fda lcd monitors for import in stock
Today, modern computers displays and televisions (TVs) today use liquid crystal display (LCD), Light-emitting diodes (LED), plasma, or other technologies that do not contain cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
A CRT is a specialized vacuum tube that can be used to receive and display images on an electronic screen. In the early 1960s, some TVs with CRTs were found to emit excessive x-radiation, and a federal performance standard was created to protect the public from this hazard. In the years that followed, the electronic technology for TVs and computer monitors with CRTs changed so drastically that the level of risk of x-ray exposure became almost non-existent. Manufacturers of products that still use CRTs must certify that their products comply with the federal performance standard for the life of the product.
Modern TV receivers and computer monitors provide a benefit for entertainment and information display in many settings. TV receivers and computer monitors containing CRTs no longer pose a risk of emitting any x-radiation. Since the creation of the federal performance standard, the FDA has tested hundreds of TV receivers and computer monitors and rarely encountered any that were unsafe. Most modern computer monitors and televisions (TVs) today use liquid crystal display (LCD), Light-emitting diodes (LED), or plasma and do not contain CRTs or emit x-radiation.
Manufacturers of electronic radiation emitting products sold in the United States are responsible for compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, Chapter V, Subchapter C - Electronic Product Radiation Control.
Manufacturers of televisions and video display products are responsible for compliance with all applicable requirements of Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (Subchapter J, Radiological Health) Parts 1000 through 1005:
In addition, TV receivers and monitors with CRTs must comply with radiation safety performance standards in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (Subchapter J, Radiological Health) Parts 1010 and 1020:
This page will provide an overview of medical and non-medical radiation-emitting electronic products and the requirements that FDA verifies/enforces at the time they are imported or offered for import into United States. To import radiation-emitting products (medical and non-medical) you should first understand what these products are and their requirements.
The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is the FDA center responsible for overseeing the radiation-emitting products program. Visit the Radiation-Emitting Products web page for more information.
FDA defines a radiation-emitting electronic product as any electrically-powered product that can emit any form of radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. These include a variety of medical and non-medical products such as mammography devices, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, laser toys, laser pointers, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), and light emitting diodes (LEDs). View examples of radiation-emitting electronic products.
FDA checks the import alert database to ensure the manufacturer or product is not subject to detention without physical exam (DWPE) and listed on an import alert. For example, import alert 95-04 lists certain laser products that fail to comply with applicable performance standards and reporting requirements.
Electronic products are subject to the Electronic Product Radiation Control (EPRC) provisions as defined in the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), Chapter 5, Subchapter C, Sections 532 – 538. Radiation-emitting electronic products are regulated by FDA and are required to comply with the general requirements found in 21 CFR 1000-1005. For more information on products subject to performance standards visit the Products Subject to Performance Standards page.
To search for product names and their associated product codes, the radiation type, definition, and applicable performance standards visit the Product Codes for Radiation-Emitting Electronic Products page.
FDA Entry Reviewers are trained to verify compliance with applicable product requirements. The FDA Entry Reviewers use the information provided to FDA in the importer’s entry transmission such as:
These entry declarations are compared to information in FDA’s internal data systems. If the information matches, then compliance is verified; if the information does not match, FDA may gather additional information or may detain the product.
The submission of correct and accurate entry data along with the relevant A of C codes will help expedite the entry review process. Supplying this information accurately increases the likelihood that your shipment will be processed electronically and not held for manual review because FDA’s screening tool, PREDICT, can verify the declared information against FDA internal data systems.
Radiation-emitting electronic products can be considered medical and non-medical products. In addition to the requirements above, radiation-emitting electronic medical products are also subject to medical device regulations. At the time of importation FDA will verify radiation-emitting electronic product requirements (medical and non-medical).
Radiation-emitting electronic products subject to U.S. Federal Performance Standard require submission of Form FDA-2877, Declaration for Imported Electronic Products Subject to Radiation Control Standards, at the time of entry. Products not subject to federal performance standards do not require a Form FDA-2877 for importation into the US. At the time of importation FDA will verify the declarations submitted on Form FDA-2877.
Declaration C – Products that do not comply with performance standards are being held under temporary import bond (TIB); will not be introduced into commerce; will be used under a radiation protection plan; and will be destroyed or exported under CBP supervision when the mission is complete.
