Health Law Advisor

Thought Leaders On Laws And Regulations Affecting Health Care And Life Sciences

Chicago Releases Draft Rules on Pharmaceutical Representative Licensure

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

In a previous blog post, we discussed a City of Chicago Ordinance, set to take effect on July 1, 2017, that will require pharmaceutical sales representatives to obtain a license before being able to operate within city limits. The draft rules for this ordinance were released on March 17, 2017.

These rules provide additional detail regarding the licensure requirements as well as other associated education and disclosure requirements with which pharmaceutical representatives will be expected to comply beginning in July of this year. In order to obtain initial licensure as a pharmaceutical representative, applicants must complete an online course that will provide an overview of these requirements.  Proof of course completion must be submitted along with the license application, which will cost $750.  To maintain the license, representatives must complete a minimum of 5 hours of continuing professional education every year thereafter.  Approved providers will be listed at www.cityofchicago.org/health.  Notably, continuing education provided by pharmaceutical manufacturers to their employees will not be accepted to fulfill the requirement. A licensed representative who does not meet these continuing education requirements may face substantial penalties, including suspension or revocation of the license, inclusion in a public list of representatives whose licenses have been revoked, and/or a fine between $1,000 and $3,000 per day of violation.

In addition to the professional education requirement, pharmaceutical representatives will also be required to track and report certain sales information on an annual basis or upon request by the Commissioner of Public Health. This information must include: a list of the health care professionals who were contacted, the location and duration of each contact, the pharmaceuticals that were promoted, and whether product samples or any other compensation was offered in exchange for the contact.[1]  For applicants who receive initial licensure, the time period for the data that must be collected and reported shall cover an 11-month period, starting on the day of licensure and ending one month before its expiration.  For representatives with a renewed license, the data shall cover a 12-month period that will begin one month before the license renewal and will end one more before its expiration.  If the Commissioner of Public Health requests the information at any other time, the request will designate the time period the submission must cover, and it will be due within 30 days of the request.

A pharmaceutical representative who is found to have violated any provision of the Ordinance or these rules will be subject to suspension or revocation of licensure and/or a fine of $1,000 to $3,000 per day of violation. Once a license is revoked, it cannot be reinstated for a period of two years from the date of revocation.[2]

These new requirements will undoubtedly place a significant burden on pharmaceutical manufacturers and their sales representatives who work in Chicago.[3]  The public is invited to submit any comments it may have on the proposed rules by April 2, 2017.

____

[1] Section 4-6-310(g)(1)

[2] Section 4-6-310(j)

[3] The requirements have already drawn considerable criticism from affected members of the pharmaceutical industry, who state that they will impose an unnecessary and harmful tax on one of the most important sectors of the city’s economy.

Top Five Takeaways from MedPAC’s Meeting on Medicare Issues and Policy Developments – March 2017

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (“MedPAC”) met in Washington, DC, on March 2-3, 2017. The purpose of this and other public meetings of MedPAC is for the commissioners to review the issues and challenges facing the Medicare program and then make policy recommendations to Congress. MedPAC issues these recommendations in two annual reports, one in March and another in June. MedPAC’s meetings can provide valuable insight into the state of Medicare, the direction of the program moving forward, and the content of MedPAC’s next report to Congress.

As thought leaders in health law, Epstein Becker Green monitors MedPAC developments to gauge the direction of the health care marketplace. Our five biggest takeaways from the March meeting are as follows:

  1. MedPAC proposes a draft recommendation for the implementation of a prospective payment system for post-acute care settings.

MedPAC determines a PAC PPS could be implemented as soon as 2021. In considering the various factors, MedPAC proposes a draft recommendation for a PAC PPS. Recommendations include a 3 year transition period for implementation, a 3% reduction in aggregate payments, granting the Secretary the authority for periodic revisions and rebasing of payments to align with the current cost of care, and the incorporation of uniform functional assessment data into the risk adjustment method, when such data is available. MedPAC created the recommendations with the goals of lowering spending, correcting inequities in current payments that favor certain patients and providers over others, redistributing payments across providers to narrow disparities in profitability, and increasing the willingness of providers to treat all types of patients so they will be easier to place upon discharge. These recommendations are only a draft, and particularly the percent of the reduction in payments seems subject to increase. MedPAC will discuss and vote on these recommendations at the April meeting.

  1. MedPAC discusses proposed recommendations to address the rapid growth in Part B drug spending.

MedPAC discusses the package of policy reforms developed over the last few years that have been refined following feedback in the January meeting. The draft recommendations are comprised of both short-term and long-term strategies to reduce Part B drug spending. The short-term strategies including requiring manufacturers paid under Part B to submit ASP data, with a civil monetary penalty for failure to report, reducing wholesale acquisition cost-based payment to ASP plus 3 percentage points, requiring manufacturers to pay a rebate to Medicare when the ASP for a product exceeds an inflation benchmark, and requiring the Secretary to use a common billing code to pay for a reference biologic and its biosimilars. The first long-term strategy proposed is the creation and implementation of a new alternative, voluntary program called the “Drug Value Program” no later than 2022. Under this system, Medicare would contract with private vendors to negotiate prices for Part B products, not to exceed 100% ASP. Providers would pay negotiated prices for DVP products and Medicare would pay providers the negotiated price plus an administrative fee, with the opportunity for shared savings. The second long-term strategy, also to be completed no later than 2022 or upon implementation of the DVP, is to reduce the ASP add-on under the ASP System. MedPAC will discuss and vote on these recommendations at the April meeting.

