations. In such a case, legislation would be needed. 

State oversight 

Only two States inspect tissue banks. In many ways, these inspections go beyond FDA 

requirements; yet the inspections are limited to banks that conduct business in Florida and 

New York. Other States could give consideration as to whether they wish to regulate 

tissue banking and, if so, how they would coordinate with other entities to limit 

redundancy and regulatory burden. 

Information on supply and availability of tissue 

Concerns about shortages. There is no national system for tracking the availability of 

tissue. Two recent surveys by industry representatives raised concerns that skin may not 

be available when needed for treating burn victims. However, some shortcomings in these 

studies suggest that additional research is warranted to examine the extent and 

implications of shortages of tissues. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking iii OEI-01-00-00441 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Food and Drug Administration should expedite the publication of its 

regulatory agenda that requires registration of tissue banks, enhanced donor 

suitability screening and testing, and the use of good tissue practices. 

At present, FDA is able to inspect only those banks that it knows about. Requiring 

registration of all tissue banks would ensure that the agency has a comprehensive list of 

tissue banks as a first step in assuring their compliance with standards. 

In addition, many tissue banks are neither accredited by the AATB nor licensed and 

inspected by New York or Florida. Those banks that are not accredited or inspected do 

not have to meet any standards beyond the current FDA minimum requirements that they 

screen and test tissue donors for HIV and hepatitis. 

FDA should set a realistic, yet aggressive, date by which it would complete an 

initial inspection of all tissue banks. 

This could be accomplished under FDA’s existing regulatory authority. Establishing a 

baseline of information will provide a minimum level of assurance that tissue banks are 

meeting basic public health and safety standards to prevent transmission of communicable 

diseases. 

FDA should determine an appropriate minimum cycle for tissue bank inspections. 

This, too, could be accomplished under FDA’s existing regulatory authority. A minimum 

cycle for inspections would help ensure that tissue banks are meeting standards on an 

ongoing basis. 

FDA should work with States and with professional associations that have 

inspection and accreditation programs to determine in what areas, if any, 

oversight activities could be coordinated. 

FDA, the industry, and the States with regulatory programs could benefit from examining 

where standards are in agreement, as well as areas in which standards might conflict. 

Following such an examination, determination could be made of whether formal 

partnership or other arrangements would be appropriate to maximize the effectiveness of 

the oversight process. Such arrangements could require enactment of legislation. 

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT 

We received comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Health and 

Human Services. They are supportive of our findings and recommendations. The full text 

is included in Appendix B. 

Our work in tissue banking continues. We will maintain an active watch on how the tissue 

banking community responds to the concerns that we have raised. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking iv OEI-01-00-00441 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... i

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1

PROFILE OF OVERSIGHT FOR TISSUE BANKING

FDA oversight ........................................................ 4

AATB accreditation .................................................... 5

State regulation ....................................................... 5

LIMITATIONS IN TISSUE BANKING OVERSIGHT 

FDA oversight ........................................................ 7

Private accreditation .................................................... 9

State oversight ........................................................ 9

Lack of information on supply and availability ................................ 9

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 11

APPENDICES 

A: Safety and quality problems .......................................... 13

B: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services ............... 14

C: Endnotes ........................................................ 15

Oversight of Tissue Banking OEI-01-00-00441 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To provide a profile of the current external oversight system for tissue banking, and to 

identify limitations in that system. 

BACKGROUND 

Transplantation of Human Tissue 

Human tissue is an important resource for medical treatment. Physicians and dentists use 

cadaveric human tissue for a variety of medical purposes. Donated skin can meet critical 

needs in healing burn victims and in reconstructive surgery. Donated bone can be 

implanted to replace cancerous bone; it can be used in knee and hip replacements and for 

spinal surgery; and it can be processed into powder for use in dental surgery. Donated 

heart valves can replace defective valves in young children, saving their lives. 

The exact number of tissue donors in this country is not known. It is clear, though, that 

the numbers are increasing. In 1999, more than 20,000 donors provided cadaveric tissue, 

up from perhaps 6,000 donors in 1994. 

Initial Concerns about Disease Transmission 

Human tissue is capable of transmitting disease. Tissue from one donor can be implanted 

into many different people. Thus, if a donor has a communicable disease, using that tissue 

places multiple recipients at risk. It is estimated that tissue banks distributed more than 

750,000 allografts for transplantation in 1999. 