Declaration D - Products that do not comply with Performance Standards; are being held and will remain under bond; and will not be introduced into commerce until notification is received from FDA that the products have been brought into compliance in accordance with an FDA approved petition.
The process of “reconditioning” non-compliant radiation-emitting electronic products may be difficult and time consuming which could result in the importer losing the product and money if the reconditioning is unsuccessful. The importer should make a serious effort to understand the FDA radiation safety requirements that are applicable to the products being imported. Reconditioning requests are submitted using the Form FDA-766.
Affirmation of Compliance (A of C) codes are three letter codes that can be provided at the time of import to facilitate FDA review. FDA uses A of C codes to assist in verifying that your product meets the appropriate requirements. Providing the correct A of C code reduces the likelihood that your shipment will be held for further FDA entry review during FDA’s import screening process. Submission of A of C codes is only mandatory in some instances and is not required for all scenarios. Submitting voluntary A of C codes in addition to all mandatory A of C codes may expedite initial screening and review of your entry.
For information on affirmation of compliance codes refer to the “Affirmation Of Compliance References” at the bottom of the affirmation of compliance codes page.
If you are planning on importing any device that is or consists of a tablet or a display screen, take heed of regulatory obstacles that might stand in your way. Since both tablets and display screens often emit radio noise and small amounts of radiation, these devices must comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) standards. In other words, all screen and tablet importers must be certified under both government bodies before importing their products.
The first step, however, is to determine the official classification of your tablet or display screen. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule is the database to find the customs duties that will apply to your product. Below are some tips on how to import your tablet or screen in accordance with FCC and FDA regulations and standards:
Since tablets are distributed for consumer use, they fall under FCC Class B categorization. Tablets and screens are classified as “non-licensed, low-power transmitters,” and fortunately consumers do not need a license from the FCC to use them. However, those importing them will need to get them FCC-certified for safety.
To obtain FCC certification for a product, you need to submit the device for testing at an FCC-authorized lab. Then, the product must be tagged with a compliance label along with an FCC ID (which can be created with a grantee code and a product code). Finally, you can submit the testing results and device specifications, along with the proper labels, to the FCC for approval and they will send you a grant of certification.
Tablets and screens also fall under FDA regulation since they include lasers, LED, or Intense Pulsed Lights, which emit potentially harmful radiation. While the FDA does not technically need to grant approval for products, they do have the right to ban products or order for changes in a device if they do not meet FDA standards. For this reason, importers or manufacturers need to test and certify a product themselves to meet those standards. However, though products are not officially FDA approved, some products – such as medical devices – will require importers to submit reports, which can be done electronically at the FDA’s eSubmitter site. Only after the submission is received will the FDA issue an accession number, which will certify that the product can be marketed commercially.
Importers will also be required to submit a Form FDA 2877 with the accession number and the importing paperwork to Customs and the FDA imports office when their shipment enters the US. As long as the products are labeled and certified properly and the paperwork is in good order, the importing process will go smoothly.
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
The F.D.A. won new powers to police foreign foods in legislation signed by President Obama in January, but with those new powers came new responsibilities. The law directed the agency to inspect at least 600 foreign food facilities within a year, then increase that number every year afterward. But instead of increasing the agency’s budget to perform those inspections, House Republicans voted last week to cut it.
“While the goal may be attainable in the first year, it would be impossible for F.D.A. to complete 19,200 foreign food inspections in year six without a substantial increase in resources or a complete overhaul in the way it operates,” the report notes.
Many in the food industry, angered by contamination scares that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, have volunteered to pay fees directly to the F.D.A. to underwrite more inspections. Consumer groups have cheered this suggestion. But some Republicans in the Senate have so far refused to consider such fees, calling them an unacceptable tax. Polls have shown overwhelming and bipartisan support among voters for strengthened federal oversight of the food system.
So in the absence of the people and money needed to perform the agency’s functions adequately today, Dr. Hamburg has proposed creating “global coalitions of regulators dedicated to building and strengthening the product safety net around the world,” the report states. To support this network, “F.D.A. intends to develop a global data information system” so regulators can talk to one another.