  1. MedPAC considers proposals to refine MIPS and A-APM’s and to encourage primary care.

MedPAC reviews proposals for two issues related to clinician payments: 1) refining MACRA and 2) finding better methods to support primary care.  MedPAC considers the MIPS system under MACRA to be inadequate at identifying high value physicians, and thus contemplates a series of ideas designed to remedy this problem, including replacing all measure reporting by clinicians with patient experience measures, designing policies to move clinicians from MIPs to A-APMs, and making A-APMs relatively more attractive for clinicians. MedPAC also discusses ways to better support primary care, including upfront payments for primary care providers in two-sided ACOs and providing all primary care providers with a per beneficiary payment.

  1. MedPAC continues its discussion regarding issues in designing a premium support system for Medicare.

MedPAC discusses the extent to which a premium support system in Medicare should have standardization in benefits, cost sharing, and other features.  One premium support model discussed, which is modeled after how Medicare Parts C and D currently function, would involve a standardized benefit package, with cost sharing that is standardized or actuarially equivalent across plans, and a standard option would be available for beneficiaries to buy. Similar to Part C, plan bids will determine the government contribution towards a beneficiary’s choice, and fee-for-service Medicare is treated as a bidding plan. MedPAC also discusses how supplemental Medicare plan could be integrated into a premium support system and how the benchmark plan should be determined.

  1. MedPAC is contemplating both the financial and the quality-related impacts of shifting Medicare to a premium support system.

MedPAC discusses the impact of implementing a premium support system on plan participation.  MedPAC also reviews potential distributional impacts of using premium supports.  MedPAC’s rough analysis shows that premium supports may lead to more than half of Medicare beneficiaries being enrolled in managed care plans due to shifts in the premiums in fee for service plans.  While the financial implications of premium support is the primary focus of the discussion, MedPAC also addresses how to manage and maintain quality standards under premium support, including through the establishment of minimum standards for plans, provider network adequacy, and plan data disclosure requirements that could aid in setting the performance standards and payment adjustments.  MedPAC also discussed promoting higher quality plans through more direct financial incentives, such as allowing a higher contribution from the government towards high-quality plans to incentivize enrollment in these plans.

FDA Adopts New Designation Process for Regenerative Advanced Therapies

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On January 19, 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) unveiled a new drug designation process for regenerative advanced therapies, an important first step toward implementation of the regenerative medicine provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act.  Products for which a designation as a regenerative advanced therapy (“RAT”) is obtained are eligible for accelerated approval under the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law by former President Obama on December 13, 2016 with sweeping bipartisan support.

The accelerated approval provisions for RATs under the 21st Century Cures Act are intended to facilitate expedited review and approval of stem cell therapies and other cellular and tissue products for use in serious or life threatening diseases, which are currently subject to regulation as unapproved drugs. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, regenerative medicine therapies eligible for a RAT designation may include any “cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, except for those products regulated solely under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (“PHS”), and part 1271 of Title 21, Code of Federal regulations.”[1]

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, the sponsor of a product must show the following to be eligible for a RAT designation:

  • The drug is a regenerative medicine therapy;
  • The drug is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition;[2] and
  • Preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition.

Pursuant to the FDA website on the Regenerative Advanced Therapy Designation, a sponsor requesting a RAT designation for its product must make such a request either concurrently with submission of an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”), or as an amendment to an existing IND. Consistent with requests for fast track and breakthrough therapy designations, the FDA only requires that a sponsor describe the preliminary clinical evidence that supports a RAT designation, and does not require the sponsor to submit primary data.  Information that will be considered includes: a description of any available therapies for the disease or condition already in existence, the study design, the population studied, the endpoints used, and a description of the study results and statistical analyses.

The RAT designation process will be overseen by the newly created Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT). The OTAT will manage the application process for RAT designation, and will notify the sponsor within 60 days of receiving an application as to whether the RAT designation is granted. If a sponsor does not receive a RAT designation for its product the OTAT will provide an explanation in writing of its rationale for the denial.

A sponsor that obtains a RAT designation for its product is entitled to meet with the FDA early in its development program to discuss the potential use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints that may be used to support accelerated approval of the product. RATs may be eligible for accelerated approval based upon surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict a long-term clinical benefit, and based on data obtained from a “meaningful number of sites” with subsequent expansion to additional sites, along with the collection of additional data in the post-market phase.

The implementation of the RAT designation process will enable manufacturers to begin to take advantage of the less burdensome review process enabled by the 21st Century Cures Act.  While some patient advocates have expressed concern that the availability of an accelerated approval pathway for regenerative medicine products may impede the development of robust evidence establishing their safety and effectiveness, and may ultimately result in patient harm, 21st Century Cures’ accelerated approval provisions are likely to be a harbinger of a new wave of regenerative medicine therapies that provide additional options for patients facing serious or life threatening conditions.

