Earlier this week, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published its most recent Health Care Qui Tam Update. This Update covers 34 health care-related qui tam cases that were unsealed in July 2017.

Here are some of the highlights:

– Of the 34 cases unsealed in July 2017, the government intervened (in whole or in part) in six cases and declined to intervene in 28.

– These 34 unsealed cases were filed in 21 different courts, including:

  • Five in the Southern District of Ohio;
  • Three in the District of Arizona; and
  • Three in the Western District of Virginia.

Continue Reading Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group Publishes New Qui Tam Update

Americans today are facing an opioid epidemic that stems in part from the misuse of prescription drugs. CMS takes aim at this crisis in its CY 2019 Medicare Advantage and Part D  Proposed Rule (Proposed Rules) by setting out a framework for Part D plans to monitor and reduce the potential misuse of frequently abused prescription drugs. (Those interested in a high-level overview of the Proposed Rules should see our post from last month). Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Takes on the Opioid Epidemic

Medicare Part D plan sponsors and pharmacies are often confused by the program’s any willing pharmacy (AWP) requirements. Since the inception of the Medicare Part D program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has required Part D plan sponsors to: (i) have standard terms and conditions that are “reasonable and relevant;” and (ii) allow any pharmacy willing to accept the terms and conditions to participate in the sponsor’s network (AWP Requirements). The “standard terms and conditions” requirement does not require that Part D plan sponsors offer the same reimbursement terms to all pharmacies. Although CMS has tried to clarify these requirements through Call Letters and memos, CMS has not substantially updated these regulations over the past 10 years. Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Tries to Clarify Any Willing Pharmacy Rules

The rising cost of drugs in the U.S. is frequently in the news. So it is not surprising that in its contract year 2019 Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations (Proposed Rule), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) seeks to address Part D drug prices. CMS proposes making certain changes that might lower drug costs (for Plan Sponsors and beneficiaries) and requests information regarding avenues to potentially lower Medicare beneficiaries’ point-of-sale drug costs. The three provisions in the Proposed Rule that most directly relate to drug pricing address: (1) generic drug formulary placement, (2) cost-sharing for follow-on biological products, and (3) whether and how to reduce point-of-sale drug prices based on manufacturer rebates and pharmacy price concessions that a Plan Sponsor might receive months after the beneficiary receives the drugs. We will concentrate on the first two provision in this post. The third provision, which is a request for information, will be discussed in a later post.  Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Takes Aim at Drug Prices

Last Thursday, November 17, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed contract year 2019 Medicare Advantage and Part D regulations. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2017.

The proposed rule focuses on many issues including but not limited to:

  • Implementing certain parts of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, aimed at establishing additional methods that Part D plans can use to reduce abuse or misuse of frequently abused drugs;
  • Changes to certain Medicare Advantage provisions relating to marketing and delivery of information;
  • Establishing “preclusion lists” under Medicare Advantage and Part D to limit when a Medicare Advantage organization and Part D plan sponsor may pay for a service or drug based on the provider who prescribed or furnished the service or drug;
  • Part D Network requirements relating to any willing provider, including defining mail-order pharmacy;
  • Part D beneficiaries’ access to generic drugs and follow-on biological products;
  • Changes to medical loss ratio calculation and reporting; and
  • Updates to the Medicare Advantage and Part D Star Rating System.

Within the proposed rule, CMS also included a request for information regarding the application of manufacturer rebates and pharmacy price concessions to drug prices at the point of sale. CMS has been gathering information regarding this topic for a number of years but appears to be seeking more detailed information in this request.

In the coming weeks we will be issuing detailed posts on these topics as well as others.

Based on the significance and number of the changes proposed, we anticipate that CMS will receive many comments from all segments of industry and beneficiary groups that may be affected by the proposed changes.  Comments are due to CMS before 5:00 pm on January 16, 2018.

On October 23, 2017, a company that developed software to track and trace pharmaceuticals filed a complaint against a pharmaceutical distributors trade association that currently dominates the market for such software, alleging a conspiracy to lock up long-term contracts with customers and exclude competition in violation of the Sherman Act and the Virginia Antitrust Act.  Tracelink, Inc. v. Healthcare Distribution Alliance, Case No. 1:17-cv-01197-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2017). Continue Reading Pharma Distributors Trade Association Sued for Conspiracy to Exclude Competition for its Track and Trace Software

On November 8, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a workshop entitled, “Understanding Competition in Prescription Drug Markets: Entry and Supply Chain Dynamics.” Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will give the keynote addresses. Part of the goal of the workshop is to identify obstacles to competition and discuss policy steps that can increase the availability of generic drugs to consumers.

The Hatch-Waxman Act (the Act), which Congress passed over 30 years ago, provides a regulatory and judicial framework to expedite generic entry into U.S. prescription drug markets. For many drugs, the Act has helped reduce patent-related barriers to generic drug entry, which, in turn, has increased competition that has led to lower drug prices. In 2010, Congress created a similar framework for biosimilar drug development under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Announces Workshop on Competition in the Prescription Drug Market

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 documentContinue Reading FDA Delays Enforcement of Prescription Drug Product Identifier and Related Requirements

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

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?