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including suspension or revocation of the license, inclusion in a public list of representatives whose licenses have been revoked, and/or a fine between $1,000 and $3,000 per day of violation.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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Recent federal and state legislative efforts signal an increased focus on a significant and largely underappreciated public health threat – antimicrobial resistance (i.e., when a microorganism (such as a bacteria or virus) is able to resist the effects of medications such as antibiotics and antivirals, causing such medications to be ineffective). The results of a 2014 study underscore the magnitude of the threat of so-called “superbugs,” estimating that the number of deaths worldwide attributable to antimicrobial resistance will reach 10 million by 2050.  By comparison, the same study projected 8.2 million deaths from cancer, and 1.2 million deaths from traffic accidents by 2050.  Legislative efforts to address antimicrobial resistance span from encouraging development of new pathways to market for antimicrobial drugs to expanding data collection and monitoring efforts to better understand the scope of the problem.  The combination of new data and less-restrictive pathways to market simultaneously provide pharmaceutical companies with a faster entry into the market for antimicrobial drugs and a better understanding by local health departments and hospitals of the need for new drugs to combat resistant strains of microorganisms.

Federal Initiatives

On the federal side, the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Act”), signed into law by President Obama on December 13, 2016, includes several measures related to antimicrobial resistance.  For example, the Act creates a new approval pathway for “limited population drugs,” which are antibacterial or antifungal drugs “intended to treat a serious or life-threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet needs.” While the Act allows FDA to approve limited population drugs with less data than typically would be required, the approval is restricted to “the intended limited population,” and the manufacturer must meet additional labeling requirements to inform physicians of the drug’s limited approved use.  In addition, manufacturers of drugs approved through this pathway are required to submit any promotional materials to FDA at least 30 days before they plan to use them.

While adding specific labeling requirements for new drugs approved for limited populations, the Act also changes labeling requirements for susceptibility test interpretive criteria. Susceptibility test interpretive criteria includes the myriad of testing options used to determine whether a patient is infected with a specific microorganism or class of microorganism that can effectively be treated by a drug.  The Act requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to replace the currently existing susceptibility test interpretive criteria from the drug’s packaged insert or labeling with a reference to a FDA website to be built where such criteria for all drugs will be held.  Manufacturers have one year from the day the website is established to move its susceptibility test interpretive criteria to the so-called “Interpretive Criteria Website.”

The Act also increases monitoring and reporting of antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance at federal healthcare facilities, like VA hospitals and facilities run through the Indian Health Service or the Department of Defense. Further, it requires annual federal data reporting on aggregate national and regional trends related to antimicrobial resistance. A broad base of reliable data on antimicrobial resistance and the associated morbidity and mortality does not currently exist. However, along with the federal government, certain states are also making efforts to improve data collection in this space.

State Initiatives

Many states receive funding from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to collect data about patients with extremely resistant strains of microoganisms, like carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriacea, or “CRE” – a bacteria that kills an estimated 600 Americans each year. The Illinois Department of Health, for example, developed a registry in 2014 that tracks positive lab tests for extremely drug-resistant organisms, including CRE.  Illinois began tracking this information following a deadly outbreak of CRE in 2013.  Health care facilities participating in the registry receive alerts when an infected patient is transferred in and must report CRE-positive culture results of patients within seven calendar days.  The most recent annual report shows a 7% increase in overall cases; however, a recent article posits that the increase may be somewhat attributable to better reporting efforts by hospitals gaining experience identifying CRE.  Similar programs exist in many states, but these programs typically do not track the outcomes of CRE cases.

A recently proposed bill in California (California Senate Bill 43) would require hospitals to include information within death certificates that identifies whether “any antimicrobial-resistant infection…was a factor in the death.”  Specifically, the bill would require the “attending physician [who] is legally obligated to file a certificate of death” to determine whether, in the physician’s professional judgment, an antimicrobial-resistant infection was a factor in the patient’s death.  State law already mandates tracking of over 80 communicable diseases, like HIV and Hepatitis (A-E), but only tracks antibiotic-resistant infections of VRE and MRSA if they are contracted while a patient is already in the hospital.

Given the magnitude of the potential threat, it is reassuring that legislative initiatives are showing an increased focus on antimicrobial resistance. New pathways to market for antimicrobial drugs and increased public awareness of the rising threat of “superbugs” should lead to additional innovation by drug manufacturers.  The limited population pathway may also cause some manufacturers to reassess their pipelines and strategies to market drugs toward limited populations.  For manufacturers facing expensive and burdensome FDA requirements to market new antimicrobials to a general population, the limited population pathway may provide a cheaper and faster entry into the market.  Early entry into the market can then fund additional efforts expand the label beyond a limited population.

On October 24, 2016 the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced their intention to extend the Parallel Review pilot program indefinitely. The Parallel Review process is intended to provide timely feedback on clinical data requirements from FDA and CMS, and minimize the time required for receiving Medicare coverage nationally.  Sounds good.  So, why have so few manufacturers taken advantage of the program to date?