____

[1] 21st Century Cures Act Sec., Sec. 3033(8).  Human Cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) are regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act and the regulations of 21 C.F.R. Part 1271 if all of the following criteria are met: the HCT/P is minimally manipulated, intended for homologous use (as reflected in labeling and advertising), is not manufactured by combining cells or tissues with another article, except for water, crystalloids, or a sterilizing, preserving or storage agent, and does not have a systemic effect nor is dependent upon the metabolic activity of living cells for its primary function. Therefore, if a product meets all of the aforementioned criteria, the HCT/P will still be regulated under 21 C.F.R. Part 1271 and will not be subject to regulation as a drug product.

[2] The FDA will use its standard definitions found in its Expedited Program Guidance as a guide to determining whether a product meets the required criteria, such as whether a condition is “serious or life-threatening” or whether a drug is “intended to treat a serious disease or condition.”

Long-Awaited Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment Are Released

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Joshua A. Stein and Frank C. Morris, Jr., at Epstein Becker Green have a post on the Health Employment And Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers: “The U.S. Access-Board Releases Long-Awaited Final Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment Standards.”

Following is an excerpt:

As part of a flurry of activity in the final days of the Obama Administration, the U.S. the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the “Access Board”) has finally announced the release of its Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment (the “MDE Standards”).  Published in the Federal Register on Monday, January 9, 2017, the MDE Standards are a set of design criteria intended to provide individuals with disabilities access to medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs (including those used for dental or optical exams), weight scales, radiological equipment, mammography equipment and other equipment used by health professionals for diagnostic purposes. …

Read the full post here.

Replace Without Repeal?

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On Monday, January 23rd, Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the Patient Freedom Act of 2017 (“PFA”), the first of what may be many Republican Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) “replacement” alternatives. The PFA is notable for several reasons. It is the first replacement plan to be introduced in the 115th Congress, it is sponsored by Senators who are considered comparatively moderate on health issues, and thus its content may represent an opportunity for compromise in the future, and, perhaps most interestingly, does not actually repeal the ACA. The overarching feature of the PFA is that it allows states to control which course they chart for health reform.

The ACA: What Stays and What Goes  

If enacted, the PFA would eliminate the majority of the provisions contained in Title I of the ACA. This includes the individual and employer mandates, the community rating provision, essential benefits requirements, and the establishment of the health benefit exchanges. However, the ACA provisions the PFA retains are just as notable as the provisions it removes. The PFA maintains the bans on lifetime and annual coverage limits, maintains the ACA ban on coverage exclusions based on preexisting conditions, continues to permit dependents to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26, keeps in place the ACA non-discrimination requirements, and maintains the ACA mental health parity coverage requirements. The PFA also does not repeal any provisions outside of Title I, leaving many features in place, such as Medicaid expansion and Medicare prescription drug plan provisions.

State Options

The PFA would shift the decision of how to implement health reform to individual states. The PFA allows states to choose between three options: 1) maintain the current ACA model using subsidies and health benefit exchanges to provide insurance coverage; 2) enact a market-based option or “state alternative;” or 3) select to design its own health system without federal funding. If a state fails to select one of the options by a certain date they will be deemed to have selected the market based option.

Option 1: Keep the ACA

States that elect to continue to operate under the ACA will be treated as if the changes to Title I of the Act in the PFA were never enacted. This will allow states to maintain health benefits exchanges and for eligible enrollees to receive federal subsidies and cost sharing reductions to purchase coverage from qualified health plans (“QHPs”). However, States may see a reduction in the exchange subsidies and costs sharing reductions available to enrollee as the PFA includes an additional provision designed to align federal funding between ACA states and states that elect the new market-based approach.

Option 2: Market-Based Approach

The market-based approach, or “State Alternative” option, will allow states to essentially shift residents enrolled in QHPs and potentially Medicaid into a standard high-deductible health plan containing basic pharmaceutical coverage and some coverage for preventive care and free immunizations. Residents currently enrolled in QHPs will receive Roth health savings accounts (“HSAs”) funded through tax credits.  These tax credits will replace the advanced premium tax credits QHP-enrollees are currently eligible to receive with a tax credit that is similarly advanceable and refundable.  The tax credit is also adjustable based on the age, income, and geographic location of the enrollee.

States may also include the Medicaid expansion population under this market-based alternative, but only enrollees not otherwise eligible for Medicare coverage, and eligibility for federal Roth HSA contributions will be limited to those not enrolled in a federal healthcare or veterans benefit program. States can either administer the market-based solution themselves or they can allow the federal government to administer the system. The total amount of the tax credits available under the market based approach will be equal to 95 percent of the total projected ACA premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies that the state would have otherwise received.

What’s Next and What to Watch?

The PFA is the first of what may be many Republican plans to replace the ACA. Reports indicate other members of Congress, including Senator Rand Paul, are expected to release alternative plans in the near future. It is unlikely that any one plan will be enacted in the form that it is introduced. However, significant insight into what ultimate changes may occur can be gained by monitoring how stakeholders- such as members of Congress, the administration, and governors- respond to the various provisions contained in these proposals. Health care entities should closely monitor the provisions that appear to have support among the various stakeholders to ensure that there is sufficient time to react and adapt to the changing health care environment.

Congress Wants to Reform Agency Rulemaking: Refinements or Tectonic Shifts?