The F.D.A. already has some limited cooperation agreements with regulators in Europe and elsewhere, and it has recently stationed employees in China, India and Central America. Closer cooperation between the F.D.A. and European authorities, for instance, could spare manufacturers and governments the expense of repeated inspections of the same plants. And better sharing could allow the findings of an alarming audit by one country to alert others to problems.
Carl R. Nielsen, who retired as the director of the agency’s import operations in 2005, said the plan sounded reasonable as far as it went. But before the F.D.A. can consider communicating regularly with Brussels or Beijing, he said, it needs to start talking with its offices in Texas and California.
This guide serves as an ongoing report of the most recent FDA inspection and enforcement trends, specifically in the area of good manufacturing practice (GMP), based on publicly available data. We"ve included a mix of our firsthand research along with others" analyses and links to the appropriate sources.
Note that the data presented here conform to the fiscal year accounting period for the federal government, which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.
In November 2022, Jeffrey Meng, program division director, Division of Pharmaceutical Quality Operations III, Office of Regulatory Affairs, stated that the backlog of foreign and domestic onsite inspections for sites considered a high priority. "Looking forward to 2023 and beyond, we have resumed all routine domestic operations and are currently resuming normal foreign inspections. This opening of worldwide operations for FDA will be and is an incredible challenge.” (RAPS)
The number of domestic FDA inspections related to drugs rose from 713 in FY2021 to 756 in FY2022, a ~6% increase. The number of foreign FDA inspections related to drugs rose from 130 in FY2021 to 262 in FY2022, a ~101% increase. (FDA data dashboard)
The number of domestic FDA inspections related to devices rose from 382 in FY2021 to 935 in FY2022, a ~144% increase. The number of foreign FDA inspections related to devices rose from only 4 in FY2021 to 79 in FY2022, a whopping 1875% increase. (FDA data dashboard)
For example, not all inspections are included in the database. Inspections conducted by states, pre-approval inspections, mammography facility inspections, inspections waiting for a final enforcement action, and inspections of nonclinical labs are not included.
#4 —21 CFR 211.100(a) — There shall be written procedures for production and process control designed to assure that the drug products have the identity, strength, quality, and purity they purport or are represented to possess...
#6 — 21 CFR 211.67(b)— Written procedures shall be established and followed for cleaning and maintenance of equipment, including utensils, used in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a drug product...
#7 — 21 CFR 211.25(a) — Each person engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a drug product shall have education, training, and experience, or any combination thereof, to enable that person to perform the assigned functions...
#9 — 21 CFR 211.67(a) — Equipment and utensils shall be cleaned, maintained, and, as appropriate for the nature of the drug, sanitized and/or sterilized at appropriate intervals to prevent malfunctions or contamination that would alter the safety, identity, strength, quality, or purity of the drug product beyond the official or other established requirements.
#10 — 21 CFR 211.110(a) — To assure batch uniformity and integrity of drug products, written procedures shall be established and followed that describe the in-process controls, and tests, or examinations to be conducted on appropriate samples of in-process materials of each batch. Such control procedures shall be established to monitor the output and to validate the performance of those manufacturing processes that may be responsible for causing variability in the characteristics of in-process material and the drug product...
Given that FDA"s inspectional citations specify different descriptions and particular subparts, the interactive chart below breaks down these details to show the relative prevalence of certain observed issues over others.
— Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that all purchased or otherwise received product and services conform to specified requirements.
#4 —21 CFR 820.90(a) — Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to control product that does not conform to specified requirements...
— Each manufacturer shall establish procedures for quality audits and conduct such audits to assure that the quality system is in compliance with the established...
Given that FDA"s inspectional citations specify different descriptions and particular subparts, the interactive chart below breaks down these details to show the relative prevalence of certain observed issues over others.
In 2022, the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) within FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) published its fiscal year 2021 report on the state of pharmaceutical quality. We distilled some of its main takeaways below.
OPQ said its New Inspection Protocol Project (NIPP) program has increased the efficiency of inspections through a more targeted and data-driven approach to identify potential quality problems early on. FDA says its NIPP has “improved how data from pre-approval and surveillance inspections are evaluated and reported.” (FDA has been using these inspection protocols for certain sterile surveillance and pre-approval inspections since 2018.)