In the early 1990's two events occurred that raised concerns about disease transmission 

through tissue donation. First, HIV was transmitted to a number of recipients of organs 

and unprocessed tissues from an infected donor. Second, investigators from the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) found instances in which domestic suppliers were accepting 

foreign tissue that had not been adequately tested or screened; in one of these cases the 

FDA found tissue that tested positive for Hepatitis B. 

Since these initial two cases, no other cases have been identified. However, without 

proper screening and testing, these problems could reemerge. As we discuss below, FDA 

continues to uncover deficiencies in the course of its inspections of tissue banks. 

Limited Federal Oversight of Tissue Banking 

Tissue banks procure, process, store, and distribute human tissue. Federal regulation of 

tissue banking focuses on donor screening and testing to prevent the introduction, 

transmission, and spread of HIV-1 and -2, and Hepatitis B and C.1 By way of contrast, 

organ procurement organizations (OPOs) must meet statutory requirements about their 

organization and operation; they are regulated and certified by the Health Care Financing 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 1 OEI-01-00-00441 
Administration. Furthermore, the procurement and allocation of human organs are 

governed by Federal statute and are administered through a contract with the Health 

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Likewise, legislation authorizes the 

operation of a national bone marrow donor registry, also administered under contract with 

HRSA. 

Recent Concerns about Tissue Banking 

Several press reports in the Spring of 2000, appearing in the Orange County Register and 

the Chicago Tribune, raised concerns about tissue banking, including the extent to which 

the performance of the industry was monitored. Several members of Congress expressed 

their concerns to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary asked the 

Office of Inspector General to examine two aspects of the tissue banking industry: 

consent for donation and the external oversight structure. This report responds to the 

second of those requests. Our companion report, Informed Consent in Tissue Donation: 

Expectations and Reality (OEI-01-00-00440), addresses consent for donation. 

This Inquiry 

This report provides a profile of the oversight structure for tissue banks. We also identify 

limitations of current oversight efforts and steps that could be taken to address those 

limitations. 

Throughout this report, we use the term “tissue banks” to refer to entities involved in 

procuring, processing, storing, and distributing tissue. We use the term “tissue” to refer to 

skin, heart valves, and musculoskeletal tissue such as bone, cartilage, ligaments, and 

tendons. Our report does not address eyes and reproductive tissue. 

METHODOLOGY 

Our inquiry is based on data analysis, document reviews, an observational visit, and 

interviews. We analyzed data from FDA’s Program Operations Data System which tracks 

information about FDA inspection activity across the nation. Our analysis examines this 

data from December 15, 1993 (following the issuance of the interim rule on tissue 

banking) through the end of Fiscal Year 2000.2 Our analysis includes only tissue banks 

involved in procuring, processing, storing, and distributing tissues such as skin, heart 

valves, and musculoskeletal tissue. We do not include establishments that are involved in 

eye banking, or hospitals and laboratories inspected under the FDA tissue compliance 

program.3 

We also reviewed pertinent FDA documents and inspection reports from the central office 

and from 3 of the 20 FDA district offices. We conducted interviews with FDA staff at 

both the central and district offices. 

We reviewed AATB standards and accompanied an inspector on an accreditation visit to a 

tissue bank. We reviewed documents and data from the AATB and interviewed officials 

and staff from the association. We conducted interviews with senior staff from 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 2 OEI-01-00-00441 
30 organizations involved in obtaining, processing, and distributing human tissue. 

We also interviewed officials and reviewed data, statutes, and regulations from New York, 

Florida, California, Georgia, and Maryland. 

We conducted this study in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 3 OEI-01-00-00441 
PROFILE 

FOR 

OF OVERSIGHT 

TISSUE BANKING 

Oversight of tissue banking occurs at three levels. At the Federal level, the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) has primary responsibility to set and enforce standards to 

ensure the safety of tissue. Within the industry, the American Association of Tissue Banks 

(AATB) operates a voluntary accreditation program. At the State level, two States — 

New York and Florida — license and inspect tissue banks. Below we provide a 

description of each of these activities. 