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Congress is currently considering two bills that would dramatically alter the ways in which all federal agencies develop and publish rules. If enacted, both would create significant new obligations for agencies such as CMS and the FDA, expand the scope of judicial review of rules, and would increase the potential for political influence over the rulemaking process. Both bills passed the House on party-line votes, and are under consideration by the Senate.

The first bill, H.R. 5, would overhaul multiple phases of the federal rulemaking process. These proposed changes would make the rulemaking process significantly longer and more complex for agencies, and includes provisions that could prevent some rules from ever taking effect. The key provisions of the bill are summarized below:

  • Prior to publishing any rule (1) with an expected annual impact of $100 million or more, (2) that may reduce employment, or (3) that involves a novel legal or policy issue, an agency would have to publish an advance notice that it intends to publish a proposed notice of rulemaking, and must solicit comments on the notice. A proposed rule could only be published after this new additional process is complete.
  • Whenever an agency publishes a proposed rule for public comment in any of the categories described above, it would have to explain the basis for the rule, the data it relied on, and would have to explain the alternatives to the rule and justify why they were not adopted. In addition to the current public comment period, once a proposed rule was published an interested party could then request a hearing to contest the quality of the information relied on by the agency. Any resolution of this new step would slow down the rulemaking process further.
  • In all cases where a rule is expected to have an annual impact of at least $1 billion annually, the agency would now be required to conduct a public hearing limited to fact issues. This would add to the time and cost of publishing a new or revised rule.
  • When a final rule is published, the agency would be required to explain in the preamble to that rule why the rule will have the lowest possible cost unless it involves public health, safety, or welfare.
  • All agencies would be required to publish all documents considered by an agency prior to publishing the rule.  This would eliminate the deliberative process privilege that has been in place for decades, which is intended to promote the exchange of views within an agency, and may have a chilling effect on agency deliberation. In many cases, a final rule could not take effect until all of the information relied on by the agency had been made available electronically for at least six months unless the agency or the President claims an exception.
  • Recipients of federal funds would be prohibited from advocating for or against the rule, or appealing to the public to either support or oppose the rule.
  • Guidance documents issued by agencies, including manuals, circulars, and other subregulatory publications would no longer have any legal effect and could not be relied on by the agency for any actions. The bill does not explain how many important parts of federal programs, such as the administration of grants or cost accounting for hospitals in the Medicare program would be handled. These and other programs rely heavily on the detailed information found only in agency manuals and guidance. Without these guidelines, health care providers, suppliers, manufacturers, and researchers among others would find it increasingly difficult to comply with federal laws.

The bill would also make drastic changes in the scope of any judicial review of published agency rules. The bill would overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Chevron decision, which established the principle that when an agency is charged with administering a statute and interprets ambiguous statutory language in a regulation, courts will defer to the agency’s permissible interpretation of the law. In its place, the bill would authorize courts to review all questions of law involving a regulation without giving weight to the agency’s experience or expertise. Courts would be empowered to impose their own constructions of the law on an agency, upending decades of precedents. This has the potential to increase federal courts’ dockets and place those courts in the position of reviewing technical information without all of the resources available to conduct a review. In addition, by allowing courts to decide cases without relying on the agency’s rationale, this increases the potential for inconsistent decisions and confusion among regulated entities such as health care providers, suppliers, and manufacturers seeking to comply with federal laws.

The second bill, H.R. 26, focuses more on expanding Congress’s control over the rulemaking process once an agency has completed the public notice and comment procedure under current law. It also expands the legislative veto over rules, which currently is authorized only when Congress disapproves of a rule and requires the President’s concurrence.

Under the bill, agencies would be required to report all new rules to Congress, and must identify all “major rules” as determined by the Office of Management and Budget that (1) will have an annual impact of $100M or more, (2) increases costs or prices, or (3) will have a significant impact on competition, employment, investment, or foreign trade. The report to Congress must also contain an analysis of the projected number or jobs that would be gained or lost as result of the rule. All major rules with the exception of those necessary for an emergency, enforcement of criminal laws, or to implement a trade agreement would not go into effect unless both houses of Congress approve the rule by a joint resolution within 70 legislative days after the agency submits its report. There is only one chance to obtain approval of a major rule during a session of Congress; if the joint resolution is not approved, or if no action is taken, the bill would bar Congress from considering a second resolution on the same rule during the same two-year session of Congress. This would allow Congress to override an agency and force the agency to begin the rulemaking anew, if at all. Congress would retain the authority to disapprove all other rules by a joint resolution. The bill also allows for judicial review of Congress’s actions only to review whether or not it followed the procedure in the statute; the merits of any action would be unreviewable.

In addition to expanding control over prospective rules, the bill would also add a sunset provision for existing rules. All agencies would be required to review current rules at least once every ten years and report to Congress; if Congress then failed to enact a joint resolution to retain the rules, they would be nullified.

Although the bills passed the House, it will be much harder for the Senate to pass them as well. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to end debate and bring the bills to a vote. Since the Republicans only hold 52 seats, they would need additional votes from Democrats in order for the bills to pass.

Change Is Here – President Trump’s First Day Includes Addressing the Affordable Care Act and Freezing Regulations

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On his first day in office, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal.” The Executive Order is, in effect, a policy statement by the new administration that it intends to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA” or the “Act”) as promptly as possible. The Executive Order also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies that, pending repeal of the ACA, they are to exercise the full extent of their authority and discretion to “take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.”