Sites making “essential medicines” that protect the public against outbreaks of emerging diseases such as COVID-19 have high median site inspection scores (SIS), indicating a high rate of compliance with GMP. An analysis of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and finished dosage form (FDF) sites found that the median SIS for essential medicine manufacturers was 7.45 out of 10, a score that was “significantly higher” than the 7.0 score for non-essential medicine manufacturers. “This observation indicates that sites manufacturing EM products have a higher level of adherence to manufacturing compliance standards than sites that do not manufacture EM products,” OPQ wrote.
For the second year, the number of total recalls (particularly Class I recalls) has increased. This follows a three-year period of declining recalls from FY2017 to FY2019. Since FY2016, recalls spiked up dramatically, going from roughly 300 recalls events a year in 2019 to 700 in FY2020 to 800 in FY2021. Hand sanitizers that contained methanol, as well as consumer products and sunscreens with benzene contamination are largely to blame for the increase.
Roughly half (49.1%) of 1,143 eligible firms did not submit field alert reports (FARs) to the agency over a four-year period from FY2018 to FY2021. FDA’s postmarket reporting requirements specify that sites submit FARs after receiving information on significant quality problems with their distributed drug products.
A growing number of products are failing sampling and testing requirements; a method of inspection is used when FDA cannot get to sites to conduct inspections. In FY2021, the percentage of non-compliant samples grew to 35%, an increase from 16% in FY2020. The growing rate of non-compliance “is driven by focused sampling assignments with high non-compliant rates for products with nitrosamine contamination, hand sanitizers, and sampling related to COVID-19 mission critical sampling and testing, which became more prominent in FY2021.“
Read FDA"s full FY2022 report (PDF) on fda.govhere. We distilled some of its main takeaways below. Read our blog post for more depth into some of these takeaways.
FDA used Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) and its authority to obtain records for sites in advance or in lieu of inspections due to the pandemic.In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act gave FDA new authorities under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act §704(a)(4) to request records or other information from firms in advance of or in lieu of an inspection.
“FDA surveillance history, requests for records, and inspection reports obtained through the MRAs were all used to mitigate risk and enable regulatory actions.”
“MRA authority was used to assess 183 sites through MRA inspection reports for a total of 745 sites (18% of the FY2020 CDER Site Catalog). For comparison, in FY2019 1,258 drug quality assurance inspections were performed and an additional 109 sites were assessed using MRAs for a total of 1,367 sites (32% of the FY2020 CDER Site Catalog).”
“As in past years, the majority of Warning Letters in FY2020 were issued to sites with non-application products (69%), and especially those that manufacture finished dosage form (FDF), non-sterile, non-application products (41% of all Warning Letters).”
“Import Alerts doubled to 128 in FY2020. Latin America had the most sites on Import Alert for the first time in FY2020, due to an unprecedented number of new hand sanitizer registrants from Mexico that failed to meet quality standards."
Since FY2019, there has been a small decrease (0.10) in the mean Site Inspection Score (SIS) of the entire inventory of sites (7.3).FDA’s SIS, a scale of 1 to 10, is used as a proxy for compliance with CGMP regulations. The SIS is based on the classification of FDA drug quality assurance inspections conducted over the prior ten years, including inspections classified under the MRA program, which allows some global regulators to recognize reports from their counterparts’ inspections.
“For FY2016–FY2020, three defect categories account for 60% of all defects reported: Product Quality Questioned, Device Issues, and Packaging Issues.”
“The most substantial increases in the number of recalls by industry sector in FY2020 were in the No Application and NDA & ANDA (i.e., sites manufacturing for both application types) sectors.” (See full report for additional details.)
“Each major recall over the last five fiscal years was associated with microbial or chemical contamination/impurities; a focus area for the industry to improve quality.”
CDER will continue to seek to minimize long-standing problems such as drug shortages due to quality issues through proactive efforts including the New Inspection Protocol Project (NIPP) and Quality Management Maturity. The NIPP “is aimed at using standardized electronic inspection protocols to collect data in a structured manner. The protocols promote consistent and comprehensive coverage of critical areas of drug manufacturing and provide structured, data-rich reports.
“In the future, FDA will have the ability to better understand how certain variables (e.g., location of the establishment, type of establishment) affect quality. As more data are collected through NIPP, these types of insights can inform future inspections, identify policy/outreach opportunities, and influence application-related decision making."