Food and Drug Administration 

FDA’s regulation of tissue dates to December 1993. Operating under its public health 

authority, the agency issued an interim final regulation in response to evidence about 

transmission of HIV to recipients of organs and unprocessed tissues from an infected 

donor.4 In a second case, FDA inspectors found imported foreign tissue that tested 

positive for Hepatitis B. In July 1997, the FDA reissued this rule with minor 

modifications, and the new rule became effective January 26, 1998.5 

The FDA requires that tissue banks must ensure that donor screening and infectious 

disease testing are performed for HIV -1 and -2 and for Hepatitis B and C. Tissue banks 

must maintain and make available to FDA inspectors records that document screening and 

testing for each donor of human tissue. FDA has the authority to order the retention, 

recall, and destruction of tissue that doesn’t comply with these requirements. 

FDA has conducted 188 inspections of 118 tissue banks since 1993. In more than half of 

these inspections, FDA inspectors found deficiencies that needed correction. FDA issued 

26 notices of official action — the most serious level of deficiency, in which the agency 

requires the bank to take corrective actions. In 72 other inspections, FDA issued a notice 

recommending that the bank take voluntary actions to meet the requirements.6 

FDA is in the process of expanding its oversight of tissue banking. Regulations to expand 

that authority, however, have not yet been finalized. The components of expanded FDA 

oversight strategy comprise three regulations: 

C Registration of all tissue banks. This proposed regulation would require tissue banks to 

register with FDA and list their products. The proposed regulation would apply to 

establishments engaged in “recovery, screening, testing, processing, storage, labeling, 

packaging, or distribution of human cellular or tissue-based products.”7 

C Expanded screening and testing for communicable diseases. This proposed regulation 

would require donor screening and testing for diseases such as Human T-lymphotropic 

viruses (HTLV) and syphilis, and donor screening for Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (CJD).8 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 4 OEI-01-00-00441 
C Standards for “good tissue practices.” These standards, akin to good manufacturing 

practices required of medical device pharmaceutical manufacturers, would cover areas 

such as proper handling, processing, and tracking of tissue.9 

American Association of Tissue Banks 

AATB currently accredits 58 cadaveric tissue banks.10 Tissue banks perform a variety of 

functions. Of these 58 banks, 54 retrieve tissue, 34 process tissue, and 56 store and 

distribute tissue; 51 of these banks retrieve musculoskeletal tissues, 37 retrieve 

cardiovascular tissues, and 20 retrieve skin. Five banks are for-profit (three tissue 

processors, one tissue distributor, and one retrieval agency). The other 53 accredited 

banks are non-profit organizations. Eleven banks are OPOs. The number of donors 

recovered by accredited banks has grown substantially, from 6,132 donors in 1994 to 

17,725 donors in 1999. 

AATB’s standards are consistent with, but go beyond, FDA's requirements. For example, 

in addition to screening and testing for HIV and hepatitis, AATB requires that tissue 

banks test for HTLV and screen for CJD. The standards also address operational and 

organizational issues. These areas include qualifications of tissue bank personnel and 

technical issues, such as safety practices, equipment testing, facilities, labeling, and quality 

assurance. 

Accreditation involves a review of a bank’s written procedures and an on-site inspection. 

Since 1997, AATB has used contract inspectors to conduct accreditation visits.11 Since 

1997, an average of five new banks have sought accreditation each year. 

A bank receives one of four recommendations. Banks that show no deficiencies receive 

immediate accreditation. A bank with minor deficiencies receives Level A accreditation, 

meaning that it must submit to AATB a written plan to correct the deficiencies found 

during the inspection. A bank with more serious deficiencies receives Level B 

accreditation, which means that it must take corrective action and be reviewed again 

through an on-site inspection. Finally, a bank could be denied accreditation outright. 

Accreditation is given for a three-year period, at the end of which the bank is subject to 

another review, including an on-site inspection. Since 1986, AATB has accredited a total 

of 98 tissue banks; 19 banks have been denied accreditation.12 

State Regulation 

New York and Florida are the only two States that operate oversight programs requiring 

that tissue banks be licensed and inspected. A few States, including California, Georgia, 

and Maryland, require that banks be licensed, either as tissue banks or as laboratories. 