Impact on the Individual Mandate

The Executive Order does not explicitly name provisions of the ACA to be targeted by executive agency and department heads. However, Section 2 appears to be aimed at the ACA’s “individual mandate,” which requires that individuals obtain health care insurance or pay a fine, and one potential effect of the Executive Order may be limited enforcement of the individual mandate:

To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

Impact on the Insurance Marketplace

The Executive Order also mandates that executive agency and department heads “provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs,” and “encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.”

Regulatory Freeze

Also on January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum directs that, except for certain emergency situations, no regulation be sent to the “Office of Federal Register (the “OFR”) until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2017, reviews and approves the regulation.” “[W]ith respect to regulations that have been published in the OFR but have not yet taken effect,” the memorandum directs agency and department heads to postpone the effective date for 60 days from the date of the memorandum, as permitted by law and subject to exceptions for emergency situations. The memo also instructs executive agency and department heads to consider delaying effective dates beyond the 60-day period to address substantial questions of law or policy.

So, What Does This Mean…..From the Counselor to the President 

On Sunday, January 22, 2017, Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President, said that President Trump “wants to get rid of that Obamacare penalty almost immediately, because that is something that is really strangling a lot of Americans…”[1]

When asked if Trump would stop enforcing the individual mandate, she replied, “He may.” Conway also stated that the Trump Administration planned to end ACA’s requirement that employers with more than 50 full-time workers offer affordable coverage to their workers. “We’re doing away with this Obamacare penalty,” she said. “This tax has been… a burden on many small business owners…”[2]

Conway also noted that the Trump Administration does not intend to eliminate ACA entirely: “For the 20 million who rely upon the Affordable Care Act in some form, they will not be without coverage during his transition time.”[3] Conway noted that the President is “going to replace this with a plan that allows you to buy insurance across state lines, that is much more centered around the patient, and access to health care. . .”[4]

What’s Next And What To Watch?

Earlier today, Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana unveiled a bill intended to be an “Obamacare replacement plan,” “The Patient Freedom Act of 2017.” The Senators’ proposal, which is based upon a proposal originally put forward by the Senators in 2015, is intended to provide more power to the states on health care policy, to increase access to affordable insurance, and to help cover those who are currently uninsured.[5] For instance, states who like Obamacare will be able to keep it. Senator Cassidy explained as follows: “So, California and New York, you love Obamcare? You can keep it.”

In sum, uncertainty remains as to the extent that ACA will be changed, replaced, or otherwise amended, whether the changes will be administrative or legislative, and how much the changes to the Act will disrupt the health care marketplace. A flurry of further activity by the President, agency administrators, and members of Congress is expected over the coming days and weeks. Health care entities should closely follow these developments to ensure that they have sufficient time to react and adapt to the changing health care environment.

___

[1] ‘This Week’ Transcript 1-22-17: Kellyanne Conway, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-22-17-kellyanne-conway-sen-john/story?id=44954948 (last accessed Jan. 23, 2017).

[2] Trump’s ACA executive order heightens insurance market jitters, Modern Healthcare, Jan. 22, 2017, http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170122/NEWS/170129985/breaking-trumps-aca-executive-order-heightens-insurance-market (last accessed Jan. 23, 2017).

[3] Emily Schultheis, Top Trump Aide: 20M on Obamacare “Will Not Be Without Coverage” in Transition to New Plan, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-trump-aide-20m-on-obamacare-will-not-be-without-coverage-in-transition-to-new-plan/ (last accessed Jan. 23, 2017).

[4] ‘This Week’ Transcript 1-22-17: Kellyanne Conway, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-22-17-kellyanne-conway-sen-john/story?id=44954948 (last accessed Jan. 23, 2017).

[5] https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-cassidy-introduce-aca-replacement-plan-expand-choices-lower-health-care (last accessed Jan. 23, 2017).

FDA Says Yes to Pre-Approval Communications with Payors but Reaffirms its Approach to Restrictions on Off-Label Communications

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Early January has seen the release by FDA of a flurry of information on drug and device manufacturer communications, largely reaffirming FDA’s long-held approach to restricting manufacturer communications regarding off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices. The most significant positive development arising from these documents is the Agency’s concession on proactive pre-approval communications with payors about investigational drugs and devices, allowing certain information to be provided to payors prior to a product’s approval. FDA’s guidance documents issued this week also clarify some grey areas surrounding the circumstances under which manufacturers may communicate about information that is consistent with or related to an approved indication, but is not included in approved product labeling.

While these pronouncements provide drug and device manufacturers with some additional leeway in their communications regarding investigational products and certain information about the approved uses of their products that is not included in the approved labeling, they do not address long-standing questions regarding the circumstances under which manufacturers may communicate about unapproved uses of their products in light of recent First Amendment case law. Instead, these last words of the Agency under the outgoing administration signal that, at least under the direction of current administration, FDA is not inclined to significantly expand manufacturers’ ability to communicate regarding unapproved uses of their products without the risk of enforcement. The eventual impact of the new administration on FDA’s approach to off-label communications remains a significant unknown.

