This is our third installment in our series about the legal issues involved in launching a health app, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) refers to as “mobile apps.” The goal of this post is to provide you with a basic understanding of FDA’s evolving approach to mobile apps so that you can make informed decisions about the legal consequences of your app’s functionality. Continue Reading Building a Health App? Part 3: What You Need to Know About FDA’s Regulation of Mobile Apps
Benjamin Zegarelli is an Associate in the firm’s Health Law Practice. He provides counsel on compliance and regulatory issues to clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotech industries. With a clear focus on FDA regulatory counseling, Benjamin advises a breadth of health care industry clients on the federal and state laws surrounding manufacturer product development and marketing. His practice also includes advising clients on research approval, sales, and negotiating contractual relationships. Benjamin has given numerous presentations on current health care industry topics and held the position of Executive Editor of the Cardozo Law Review.
On Monday, September 11, our colleagues in the Antitrust Section published an alert describing a developing antitrust lawsuit against Franciscan Health System (“CHI Fanciscan”): State of Washington v. Franciscan Health System, et al. No. 3:17-cv-05690 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2017). The Washington State Attorney General’s office accuses CHI Franciscan of accumulating a controlling share of the “Orthopedic Physician Services” market through incremental acquisition which has led to substantial lessening of competition and illegal price fixing, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act, respectively, as well as Washington State antitrust laws.
The alert cautions that health care provider acquisition strategies may come under antitrust scrutiny, even when acquisitions target multiple small physician practices, if the cumulative effect of such acquisitions results in substantial condensation of market share in a particular area of health care services.
For greater insight on this issue, read the full alert here.
Picking up from my last installment of this series exploring the regulatory history of off-label communication, this post highlights some recent trends in FDA enforcement and guidance related to off-label promotion. Not surprisingly, FDA has taken a hard-line approach in its guidance on off-label communications, similar to the Agency’s forceful January 2017 memo. This aggressive stance has not, however, translated into increased enforcement. Continue Reading The Past, Present, and Future of Government Regulation of Off-Label Communications – Part 4
This is Part 3 in my series exploring the history of FDA’s regulation of off-label communications, which has become newly relevant in light of the recent events highlighted in Part 1. In this installment, I continue describing how FDA’s regulatory scheme has persisted in light of the key First Amendment decisions involving off-label promotion. Even though FDA hesitated in and ultimately rejected promulgating regulations that would make any action “that directly or indirectly suggests to the physician or to the patient that an approved drug may properly be used for unapproved uses for which it is neither labeled nor advertised” (37 Fed. Reg. 16,503, 16,504) into a matter warranting enforcement action, the Agency used this reasoning to shape an off-label communication policy. As I described in Part 2, FDA’s policy enjoyed some support from federal courts; however, this support was only temporary. More recently, federal courts have shown support for the idea that truthful and non-misleading promotions of off-label uses of drugs and devices by manufacturers are protected under the First Amendment. A review of the pivotal cases in this area will help put FDA’s off-label policy in perspective, especially in light of FDA’s reaction to these cases in a memorandum published in January 2017. Continue Reading The Past, Present, and Future of Government Regulation of Off-Label Communications – Part 3
In my last post, I introduced a series of posts that will explore FDA’s historical approach to off-label drug and device communications, how that position has evolved (or not) to the modern day, and predict where that policy might end up a few years from now. This post focuses on the history of FDA’s off-label communication and promotion policy, and while it is by no means a comprehensive history, I attempt to reveal some of the origins and early development of the Agency’s approach to off-label uses and promotion. In fact, FDA’s early position on off-label communications closely resembles the Agency’s stance on the subject today. Continue Reading The Past, Present, and Future of Government Regulation of Off-Label Communications – Part 2
As 2017 began, FDA appeared poised to implement significant changes to the rules governing off-label communications related to drugs, biologics, and medical devices. The Agency had hosted a public hearing in November 2016 to receive input from interested industry stakeholders and members of the public about possible alternatives for off-label regulation, seemingly a first step in exploring more liberal (or possibly stricter) enforcement standards. However, in January, FDA released a new final rule amending the definitions of “intended use” applicable to drugs and devices in 21 C.F.R. §§ 201.128, 801.4, which would affect how off-label uses are considered with respect to intended use of regulated products, and issued a memo discussing its current position on off-label uses and communications. In short, all of FDA’s actions since the November public hearing have shown that it intends to continue strict enforcement of off-label promotion despite changes in the highest levels of government and strongly negative industry response. Continue Reading The Past, Present, and Future of Government Regulation of Off-Label Communications – Part 1
Since the 21st Century Cures Act became law on December 13, 2016, we have been blogging on regulatory and clinical areas affected by its provisions (see here, here and here). On March 14, 2017, FDA made further progress on its Cures Act obligations by releasing in the Federal Register a proposed list of Class II devices that may be exempted from premarket notification (or 510(k)) requirements. The list is currently open for public comment until May 15, 2017. Under the Cures Act, the final list of exempted devices must be published by July 11, 2017.
From 2015 to 2016, FDA appeared to open the door to loosening the standards around intended use and off-label use, but recent rule-making and public comments suggest that FDA is becoming more sclerotic instead of flexible. However, given the political climate in the federal government and the lack of an appointed FDA commissioner, it is unclear whether FDA will hold its ground or be forced to retreat.
On Monday, FDA issued a final rule to amend FDA’s established definitions of “intended use” for drugs and devices, the primary consideration in determining whether a product is regulated for a particular use and what regulations apply. The final rule also excludes products derived from tobacco from regulation as “tobacco products” if such products are intended for use as a drug, device, or combination product. (We’ll be discussing the tobacco products portion of the rule in a separate post.) While this rule could have a profound effect on marketing schemes for tobacco products, drugs, and medical devices, Congress’s passage of the Midnight Rules Relief Act could eliminate the rule before it ever takes effect.
Over the past year, clear trends have emerged in FDA’s enforcement activities. Enforcement arising from alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) can take many forms, including FDA advisory actions such as warning letters, adverse inspectional observations that can lead to specific administrative actions like product recalls or import detentions, and the pursuit of product seizures using express judicial tools, criminal convictions, or civil settlements in cooperation with DOJ. Structurally, individual compliance offices within the FDA centers and regional offices can initiate enforcement activity against regulated industries, while the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) has primary responsibility for criminal investigations conducted by the FDA and works closely with DOJ in setting enforcement priorities for new cases. Continue Reading Health Care Enforcement Review and 2017 Outlook: FDA’s Wide-Ranging Activities