A report published by the ECA Academy looked back from October 2018 to September 2019 to review the FDA warning letter trends among pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Where applicable, we’ve provided links to relevant resources and next steps for those looking for guidance and assistance in mitigating trending risks.
The specific issues contained within these recent warning letters reveal a continuation of a trend that’s been running for years: lapses in meeting basic GMP requirements.
As analyzed and compiled by Barbara Unger in an impressively researched column for Pharmaceutical Online, the frequency of Forms 483 issued to pharmaceutical companies has continued its steady rise over the past few years.
Note that for this and the following sections covering inspection observation trends, the data presented adheres to the analysis methodology and limitations described in the introduction of the
Again, given the caveat of the limited public data available (the FDA’s data includes only Forms 483 issued through its electronic system and omits API manufacturers), some notable findings emerge regarding specific §211 citations.
As we explored in another article, 2019 saw the FDA put a greater compliance focus on over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and other health product manufacturers. In a July 2019 column for Pharmaceutical Online, we analyzed these OTC-specific compliance trends, pulling out the following common issues appearing in warning letters.
Nonconformance Management —Another recent trend afflicting OTC drugmakers mirrors a broader and well-documented trend throughout the drug and device space: inadequate nonconformance management. As demonstrated by a large number of citations issued specifically for “inadequate, incomplete, and undocumented investigations,” these warning letters offer evidence of a long-standing perception that an outsized focus is placed on immediate nonconformance correction rather than on thoroughly investigating and executing corrective and preventive actions following a comprehensive root cause analysis.
Roles, Responsibilities, and Authority of the Quality Unit —The internal quality unit (QU) has been the target of many recent warning letters to OTC drug and health product manufacturers as an underlying cause of product quality and GMP compliance problems. Numerous firms have been cited for having an inadequate QU. In the most egregious examples, firms lacked this designated team entirely. More often, however, regulators have cited firms for a lack of written procedures that govern the responsibilities and functions of this group. 21 CFR Part 211 is clear about the need to establish a “quality control unit” with the documented responsibility and authority to make critical decisions.
Based on a growing number of relevant warning letters, as well as analyses of enforcement trend data and public statements made by the FDA, it’s clear that a renewed focus has been placed on evaluating manufacturers of OTC drug and health products in key areas of GMP.
These areas of enforcement focus include ineffective quality units, poor testing of incoming materials and components (i.e., relying on a supplier’s certificate of analysis), poor product testing, poor analytical and microbial testing and validation methodology (including method suitability), and inadequate nonconformance management.
Here are the major takeaways for inspections and compliance, specifically back from FDA"s Report on the State of Pharmaceutical Quality: Fiscal Year 2019 :
Based on its 10-point inspection score, the overall average for inspections in FY2019 was 7.4.(US- and EU-based sites scored averages that were slightly higher: 7.7 and 7.6, respectively.)
Based on its 10-point inspection score, homeopathic products and sterile over-the-counter (OTC) products had the lowest average scores at 6.5 and 6.2, respectively. For more on recent chronic quality and compliance issues among OTC and health product manufacturers,
In its report, regulators went on to say, "These sections represent some of the key elements of an effective Pharmaceutical Quality System. These are potential areas of focus for manufacturing facility management to improve overall pharmaceutical quality and inspectional outcomes."
Publicly available warning letters and inspection observation data provide powerful resources for understanding areas of regulatory focus and a benchmark for evaluating potential vulnerabilities within the quality system and beyond.
In many of its warning letters, the FDA has “strongly recommended” engaging a third-party consultant qualified in the relevant regulations to assist in meeting CGMP requirements.
While we help many companies resolve Forms 483 and warning letters, we also help prevent them from being issued in the first place. At The FDA Group, we plan and conduct effective internal quality audits to ensure your quality system is completely aligned with all documentation and operations — the critical part of any internal audit.
It has come to our attention that there is some false information regarding the price of iHealth Covid-19 Antigen Rapid Test (the "Kit") in the U.S. market.
We, iHealth Labs Inc, hereby clarify that we and our authorized distributors are the only organizations in the U.S. that may legally sell and distribute the Kit under FDA EUA. Also, our manufacturer will NOT supply to any other organizations in the U.S. except for iHealth Labs Inc.
