shutterstock_428983732Last week, the California Assembly Committee on Business and Professions voted in favor of Assembly Bill 315.  AB 315 seeks to amend the California Business and Professions Code: (a) to require PBMs to obtain licensure from the Board of Pharmacy, (b) to state that PBMs have fiduciary duties to their “purchaser” clients (i.e., health plans), and (c) to require PBMs to disclose to their purchaser clients data regarding drug costs, rebates, and fees earned. The favorable vote moves the bill to the Committee on Appropriations.

California is not the only state that is considering adopting a PBM “transparency” law.  New York’s Governor Cuomo released a proposal that seeks to require PBMs to both register with the State and obtain a license (from the Department of Financial Services) as well as disclose financial incentives or benefits for promoting the use of certain drugs and financial arrangements that affect customers.  The Governor would also like to impose price controls on pharmaceutical manufacturers.  New York has a long history of regulating PBMs through a handful  of systems because the services that PBMs offer often result in a PBM needing to hold a specific non-PBM license and to adopt a specific corporate structure.  In addition, Senator Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the C-THRU Act to the Senate Finance Committee in March.  The C-THRU Act seeks to make PBM rebate data publicly available, require the Secretary of HHS to adopt a minimum percentage of drug rebates that a PBM would need to pass through to certain of its health plan clients, and amend the definition of “negotiated prices” under the Medicare Part D Program.  Continue Reading California Advances PBM Licensing and “Transparency” Law

MedicalTechnologies_Tubes2We recently updated our chart that tracks state biosimilar substitution laws to include new laws in Iowa and Montana. These new laws bring the total number of states with biosimilar substitution laws to 27, plus Puerto Rico. The latest version of our chart can be found here. As with the laws we’ve seen before, both the Iowa and Montana biosimilar amendments mirror the state’s existing generic drug substitution laws. More specifically, they amend state pharmacy laws to allow, and in some situations require, the substitution of interchangeable biosimilars. Continue Reading New State Substitution Laws, and a Busy Spring for Biosimilars

On April 14, 2017, leaders from the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy & Commerce Committee released the first discussion draft of the 2017 FDA user fee reauthorization bill. As we’ve been reporting (see here and here for our past coverage), these two committees have held numerous public hearings since the beginning of March to learn more about FDA’s “big 4” user fee programs – for prescription drugs, medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilars.  Continue Reading Congressional Leaders Seek Input in UFA Reauthorization Draft Bill by April 28, 2017

In July 2015, we posted about the N.Y. Attorney General’s False Claims Act (FCA) settlements with Trinity HomeCare and its related entities, and how the case provided insight into the future of FCA enforcement.  We identified five key trends based on the settlements:

  1. The FCA cases were based on qui tams and pursued by the State Attorney General after federal government declination.
  2. The FCA cases were based on a narrow, single state or regional arrangement, as opposed to allegations of a national scheme or program.
  3. One of the FCA cases was based on conduct about which Trinity had previously been warned.
  4. The FCA cases were based on government billings for specialty drugs.
  5. All parties to the arrangement were named as defendants in the qui tams.

Trinity was already under investigation by the N.Y. Attorney General’s office for its billing of hemophilia drugs (the basis of the first 2015 settlement) when a second qui tam alleged that Trinity submitted false claims in connection with a specialty drug used to treat premature infants at risk for lung disease.  That second qui tam led to the second settlement and now, almost 20 months later, has led to a new Complaint. Continue Reading Five Trends in False Claims Act Enforcement: Take Two

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

6350-Pharma-Summit-blog-buttonMintz Levin and ML Strategies will be hosting the 2nd Annual Pharmacy Industry Summit on April 5th and 6th! The Summit will bring together stakeholders and thought leaders from across the industry to discuss legal and policy challenges facing manufacturers, PBMs, payors, pharmacies, and providers.

With a new administration and state legislatures taking aim at the pharmacy industry, manufacturers, PBMs, payors, and pharmacies face a number of unknowns and questions:

  • What is the fate of FDA User Fees?
  • Will Senator Wyden’s Creating Transparency to Have Drug Rebates Unlocked (C-THRU) Act gain traction?
  • What are state legislatures proposing to address drug pricing?
  • Will the Republicans take another shot at the Affordable Care Act?
  • What is President Trump’s “new system” for competition in the drug industry referenced in his March 7th tweet?
  • What’s new in value-based contracting and what does the future hold for innovative contracting arrangements?