New York’s licensure law dates to 1990.13 Currently, the State licenses 13 allogeneic 

tissue banks located in New York and 36 located out-of-State.14 New York inspects both 

in-State and out-of-State banks prior to initial licensure and every two years thereafter. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 5 OEI-01-00-00441 
Banks are licensed along two dimensions. One is a functional dimension: whether the 

bank procures or processes tissue. The second dimension relates to the type of tissue 

which the bank works with — cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, or skin. A bank may be 

licensed for any or all tissues and functions. At present, 29 banks are licensed to procure 

and 9 to process cardiovascular tissue; 39 to procure and 20 to process musculoskeletal 

tissue; and 33 to procure and 19 to process skin. 

Licensure requires an initial application and on-site survey. Banks do not pay a fee for 

licensure. Tissue banks must disclose ownership and key staff. Banks must update this 

information annually and report statistics on procurement, processing, and distribution. 

In addition to meeting FDA requirements to screen and test for HIV and hepatitis, New 

York requires banks to test for HTLV and syphilis. New York also requires tissue banks 

to meet specific standards for each type of tissue — musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and 

skin — that the bank procures, processes, or stores. These standards relate to donor 

qualifications, tissue retrieval processes, laboratory testing, and disposal of unused tissue. 

Banks must report any adverse incidents to the State. Since 1991, the State has received 

8 reports from cardiovascular, 13 from musculoskeletal, and 6 from skin banks. 

Florida’s law was enacted in 199215 at the urging of the State’s OPO, tissue banking, and 

eye banking community. Florida currently licenses 20 cadaveric tissue banks; 9 are 

located in Florida and 11 are based in other States. Another 2 banks have submitted 

applications that are now under review. The State inspects both in-State and out-of-State 

tissue banks prior to initial licensure and every two years thereafter. 

Florida requires tissue banks to pay an initial application fee of $1,000 and an annual fee 

of 0.25 percent of gross Florida revenues, with a minimum of $1,000 and a maximum of 

$35,000. The fees go to a State trust fund used for operating the licensure program, the 

State donation advisory committee, a donor registry, and donor education programs. 

Applicants must disclose the bank’s ownership, as well as information on equipment and 

donor selection and testing criteria. Florida requires tissue banks to comply with current 

FDA regulations. The surveying standards also address tissue tracking practices, 

emergency procedures, equipment standards, procurement processes, conflict of interest 

policies, community involvement, and labeling standards. 

Florida requires tissue banks to report within 24 hours adverse events that could affect 

tissue recipients’ medical conditions. Only three such incidents have been reported in the 

program’s history. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 6 OEI-01-00-00441 
LIMITATIONS 

OF 

IN OVERSIGHT 

TISSUE BANKS 

Today’s tissue banking system is complex and rapidly changing. Tissue is processed into 

new forms and products that are put to a variety of important medical uses. New 

technologies using human tissue emerge constantly. No new cases of disease transmission 

through human tissue have been identified since 1993. This absence points to significant 

strengths and accomplishments in the current oversight system which has focused on 

preventing the spread of communicable disease.16 

However, continued vigilance and monitoring are needed: FDA inspectors have found 

deficiencies in tissue banks’ screening and testing practices. Banks have failed to meet 

basic standards of the AATB and been denied accreditation. States have received 

notification of adverse incidents involving tissue. Appendix A describes some safety 

problems that FDA inspectors have identified during inspection visits and adverse events 

that have been reported to the State agencies. These problems include distribution of 

tissue from donors who tested reactive for hepatitis, bacterial contamination of tissue, and 

repeat testing of donors as a way of qualifying their tissue as suitable for transplantation. 

In the course of this limited inquiry, we identified some important vulnerabilities and 

limitations in the current tissue banking oversight structure. Rapid developments and 

innovation in the tissue banking field mean that traditional oversight methods have not 

kept pace with growth and changes in the industry. Under these circumstances, thoughtful 

consideration needs to be given to the nature of any oversight approach. 

Below, we outline limitations and vulnerabilities in the current approaches, and we offer a 

combination of options that, taken singularly or in combination, could provide a way of 

enhancing oversight of the tissue banking field. 

FDA oversight 

Some tissue banks have never been inspected by FDA. 

We developed a list of 154 tissue banks, based on data from three FDA district offices, 

AATB, Florida, and New York. We found that FDA had never inspected 36 (23 percent) 

of these banks. In addition to the 154 banks we identified, there are likely others that 

operate in States without licensing programs.17 

FDA has indicated that regulation of tissue banks is an unfunded mandate. In order to 

carry out these inspections, the agency has had to borrow resources from other programs, 

such as blood and plasma. 