In draft guidance on Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications with Payors, Formulary Committees and Similar Entities – Questions and Answers released on January 18, FDA signifies its acceptance of the position long held by industry and payors alike that payors need access to information regarding investigational drugs and devices to help them plan and budget for coverage of these products once they are approved. In the draft guidance, FDA states that it will not object to manufacturers providing payors with “unbiased, factual, accurate and non-misleading” information regarding investigational drugs and medical devices, provided that those communications include a clear statement of the investigational status of the product and that its safety and effectiveness have not been established, along with information regarding the stage of product development of the product.

Information that may be provided by manufacturers in accordance with FDA’s recommendations in the draft guidance includes information about the product such as its drug class or design, the indication sought and the patient population under investigation, a factual presentation of the results of clinical and pre-clinical studies without any conclusions regarding the product’s safety and effectiveness, the anticipated timeline for FDA approval, product pricing information, and anticipated marketing strategies and product-related programs and services, such as patient assistance programs. FDA also recommends that manufacturers update payors with any significant new information about the investigational product that differs from information previously communicated to them.

As suggested by its title, the primary focus of the draft guidance is on the communication of health care economic information (“HCEI”) regarding prescription drugs to payors, interpreting the changes to FDAMA Section 114 included in the 21st Century Cures Act that was signed into law in December. Notably, unlike FDA’s recommendations regarding pre-approval product communications with payors, this portion of the draft guidance does not apply to HCEI regarding medical devices. The draft guidance also makes it clear that the expanded HCEI communications permitted by FDAMA 114, as amended, are limited to payors, and similar flexibility in the levels of evidence required to support HCEI communications to payors do not apply to communications with health care providers or consumers. Additionally, consistent with the statute, the draft guidance limits the HCEI that may be provided to information that “relates to” an approved indication, confirming that FDA does not currently intend to permit the proactive dissemination to payors of HCEI related to off-label use.

In a series of questions and answers, FDA provides recommendations regarding the types of HCEI that may be provided, the scope of the payor audience to which this information may be provided, the types of competent and reliable scientific evidence that may be relied upon, the information that must be disclosed along with HCEI provided to payors, and perhaps mostly usefully, examples of the circumstances under which FDA will determine HCEI to relate, and not to relate, to an approved indication. FDA describes the categories of information that will be deemed to relate to an approved indication, even if they do not appear within, or vary in some respects from, the approved labeling; provided that the information is not inconsistent with the approved labeling. These include, among others, information on duration of treatment, burden of illness, length of hospital stay, information including actual patient use of an approved drug that varies from the approved dosing regimen, and information derived from clinical data demonstrating an effect on a validated surrogate endpoint or a comparison of safety and effectiveness with another drug or intervention.

FDA’s approach to “related” information in the draft guidance is similar to that taken in another draft guidance it released on January 17 on Medical Product Communications that are Consistent with the FDA-Required Labeling – Questions and Answers. In the Medical Product Communications draft guidance, FDA provides recommendations for manufacturers of drugs and medical devices on communications, including communications with health care providers, consumers and payors and in promotional materials, regarding information that is not included within the FDA-approved package labeling, but is consistent with that labeling.

In determining whether information provided by manufacturers is consistent with the product’s approved labeling, FDA will consider three factors. First, FDA will compare the information to the conditions of use in the approved labeling. To comply with the recommendations in the guidance, the information must relate to an indication, patient population, and dosing and administration instructions within the scope of those set forth in approved label, and it must not be inconsistent with any use limitation or directions for handling or using the product in the approved labeling. Second, the suggestions regarding the use of the product in the HCEI information must not increase the potential for patient harm relative to information in the approved labeling or otherwise adversely impact the risk-benefit profile of the product. Finally, the directions for use in the approved labeling must allow the product to be used safely and effectively under the conditions of use suggested in the HCEI information distributed by the manufacturer. If all three of these factors are met, FDA will not view that information, alone, as evidence that the manufacturer intends to promote the drug or device for a new intended use.

To assist manufacturers in applying these factors, the guidance includes examples of the types of communications that are, and are not, consistent with a product’s approved labeling. In describing the types of evidence required to support the disclosure of information that is not included in, but is consistent with, the approved labeling, FDA states that the data must be scientifically and statistically sound to support the representations made by the manufacturer to avoid being false or misleading, but because the safety and effectiveness of the product for the approved indication has already been established, the evidence need not meet the applicable approval or clearance standard for the product. For drug products, this means that two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials will not be required. The evidence must, however, be accurately characterized and any material limitations on the evidence must be clearly and prominently disclosed in language appropriate for the intended audience.

FDA also has, within a ten day period, released two other pieces of information relating to drug and device manufacturers’ communications regarding their products. On January 9, FDA issued a Final Rule on Clarification of When Products Made or Derived From Tobacco Are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding “Intended Uses”, clarifying the Agency’s position that a determination of a regulated product’s intended use may be determined based upon the totality of the evidence of the manufacturer’s objective intended use of the product, including the manufacturer’s knowledge of the product’s actual use for an off-label indication in practice.[1]  FDA states in the preamble to the Final Rule, however, that it will not bring an enforcement action based solely on a manufacturer’s knowledge that an approved or cleared product is being prescribed or used for an unapproved use.

