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!

Written by: Kimberly J. Gold and Stephanie D. Willis

The Connecticut State Senate recently passed a bill that would impose additional disclosure and consent requirements on retailers offering pharmacy rewards programs to consumers.  If the bill passes the Connecticut House and becomes law in its current form, violations would expose retail providers of such programs to suit under the state’s consumer protection laws as soon as July 1, 2014.

The bill would require a retailer, prior to enrolling a consumer in a pharmacy rewards program, to provide the consumer with a plain language summary of the terms or conditions of the program.  If a HIPAA authorization is required to participate in the program, the summary must include a “conspicuous notice, in bold font” of what constitutes a HIPAA authorization.  HIPAA requires an authorization for uses and disclosures of PHI for all marketing communications, except for face-to-face encounters and communications involving a promotional gift of nominal value (such as pens and notepads).

Continue Reading Connecticut Pharmacy Rewards Program Disclosure Bill Could Cause Headaches