FDA lacks a prescribed cycle for reinspection of tissue banks. 

FDA staff told us that their goal is to inspect tissue banks once every two years, but there 

is no required minimum cycle for these inspections.18 Of 118 tissue banks that the agency 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 7 OEI-01-00-00441 
has inspected, 68 have been inspected only once since the FDA began its tissue program in 

late 1993. 

FDA’s compliance program acknowledges that there are insufficient resources to 

accomplish biennial inspections of all banks. As a consequence, the agency has established 

a priority list for followup inspections. The first priority for the program is reinspection of 

firms whose last inspection was classified as Official Action Indicated. This classification 

is the most serious level of deficiency, in which the agency requires the bank to take 

corrective actions.19 

The number and location of tissue banks are unknown. 

Information is lacking about the number of tissue banks in operation, and the types of 

tissue products that they produce. This lack of information limits the confidence with 

which assurances can be made that the supply of tissue is safe. These “unknown” tissue 

banks are likely to be new entities that may be in the early stages of operation. This 

situation does not inspire confidence that these banks are meeting basic standards of 

safety. 

The FDA has issued a proposed regulation20 calling for registration of tissue banks and 

listing of their products. Such a regulation would address directly this current limitation in 

knowledge about tissue banking. 

The current scope of FDA’s regulations is limited. 

The agency’s current regulations focus on preventing transmission of communicable 

disease. The regulations require tissue banks to conduct some donor screening and 

testing, to prepare and follow written procedures, and to maintain records. The 

regulations provide for FDA inspection of tissue banks, quarantine of imported tissue, and 

retention, recall, and destruction of tissue that doesn’t comply with the regulations. 

The current regulations, however, do not monitor other important aspects of tissue bank 

quality. FDA has proposed a regulation expanding donor suitability and testing 

requirements, and is developing a regulation on good tissue practices, akin to good 

manufacturing practices required of medical device pharmaceutical manufacturers. Until 

that regulation is finalized, tissue banks have limited requirements for quality and handling 

of tissue if they are not accredited by AATB or licensed by New York or Florida. 

We were unable to document the extent to which banks that are neither AATB-accredited 

nor licensed in New York or Florida are involved in recovering tissue. The number, 

however, is likely to be substantial. For example, of the 154 tissue banks we identified, 67 

are neither accredited by AATB nor licensed by New York or Florida. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 8 OEI-01-00-00441 
Private accreditation

Many banks do not seek AATB accreditation. 

At present, 58 tissue banks have AATB accreditation. Yet we identified another 90 banks 

that are not accredited. These banks are under no obligation to meet the standards or 

policies set by the AATB.21 

Unaccredited banks include both large and small operations. For example, the country’s 

largest processor of heart valves has never sought accreditation. Some OPOs that operate 

tissue banks are not accredited by AATB. Other unaccredited banks are small entities in 

the early stages of operations and do not yet feel that they can comply with the standards. 

For many tissue banks there is no real incentive to seek accreditation. Hospitals and 

physicians regularly purchase tissue from unaccredited banks. The cost of accreditation 

may present a major barrier for smaller banks. For other banks, already subject to 

inspection by FDA and State authorities, a third inspection may seem burdensome.22 

A number of steps could be taken to encourage a role for private accreditation of tissue 

banks. For example, FDA could provide technical advice and information that could be 

used in developing standards. FDA could also consider in what areas, if any, the agency 

could accept accreditation as showing compliance with FDA inspection regulations. To 

implement such a change, legislation would likely be needed. 

State oversight 

Only two States inspect tissue banks. 

In many ways, these inspections go beyond FDA requirements. The State initiatives 

provide an important aspect of quality assurance. Yet the inspections are limited to banks 

that conduct business in Florida and New York. Those banks may be small, local entities 

that operate within each State, or they may be large national operations that are based 

elsewhere and that either process or distribute tissue in New York or Florida. For 

example, 15 of the 20 banks licensed in Florida also are licensed in New York, and 14 are 

accredited by the AATB; 29 of the banks licensed in New York have AATB accreditation. 

A few States, including California, Georgia, and Maryland, require tissue banks to be 

licensed by the State, either as tissue banks or as laboratories. 

Other States could give consideration as to whether they wish to regulate tissue banking, 

and, if so, how they would coordinate with other entities to limit redundancy and 

regulatory burden. 