The Proposed Rule released in September 2015 deleted from the drug and device intended use regulations at 21 CFR §§ 201.128 and 801.4 a reference to a manufacturer’s knowledge of off-label uses, specifically the statement that “[Intended use] may be shown by the circumstances that the article is, with the knowledge of such persons or their representatives, offered and used for a purpose for which it is neither labeled nor advertised.” Many commenters on the Proposed Rule had interpreted that deletion as excluding a manufacturer’s knowledge of off-label use from the evidence that may be relied upon to establish a manufacturer’s intent to promote a drug or device for an off-label use. The preamble to the Final Rule expresses FDA’s disagreement, and clarifies that FDA proposed deleting that language merely to avoid a potential misinterpretation that a manufacturer’s knowledge of an unapproved use of an approved or cleared medical product, without more, automatically triggers a requirement for that manufacturer to provide additional labeling for the unapproved use. FDA asserts that its intent was not to change the scope of information that could be relied upon as evidence of a manufacturer’s intended use of the product.  The amended language set forth in the Final Rule provides that “”intended use may be shown, for example, by circumstances in which the article is, with the knowledge of such person or their representatives, offered and used for a purpose for which it is neither labeled nor advertised.”

In the preamble to the Final Rule, in response to comments that existing First Amendment jurisprudence restricts FDA from bringing enforcement actions based on truthful and non-misleading speech regarding a product’s off-label use, FDA states that it is separately examining its rules and policies relating to firm communications regarding unapproved uses of approved and cleared medical products, and while those broader policy considerations are being addressed separately from the Final Rule, “[n]evertheless, it is important to note here that we do not agree with the assertion that the current case law allows FDA to consider speech as evidence of intended use only when it is false or misleading.” FDA cites recent Second Circuit precedent[2] to support its view that the Second Circuit’s 2014 Caronia decision does not foreclose the government’s ability to prove misbranding using promotional speech as evidence that a drug is intended for an off-label use. FDA goes on to describe the significant public health considerations that the Agency believes support its approach to limiting manufacturer communications regarding off-label uses of their approved or cleared products.

FDA makes similar assertions in a document posted to the docket for the November public hearing on Manufacturer Communications Regarding Unapproved Uses of Approved or Cleared Medical Products entitled, “Memorandum: Public Health Interests and First Amendment Considerations Regarding Unapproved Uses of Approved or Cleared Medical Products.” In a notice published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, FDA announces that it has reopened the comment period that was opened in connection with the public hearing on off-label communications that took place November 9 and 10, 2016 to allow interested parties an opportunity for additional comment based on the content of the memorandum and the two draft guidances discussed above. In this memorandum, FDA describes in detail the public policy considerations guiding its assessment of its restrictions on off-label communications, and the legal authority it believes supports its restriction of these communications and their use as evidence of intended use to support misbranding actions. FDA also describes its views on several alternative approaches to addressing the public health interests at issue.  FDA seeks additional comments on its views expressed in the memorandum and potential alternative approaches to regulating manufacturer communications regarding off-label indications of their approved products.  The docket will remain open until April 19, 2017.

[1] In addition to its provisions specific to determinations of when a tobacco product will be regulated as a drug or device, the Final Rule also amended intended use regulations at 21 CFR §§ 201.128 and 801.4.

[2] United States ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc., 822 F.3d 613 n.2 (2d Cir.2016).

Stakeholder Agendas in the Washington Transition: 5 Takeaways for Converting Ideas into Technically Effective Proposals

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

As the transition in Washington moves into high gear this month, it’s not just the new Administration and Congress that are putting in place plans for policy and legislation; stakeholders are busy creating agendas, too.

Many stakeholder agendas will seek to affect how government addresses such prominent health care issues as the Affordable Care Act, Medicare entitlements, fraud-and-abuse policies, FDA user fees, and drug pricing. There will be a myriad of stakeholder ideas, cutting a variety of directions, all framed with an eye to the new political terrain.

But whatever policies a stakeholder advocates, ideas must be translated into a form that that the political system can digest. For this to occur, an important technical conversion must take place; words must be conjured and organized so that desired policy can become legal reality.  This is no easy task, and stakeholders should proceed thoughtfully.

Here are five takeaways for making proposals concrete and workable:

1. Butterfly Effect

A “simple” contract (to buy a house, say) can end up getting pretty complicated, even when the stated rights and obligations apply to no more than two parties. In contrast, a policy proposal typically seeks to set arrangements for a broad array of parties (perhaps a whole economic sector) and thus will usually involve substantial complexity.

The large number of parties potentially affected means that even the most minor-seeming policy adjustment can have large, unintended, and unpredictable results – not dissimilar from how the proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wings can start the chain reaction that leads to a distant hurricane.

2. Pre-Drafting Steps

Taming the butterfly effect should begin before putting pen to paper. It starts with a clear view of the problem to be solved and the ways to solve it.  Notably, the legislative drafters available to Congress place some considerable emphasis on the steps that precede actual drafting.

For example, the House Legislative Counsel’s Office recommends use of a pre-drafting checklist that includes questions like these:  What is the planned policy’s scope (expressed as populations or subjects)?   Who will administer the policy?  Who will enforce it?  When should the policy take effect (and are transition rules needed)?  Each of these questions contains multiple sub-questions.