With sessions focusing on the Affordable Care Act developments, drug pricing, state law developments, value-based contracting, and the FDA impact on the supply chain, among others, we plan to discuss these and many other issues impacting the pharmacy industry.

For additional information on the Summit, including an agenda and registration information, please visit our event website.

As described in last week’s post, Senator Wyden has introduced the C-THRU Act that seeks to require public disclosure of PBM rebate amounts, establish a minimum rebate percentage that PBMs must pass on to Part D and Exchange Plan clients, and intends to change the definition and/or application of “negotiated prices” under the Part D program.  This post focuses on the portion of the C-THRU Act that relates to Part D negotiated prices.

According to the Summary of The Creating Transparency to Have Drug Rebates Unlocked (C-THRU) Act (“Summary”) released by the Senate Finance Committee prior to the release of the actual bill, Part D enrollee cost-sharing is based off the price at which the pharmacy acquires the drug.  The Summary provides the following example:  “a drug maker sets a drug[‘]s price at $100.  Under current law, Part D beneficiaries pay co-insurance based on the $100 price, not the lower price, say, $80, that a PBM negotiates with a drug maker.  Seniors in Medicare ought to benefit from these negotiations.”  This example is inaccurate, ignores the definition of and parties involved in negotiated prices as defined under the Part D regulations, and assumes that Medicare seniors currently do not benefit from manufacturer rebates.  In fact, CMS recently recognized that manufacturer rebates are helping keep Part D enrollee premiums down. Continue Reading C-THRU’s Proposed Changes to Negotiated Prices – A Demonstration of the Part D Program’s Complexities and Misunderstandings

As we noted previously in our introductory blog post on the 2017 User Fee Act (UFA) reauthorization process, the first UFA hearing on Capitol Hill was convened on March 2, 2017 by the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s (E&C) Subcommittee on Health.  That hearing focused on the UFAs specific to generic drugs and biosimilar biological products.  Since then, Congress has held several more UFA hearings, and multiple FDA-related bipartisan bills that could become important to this process have been introduced.  So it’s time for an update on how things are going with the UFA reauthorizations. Continue Reading FDA User Fee Hearings Picking Up Steam on Capitol Hill

Last week, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D- Ore.) introduced the “Creating Transparency to Have Drug Rebates Unlocked (C-THRU) Act of 2017.”  As its name suggests, it seeks to require parties (e.g., PBMs) that contract with pharmaceutical manufacturers for drug rebates to be more transparent regarding the rebates they receive on behalf of their health plan clients, specifically Part D plans and qualified health benefit plans that participate on ACA Exchanges (“Exchange Plans”). The Act would: (1) require the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to make available on its website the PBM transparency data submitted by PBMs that contract with Part D Sponsors or Exchange Plans, (2) require the Secretary of HHS to adopt a minimum percentage of drug rebates that a PBM would need to pass through to its Part D or Exchange Plan clients, and (3) amend the definition of negotiated price under the Part D program to change what price concessions would have to be reflected at the point-of-sale.  This post focuses on the first two changes.  The third change will be addressed in a separate post. Continue Reading Wyden’s C-THRU Act – Publicizing PBM Rebate Data

As the healthcare industry moves towards value-based purchasing, pay-for-performance, and other payment reform models, industry leaders have identified federal fraud and abuse laws as a barrier to full implementation of such models.  Last month, the Health Care Leadership Council released a White Paper entitled “Health System Transformation: Revisiting the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral (“Stark”) Law to Foster Integrated Care Delivery and Payment Models” (“HCL White Paper”), identifying current fraud and abuse laws as impeding transformation of the healthcare system.  Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers have also taken advantage of the OIG’s Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts (“OIG Solicitation”) to advocate for more flexible fraud and abuse laws with respect to value-based arrangements. Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Healthcare Leaders cite Fraud and Abuse Laws as Obstacle to Value-Based Arrangements