Information on supply and availability of tissue 

There is no national system for tracking the availability of tissue and where there may be a 

shortage. Each bank maintains its own inventory and distribution records. Concerns have 

been raised that some tissues, such as skin, may be in short supply, and that donated 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 9 OEI-01-00-00441 
skin is processed into products that may be used for procedures that are not medically 

indicated. It is not clear how much tissue goes for such cosmetic uses; because physicians 

and patients determine how these products actually are used, tissue banks that 

manufacture them do not have that information.23 

Recent concerns about shortages of skin have led to two surveys related to its availability. 

A survey of burn centers, conducted by the American Burn Association (ABA), found that 

32 percent of respondents had delayed or altered treatment over the past year, and about 

half reported that they had difficulty obtaining allograft skin. The AATB survey found 

that banks recovered skin from over 6,000 donors in 1999. It also found that banks 

generally can meet the local need for skin, but when skin is requested by facilities outside 

their local area, meeting those requests is more problematic. Only 3 of 20 banks supplying 

cryo-preserved skin, and only 3 of 12 banks supplying fresh skin, can always meet 

requests from outside of their local area. 

These initial surveys suggest that further research may be warranted to examine the extent 

and implications of a potential shortage of tissues. They provide the first systematic 

information about tissue supply and availability. The two associations deserve great credit 

for collecting and publicizing these data. However, there are limitations related to the 

source and specificity of information obtained. For example, the AATB respondents were 

accredited banks only; the ABA data do not allow one to determine if any patient actually 

was unable to obtain skin needed in a surgical procedure. These shortcomings and the 

limitations of an initial survey can easily be overcome in future refinements. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 10 OEI-01-00-00441 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Food and Drug Administration should expedite the publication of its 

regulatory agenda that requires registration of tissue banks, enhanced donor 

suitability screening and testing, and the use of good tissue practices. 

The FDA has been the lead agency within the Department of Health and Human Services 

for oversight of tissue banking. The FDA’s current regulatory program focuses on 

preventing transmission of HIV and hepatitis by requiring that tissue banks test and screen 

donors to detect these conditions. 

FDA has proposed and is refining three regulations that will enhance oversight of tissue 

banking. That regulatory agenda would require registration of all tissue banks, expanded 

screening and testing, and use of good tissue practices, akin to good manufacturing 

practices. 

This proposed agenda is important for at least two reasons. First, at present FDA is able 

to inspect only those banks that it knows about. Requiring registration of all tissue banks 

would ensure that the agency has a comprehensive list of those banks that are in operation, 

as a first step in assuring their compliance with standards. 

Second, many tissue banks are neither accredited by the American Association of Tissue 

Banks nor licensed and inspected by New York or Florida. Those banks that are not 

accredited or inspected do not have to meet any standards beyond the current FDA 

minimum requirements that they screen and test tissue donors for HIV and hepatitis. 

Within its existing regulatory authority, FDA should take two steps to enhance 

oversight of tissue banking: 

FDA should set a realistic, yet aggressive, date by which it would complete an initial 

inspection of all tissue banks. 

As we show above, more than one of every five tissue banks has never been inspected. As 

we also note, the agency has indicated that regulation of tissue banks is an unfunded 

mandate, and that it has had to borrow resources from other programs to carry out current 

inspections. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to establish a baseline of 

information. Such information would provide a minimum level of assurance that tissue 

banks are meeting basic public health and safety standards to prevent transmission of 

communicable disease. 

FDA should determine an appropriate minimum cycle for tissue bank inspections. 

A minimum cycle for inspections would help ensure that tissue banks are meeting 

standards on an ongoing basis. As we note above, FDA has established a priority list for 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 11 OEI-01-00-00441 
followup inspections to maximize available resources. We believe, however, that some 

minimum cycle, which the agency would determine, is important to ensure that tissue 

banks are subject to ongoing oversight. 

FDA should work with States and with professional associations that have 

inspection and accreditation programs to determine in what areas, if any, 

oversight activities could be coordinated. 

We recognize that resource constraints can put pressure on an agency’s capacity to 

conduct inspections and reviews of tissue banks. In addition, we recognize that multiple 

inspection visits can place a strain on a tissue bank’s operations. We believe that FDA, 

the industry, and the States with regulatory programs could benefit from examining where 

standards are in agreement, as well as places in which standards might conflict. 

