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
It has been some time since we provided a detailed update on the status of FDA’s user fee legislation making its way through Congress, so that’s what is on tap for today. The House passed the lengthy FDA Reauthorization Act (FDARA) on July 13, 2017 as H.R. 2430, and House members have now left Washington, D.C. for the traditional August recess.
Although the previous self-imposed congressional deadline of completing work on FDARA by the end of July has passed, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb informed agency employees via email on July 24th that he would not be sending out any lay-off notices to user fee-funded staff “unless and until September 30 passes without reauthorization.” The publicizing of this policy decision by the Commissioner may have been intended to signal to the Senate that the sky is not falling (yet), but that they need to get to work. Continue Reading August 2017 Is Here – Will FDARA Get Done Soon?
Continuing its annual tradition, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced last week the largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. As part of the national health care fraud takedown, the government charged 412 defendants with approximately $1.3 billion in alleged fraud. In addition to these charges, HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) is in the process of excluding 295 health care providers from participating in federal health care programs.
Facing pressure from stakeholders and technological realities, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has again delayed its enforcement of parts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). As we discussed in a prior post, the DSCSA requires enhanced security and accountability for prescription drugs throughout the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain, with phased-in obligations for the various trading partners over 10 years, beginning with the law’s passage in November 2013. Covered trading partners include manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers, whose upcoming compliance obligations under the DSCSA are all addressed by FDA in the recently issued Compliance Policy guidance document. Continue Reading FDA Delays Enforcement of Prescription Drug Product Identifier and Related Requirements
It appears that – at least for now – the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is serving as the public face of the executive branch’s efforts to tackle the increasingly contentious debate about prescription drug prices. As we previously reported, following a May 25, 2017 budget hearing, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has made increased competition in the drug marketplace a high policy priority for the Agency. To that end, we have recently seen concrete steps being taken to advance Dr. Gottlieb’s multi-pronged “Drug Competition Action Plan.” Continue Reading FDA Stays in the Spotlight with Drug Pricing Moves, but Could Be Facing Risk as UFA Bill Loses Attention
Earlier this month, two states – Maryland and Nevada – passed legislation aimed at controlling drug prices. The two laws are being touted by proponents as decisive action against pharmaceutical manufacturers. Opponents note that the laws have limitations and are really more of an annoyance for drug makers and will not do anything to help patients access or afford their medicines. Notably, both measures were enacted without the governors’ signatures (who are both Republican) but neither governor vetoed the legislation.
On Friday, June 23, 2017, CMS released the Final Medicare Part D DIR Reporting Requirements for 2016. Part D sponsors may begin submitting their DIR information on June 30, 2017 and must finish their submissions by the end of July 31, 2017. As explained in our earlier post, CMS publishes Part D DIR Reporting requirements each year and sets the deadline for DIR submissions.
These DIR Reporting Requirements are the first to require Part D plan sponsors to report as DIR price concessions from and additional contingent payments to network pharmacies that could not reasonably be determined at the point of sale. This change is caused by the update to the definition of “negotiated prices” that was effective January 1, 2016. Not surprisingly, most of the comments and responses included in CMS’s Reporting Requirements focus on this change. Additional topics addressed in the comments and responses include, but are not limited to: (i) plan sponsors no longer being able to report negative amounts in the rebate fields, (ii) the timeliness of the DIR data submitted by July 31, 2017; and (iii) confidentiality of DIR data reported to CMS.
On a sweltering hot D.C. morning, those of us anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s opinion in its first case involving biosimilar biological products finally exhaled. The June 12, 2017 opinion followed the parties’ oral arguments on the last day of the Court’s October 2016 Term, as we previously reported. With respect to both of the significant issues presented, the Justices unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals split opinion and remanded for further consideration of questions related to State law.
Although our intellectual property colleagues have separately analyzed the “Patent Dance” implications of the Court’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz (see here), the second issue presented in the case related to the proper interpretation of the 180-day notice provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The Federal Circuit had held that such notice by the biosimilar applicant can only be provided to the reference product sponsor after FDA licenses (i.e., approves) the biosimilar application. Continue Reading SCOTUS Ruling Gives a Boost to Biosimilars; FDA Continues to Advance Products Through AdComs
As we gear up for a busy week in Washington, D.C., our colleagues at ML Strategies have provided a Health Care Weekly Preview. This week’s preview describes upcoming hearing on safety net health programs and prescription drug costs along with the progress of the American Health Care Act. Stay tuned for additional updates and analysis from ML Strategies.
The latest installment in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates came on May 31, 2017, when Senator Charles Grassley issued a press release stating that between 2006-2016 taxpayers may have overpaid for EpiPen by as much as $1.27 billion, “far more” than the announced-but-never-confirmed or finalized $465 million DOJ settlement with Mylan.
To understand what the latest news means in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates, it is important to understand how we got here. And why at the end of the day, the information Senator Grassley included in the May 31, 2016 release may be less important than the information he hinted at but omitted from the release. Continue Reading The Latest in the Epipen Medicaid Drug Rebate Saga – Where Are We Now?