Similarly, the Senate Legislative Counsel’s Office points out that most legislated policies build on prior statutes. As such, it is important to know how new provisions will harmonize with — or will override — previously adopted language.  Making these judgments requires a solid grasp of existing legal authorities and ways these authorities have been interpreted.

3. Words on the Page

Translating concepts into words is a specialized task, for ultimately the words must be “right” – they must be technically sufficient to effectuate the policy intended.

It is not news that Congresses, Presidents, and courts sometimes have different views on the meaning of statutes, regulations, and other types of policy issuances. In theory, the drafting curative is to make the words so clear that only a single meaning is possible.  But realistically, legal contention often comes with the territory of a controversial policy, and so stakeholders should at a minimum avoid such unforced errors as these:

  • Obvious mistakes – e.g., purporting to amend a U.S. code title that has not been enacted into positive law;
  • Wrong law – e.g., confusing the statute that enacts new language with the statute that the new language amends;
  • Wrong time – e.g., getting the words right but putting them into effect for an unintended time period;
  • Imprecise labels – e.g., referring to concepts or parties via shorthand phrases similar to, but not identical to, defined terms; and
  • Vague references — e.g., omitting enough key details to confer unintended discretion on an agency or administrative official.

4. Document Silos

Today’s integrated world doesn’t look kindly on silos, but, in the specialized context of Washington policy development, they can be a helpful check on the temptation to combine technical drafting with political messaging.

The desire to combine these two forms of communication is understandable, for it is an appealing notion that policy proposals be “user friendly” so they can be quickly scanned for substantive gist. In fact, however, the practice is dilutive and dangerous; it can put the wrong words on the page and undermine policy intent.

A better course is for stakeholders to manage separately siloed sets of documents that, while consistent, operate at different levels of specificity. One silo should be reserved for the technically rigorous proposals that effect legal authority and a separate silo for “plain English” issue briefs, fact sheets, and other materials that summarize the authority.

5. Plug & Play

Washington policy debates are less often set battles, more often fast-moving skirmishes. Such places a premium on ability to adapt as new ideas emerge, political signals morph, and coalitions shift.  For the task of converting ideas into policies, there are at least two implications.

First, stakeholders should be prepared to think and draft in modules – in discrete chunks of policy that can be embedded in one or more larger proposals. In Congress, stakeholder-originated ideas are more likely to emerge as legislative amendments than as free-standing bills.

Second, stakeholders should be ready to iterate quickly as debate advances. Feedback from reviewers will often focus on proposal summaries because they are easier to read and understand.  But changes in response to comments must also be reflected in the technical proposals themselves.  Tight deadlines are the norm, so separately siloing the two types of documents (see above) will help speed an effective response when political opportunity strikes.

The False Claims Act Under a Trump Administration – What Does Attorney General Nominee Sessions Think?

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

As discussed previously in this blog, efforts to curb fraud, waste and abuse are generally “bi-partisan.” Given the significant monetary recoveries the Government enjoys through enforcement of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), we have predicted that efforts in this arena will continue under a Trump administration. However, this is dependent, in part, on the priorities of the new administration and the resources it devotes in this arena. To this end, the testimony of Attorney General nominee Sessions during his confirmation hearing on January 10th may have given us some insight into how he views the FCA.

Notably, as part of his opening testimony, Attorney General nominee Sessions said:

“Further, this government must improve its ability to protect the United States Treasury from waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a federal responsibility. We cannot afford to lose a single dollar to corruption and you can be sure that if I am confirmed, I will make it a high priority of the Department to root out and prosecute fraud in federal programs and to recover any monies lost due to fraud or false claims.”

During questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R. IA.), Sessions elaborated on his intent to focus on the FCA. When asked whether he would “pledge to vigorously enforce the False Claims Act and devote adequate resources to investigating and prosecuting False Claims Act cases,” Sessions testified:

“In the qui tam provisions and the part of that, I’m aware of those. I think they are valid and an effective method of rooting out fraud and abuse. I even filed one myself one time as a private lawyer…. It has saved this country lots of money and probably has caused companies to be more cautious because they can have a whistleblower that would blow the whistle on them if they try to do something that’s improper. So, I think it’s been a very healthy thing…”

In addition, after commenting that, in his opinion, some qui tam cases remain under seal for an “awfully long time,” Sessions testified that, if confirmed, he would provide Congress with “regular timely updates on the status of…. False Claims Act cases including statistics as to how many are under seal and the average length of seal time.”

Sessions’ testimony seems to have offered something to those on “both sides” of the FCA. His statements suggest that he recognizes the value of the FCA and its qui tam provisions; indeed, we learned that he even brought a qui tam case when he was in private practice. However, his testimony also reflects concern about unreasonably long seal periods, which are a significant problem for defendants in FCA cases. Extended seal periods plainly provide a unilateral litigation advantage to the Government and qui tam Relators by allowing extensive time to investigate while providing defendants no corresponding opportunity. Instead, extended seal periods often force defendants to be relegated to face aged claims once they are finally able to defend themselves. (Most FCA actions are filed under whistleblower, or qui tam, provisions. According to the Department of Justice, whistleblowers filed 702 qui tam suits in fiscal year 2016—an average of 13.5 new cases every week.) Only time will tell if a Justice Department under Attorney General Sessions will press to expedite consideration of FCA cases and improve the “playing field” in the process.