Following such an examination, determination could be made of whether formal 

partnership or other arrangements would be appropriate to maximize the effectiveness of 

the oversight process. Such arrangements could require that legislation be enacted. 

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT 

We received comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Health and 

Human Services. They are supportive of our findings and recommendations. The full text 

is included in Appendix B. 

Our work in tissue banking continues. We will maintain an active watch on how the tissue 

banking community responds to the concerns that we have raised. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 12 OEI-01-00-00441 
APPENDIX A APPENDIX A 

Examples of Safety and Quality Problems 

Found in Tissue Banking 

C Routine acceptance of tissue for further manufacturing without accompanying records 

from procurement agency documenting that donor’s serum specimen had been tested and 

found negative. 

C Confirmatory testing repeated until negative result was obtained for Hepatitis B surface 

antigen and Hepatitis C antibody, as a means of potentially qualifying donors as suitable 

for transplantation. 

C Acceptance of foreign tissue with donor records not translated into English and without 

documented medical/ social histories. 

C Lack of adequate controls to assure product sterility. Lack of standard operating 

procedures to prevent cross contamination of human tissue during manufacture. 

C Failure to assure tissue was quarantined until all infectious disease testing and donor 

screening reviewed by a responsible official, and donor found to be free of risk factors for/ 

clinical evidence of Hepatitis B and C or HIV-1 and -2. 

C Errors in calculating a donor's serodilution status. In retrospect, tissue bank determined 

that the tissue should not have been accepted because of indicators recorded on medical/ 

social history. 

C Tissue bank notified that a donor had been incarcerated in the year prior to his death, nine 

months after tissue was tested, processed, and distributed. 

C Distribution and implantation of soft tissue grafts from a single donor with possible 

bacterial contamination. The grafts came from a donor with no evidence of risk for HIV 

or hepatitis (confirmed through serological testing). Contamination appears to have 

occurred either at recovery or during processing. 

C Positive test for the Hepatitis C antibody found by distributor, even though others who had 

handled the tissue had found negative test results. 

C Tissue processing errors, such as use of expired processing reagents. 

C Release and distribution of tissue from donors who tested repeatedly reactive for Hepatitis 

B surface antigen. 

C Improper donor testing by the tissue bank’s contract lab for HIV, Hepatitis C antibody, 

and Hepatitis B surface antigen. 

C Culture-positive tissue or tissue lots distributed, then recalled. 

C Adverse reaction in a heart valve recipient. 

From actual problems found by FDA inspectors and 

adverse event reports to States 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 13 OEI-01-00-00441 
 Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services APPENDIX B 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 14 OEI-01-00-00441 
APPENDIX C 

Endnotes 

1. The FDA issued these regulations under the legal authority of section 361 of the Public Health 

Service Act. This section authorizes the Secretary to make and enforce regulations judged 

necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases. 

2. Since we obtained the FY 2000 data from FDA, seven additional inspections have been 

entered into the PODS data system. Because we cannot tell whether these are tissue banks as we 

define them here, or eye banks or some other type of establishment, we do not include these seven 

banks in our analysis. 

3. When eye banks, hospitals, and other establishments falling under the FDA tissue establishment 

compliance program are included, the total number of inspections rises to 363 inspections of 251 

establishments. These additional establishments include 79 eye banks, 29 hospitals, and 25 

establishments, such as laboratories, that we classified as other entities. 

4. 21 C.F.R., Parts 16 and 1270, added at 58 Fed. Reg. 65,514, December 14, 1993. 

5. 21 C.F.R., Parts 16 and 1270, added at 62 Fed. Reg. 40,429, July 29, 1997. 

6. Our analysis includes only those banks we identified as banks involved with procuring, 

processing, storing, and distributing skin, heart valves, and musculoskeletal tissue. 

7. Proposed regulation at 63 Fed. Reg. 26,744, May 14, 1998. 

8. Proposed regulation at 64 Fed. Reg. 52,696, September 30, 1999. 

9. This proposed regulation has not yet been published. 

10. The total number of AATB-accredited banks is actually 71; 11 of these are reproductive 

tissue banks, and 2 are based in Canada. In our analysis we use only cadaveric tissue banks 

located in the United States. 

