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

During his first appearance before Congress as FDA Commissioner on May 25, 2017, Scott Gottlieb reported that the Agency is preparing a “Drug Competition Action Plan” that it will unveil in upcoming weeks and months. This was likely welcome news to many politicians from both parties, as well as to President Trump, who has publicly shamed pharmaceutical companies for the high prices of their products but has done little to advance concrete policies in this area.

Dr. Gottlieb has been consistent over the years, including during his recent confirmation process, in his view that FDA should take a more active role in fostering competition and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers. So it was not surprising when he was selected by Trump to lead the Agency, nor when he received a relatively warm welcome from Senators concerned about the direction prices have been going in recent years. Continue Reading FDA Commissioner Hints at Drug Pricing-Related Initiatives

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

Just as the public comment period for the bicameral, bipartisan discussion draft of the “FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017” ended on Friday, what we have been calling the User Fee Games got even more interesting and engaging.  As we previously reported, a discussion draft of the FDA Reauthorization Act was released jointly by leaders of the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy & Commerce Committee two weeks prior to that comment deadline.  It now seems that the late start to the 2017 user fee legislative process – along with the rapid approach of summer and the risk of Agency layoffs if this five-year reauthorization cycle is not completed before August – has gotten everyone pushing on the accelerator a bit. Continue Reading More Bipartisan Bills Hope to Catch a Ride on the UFA Reauthorization Legislation

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

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 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

In the alphabet soup that is health and FDA law and policy (if you don’t know what we mean, are you sure you should be reading this blog?), one acronym that doesn’t get a lot of respect is “UFA.” This is the first is a series of blog posts that aim to educate and inform our readers about why the UFA acronym matters and how the UFA legislative process may be particularly significant in 2017.

UFA stands for “User Fee Act,” of which there are many flavors in this modern era – from the old-timer Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), born in 1992, to the more toddler-ish Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) that joined us in 2012. Other important UFAs for the U.S. health care system and stakeholders are the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA), which were enacted first in 2002, and the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) that launched at the same time as their biosimilar companion. Continue Reading Let the 2017 “UFA” Games Begin!

As we’ve previously discussed on Health Law and Policy Matters, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pushed through several final rules towards the end of the Obama Administration (see here and here). However, since taking office, President Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to significantly roll back Federal regulations and has taken several actions aimed at slowing and reversing agency regulatory processes, including processes at the DHHS sub-agencies CMS and FDA. These executive actions are creating a climate of uncertainty for regulated industries and their stakeholders. Continue Reading Trump Executive Orders Create Uncertainty for Health Care & Pharmaceutical Industries