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
No. SmartBP allows you to record, track and analyze trends in your blood pressure. You can either manually enter your records or use a blood pressure monitor to sync with SmartBP through Apple Health or a SmartBP® connected Blood Pressure Monitor. SmartBP alone does not measure blood pressure. You need a separate blood pressure monitor to measure blood pressure. Make sure that the blood pressure monitor you select meets your country"s regulatory requirements (e.g. US FDA, EU MDR, etc.).
Yes. You can download SmartBP for free on both Apple and Android devices. You can upgrade to premium version anytime. The premium version requires a subscription and includes features such as Apple Watch integration, Print or Share PDF Reports, iPhone / iPad direct wireless sync, SmartBP Cloud sync, advanced analysis features, import/export files to Dropbox and Google Drive, and of course no Ads.
For users who do not want to share their data in the cloud, we provide an option to sync between iPhone and iPad directly. You should have the premium version of SmartBP running on both devices. After making a purchase on one device, you are NOT charged again for the app on another device. Go to the More section of the SmartBP and select "Restore Purchase". You will only be charged once and not twice. You restore your purchase for free.
First set one device to receive from the more section of the app. Then on the other device, from history screen, select your data and tap on the share icon and select share with nearby iPhone and iPad. See screenshots below for more information.
We offer an optional premium paid service ("SmartBP Cloud Sync") that allows you to back up your Health Data outside your Device and allows you to access this Health Data on multiple devices, including iOS phones, tablets and Android devices. However, enrollment in this service should not be treated as a substitute for regularly taking additional back up of Your Health Data. While We have implemented reasonable precautions to protect the information we collect from loss, misuse, and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction. Please be aware that despite our best efforts, no data security measures can guarantee 100% security. It is the user"s responsibility to regularly backup their data. Other methods of backing up data include exporting a CSV of all your data to various apps or emailing it to yourself and saving it. For more information on our privacy policy, visit https://www.smartbp.app/privacypolicy
Yes. You can modify the records, including date, time, notes, tags and blood pressure information. You can change existing records from History screen by tapping on the record and while entering your blood pressure in the home screen, you can back date/time to any desired date/time.
The security of your personal data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
We may partner with Academic Institutions or other Research Centers to help them recruit you for Health Research Studies. We may use Your Usage Data to determine if you qualify for a study but You decide if you would like to participate in the study or not. To enroll in any Studies, you must first review and sign an informed consent and authorization form (if applicable) ("Informed Consent") for the Study.
We also use Google Firebase and Yahoo Flurry analytics. These analytics platforms helps us understand usage of our app. For e.g. How many of our app users are actively using the charts within the app? This helps us prioritize what features we need to work on. We have no way of associating the usage data at an individual level. You can opt-out of these 3rd party services.
If you are using an Apple device, for refunds, you need to contact Apple directly. We do not control transactions as these are made directly between you and Apple. Here is a link from Apple on how to request refunds.
You can do this on your own quite easily. Follow these links for iOS and Android (as applicable) for guidance on how to unsubscribe. We will not be able to do it for you as the transaction is between you and Apple or Google.
3) Subscribe to the Premium Version: Your subscription keeps us in business and helps us add new features and fix bugs and issues. Yes, we all prefer a one time payment vs. a subscription, but given that software updates to devices, OS versions and 3rd services is dynamic, we need your support to help us build, test and ensure nothing breaks. It"s really not possible for us to provide our app for a one time fee and expect us to support the app perpetually as each year there are so many updates to all the underlying software and services and we need to always stay on top of it.
4) Become a beta tester:We are always adding new features, fixing bugs and pushing updates, and sometimes things break. It"s not that we didn"t test before pushing the updates. We always thoroughly test before pushing any updates. But given, the proliferation of different devices, SW versions, OS versions, language localizations, 3rd party services, etc., things can break for certain users. Therefore, if you sign up to become a beta tester, we can send you builds to identify any issues and ensure that when it is released to the public, it will work. From time to time, we may offer discounts and special offers to beta testers. For example, we are now offering our smart blood pressure monitors for a 20% discount for users who sign up as a beta tester.
Thanks for the reading the above 5 ways of supporting us. You are a super kind person,
Ms.Josey 
Ms.Josey