11. When AATB began inspecting banks in 1986, the association relied on volunteer staff from 

member banks to conduct inspections. The accreditation inspectors working with AATB since 

1997 are former staff from FDA or the National Institutes of Health, who have experience in 

facility inspection. Using outside inspectors has helped to formalize the process and make it more 

professional. The contract inspectors are trained in audit and evaluation methodologies, and they 

have had years of experience in inspecting facilities. A second important difference is that the 

professional inspectors do not have any relationships with the banks they are inspecting; thus, they 

may be more objective in their evaluation. 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 15 OEI-01-00-00441 
APPENDIX C 

12. Of the 19 banks, 8 were denied accreditation following Level B inspections. Five more failed 

to complete the process which requires a one-year waiting period after a bank receives a Level B 

accreditation. Inspections of four banks were aborted because of obvious non-compliance, and 

the inspections were not completed. Two banks would have been recommended for denial, but 

because current accreditation had expired, they withdrew from the process. 

13. New York Public Health Law, Article 43-B, Sections 4364-4366; New York Code of Rules 

and Regulations, Title 10, Part 52. New York also licenses other types of tissue banks, such as 

hematopoietic progenitor cell banks, eye banks, semen banks, and tissue transplantation facilities. 

14. New York actually licenses 60 tissue banks for procuring, processing, or storing skin, 

musculoskeletal, and cardiovascular tissue. Of these, 7 New York banks and 4 out-of-State banks 

procure or process autogeneic bone or infant foreskin, which are non-cadaveric tissues. 

15. Florida Statutes, Title 29, Chapter 381.6021-381.6025; Florida Administrative Code, 59A 

(Health Facility and Agency Licensing), Chapter 59A-1 Certification of Organ Procurement 

Organizations, Tissue Banks, and Eye Banks. 

16. It is important to recognize, however, that there are no requirements to track recipients of 

tissue. It is possible that cases of disease transmission could have occurred, but have never been 

reported to the tissue bank or to any government authorities. 

17. The three FDA field offices are located in Dallas, Los Angeles, and Buffalo. We recognize 

that the number of banks we identify here (154) differs from the 148 banks we discuss below in 

the potential AATB universe. FDA can inspect any individual establishment involved in tissue 

banking; AATB accreditation applies to an entire organization. Thus, for example, a tissue bank 

that has a main office and two satellite offices would have one accreditation from AATB — but 

FDA inspections could be conducted at each of the three different offices. 

18. In contrast, blood banks, mammography facilities, and medical device firms must be inspected 

every two years. 

19. Food and Drug Administration, “Compliance Program Guidance Manual — Compliance 

Program 7341.002 - Inspection of Tissue Establishments,” November 3, 1999, part II, page 4. 

The priorities for inspection of tissue banks are: 

1. Firms whose last inspection was classified OAI (official action indicated). 

2. Firms about which FDA has received surveillance information indicating there is a 

potential violation of 21 CFR 1270. 

3. Laboratories that perform required viral marker testing for tissue banks. 

4. Firms which have never been inspected and which are known to lack accreditation by a 

standard setting organization such as the American Association of Tissue Banks. 

5. Firms which have never been inspected. 

6. Firms whose last inspection was classified as VAI (voluntary action indicated). 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 16 OEI-01-00-00441 
APPENDIX C 

20. 63 Fed. Reg. 26,744, May 14, 1998. 

21. We recognize that the number of banks we identify here (148) differs from the 154 banks we 

discuss above in the potential FDA universe. FDA can inspect any individual establishment 

involved in tissue banking; AATB accreditation applies to an entire organization. Thus, for 

example, a tissue bank that has a main office and two satellite offices would have one 

accreditation from AATB — but FDA inspections could be conducted at each of the three 

different offices. 

22. AATB accreditation contrasts sharply with the situation for hospitals, where accreditation by 

the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) carries a definite 

benefit. Hospitals that receive accreditation are deemed to meet Federal requirements for 

certification as Medicare providers. Thus, hospitals have a very strong incentive to achieve that 

status. 

23. The American Medical Association’s policy provides a useful framework for considering the 

differences between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. That policy states that “cosmetic 

surgery is performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's 

appearance and self-esteem. Reconstructive surgery is performed on abnormal structures of the 

body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or 

disease. It is generally performed to improve function, but may also be done to approximate a 

normal appearance.” (Policy H-475.992) 

Oversight of Tissue Banking 17 OEI-01-00-00441