Despite its admirable goals, the current Parallel Review Process is too limited in scope and involves significant risks for manufacturers.

The standard process for obtaining Medicare coverage involves a sequential review. First, the device manufacturer must obtain approval, 510(k) clearance, or a de novo classification by the FDA.  After FDA approval, clearance, or de novo classification has been received, the manufacturer would seek coverage of the device or procedure using the device from CMS.  The manufacturer has the option of pursuing a National Coverage Determination (“NCD”) from CMS or a local coverage determination (“LCD”) from one or more of the Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”).

In contrast, under the Parallel Review program, FDA and CMS simultaneously review manufacturer’s clinical trial design and data. Parallel Review is broken down into two stages: (1) the pivotal clinical trial design development stage, and (2) the concurrent evidentiary review stage. This two stage process is designed to allow manufacturers to minimize the likelihood of having to conduct additional trial(s) at a later date to meet CMS’s coverage requirements and shorten the overall timeline by having the agencies review the evidence simultaneously.  Although the goal is right, there are some disadvantages.

First, the Parallel Review program is limited to devices that are subject to pre-market approval or de novo classification. This is only a small portion of the market today. To put this in context, for every 140 510(k)s cleared by the FDA, one PMA is approved. In 2014, for example, there were 3203 510(k) clearances compared to only 42 PMAs and 28 de novo classifications. This means that the vast majority of devices will not be eligible for Parallel Review.

The more significant limitation is that the program requires the manufacturer to pursue a NCD. Deciding whether to pursue a NCD or LCD is a significant strategic consideration for any manufacturer.  Requiring that manufacturers apply for a NCD in the Parallel Review process  creates a high degree of risk that manufacturers – and their investors – may not be willing to take. As manufacturers are painfully aware, if CMS issues an unfavorable NCD, Medicare coverage is not available anywhere in the US. Because NCDs apply nationally to all MACs, the LCD option is foreclosed by an unfavorable NCD. Manufacturers can appeal, of course. But reopening an adverse NCD requires a significant amount of new data that may take years to compile through new clinical trials and there is no guarantee that a reopening will be granted or a favorable NCD will be published.  As a result, the lack of a choice between NCDs and LCDs can be a powerful deterrent to the Parallel Review program.

This risk is compounded by the fact that manufacturers are not allowed to drop out of the NCD process after the NCD tracking sheet has been publicly posted by CMS. Although the program is designed to provide early feedback, it is not unusual for CMS to have additional comments throughout the NCD process. Under the current Parallel Review process, manufacturers would be required to pursue NCDs even if they later received new information that made the NCD pathway less desirable.

It is also unclear if the program is appropriately resourced. The Parallel Review Pilot Program was limited to no more than five candidates per year. If the Agencies are serious about accelerating the path to market and payment for even this subcategory of devices, they need to allow more devices into the program and ensure that it is appropriately staffed to adequately address the needs of the participants.

While the Parallel Review program has its challenges, it is a step in the right direction. It just does not go far enough.  In order to have a more predictable and streamlined path to market, manufacturers need clear guidance on coverage criteria that can be leveraged nationally or locally.  Moreover, this guidance should apply to any device that required clinical evidence for coverage, regardless of whether the device is subject to a PMA, de novo or 510(k) clearance.

By focusing on broad based improvements to the coverage determination process, the Agencies would be able to provide patients with access to more devices more quickly using less Agency resources. If, for example, the time frame for the NCD and LCD process could be reduced by 20 days on average by providing more transparent guidance, and if you could apply that to half of the products that received approval, de novo classification, or clearance in 2014, that would save over 32,000 days of review time.  Admittedly, that is spread out over time and among manufacturers but the impact is not insubstantial.

FDA’s expansion of its program to include the opportunity to get feedback from private payors is also a positive development for manufacturers.   While it is still too early to know the impact of this program, commercial payors are another key piece of any manufacturer’s commercial strategy and must be considered early.

The decision to make the Parallel Review Program permanent no doubt reflects a commitment by FDA and CMS to working with manufacturers to help bring new devices to market in a faster and more efficient way.   However, opportunities remain to improve the program to expedite the process in a way that benefits industry – and patients – more broadly.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) faced major losses in challenging hospital mergers.  However, it is clear that the FTC is not backing down, especially given its tendency to conclude that proposed efficiencies do not outweigh the chance of lessening competition.

In July of this year, the FTC abandoned a challenge to the proposed merger of St. Mary’s Medical Center and Cabell Huntington Hospital in West Virginia after state authorities had changed West Virginia law and approved the merger despite the FTC’s objections. This year as well, the FTC failed to enjoin the Penn State Hershey Medical Center and PinnacleHealth System (“Pennsylvania Hospital Merger”) and the Advocate Health Care and NorthShore University Health System (“Illinois Hospital Merger”) under a relevant geographic market theory in the federal district courts.  However, the FTC promptly appealed to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits, respectively.

Against many predictions to the contrary, the FTC prevailed when, on September 27, 2016, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision in the Pennsylvania Hospital Merger, concluding that the lower court erred when it disagreed with the FTC on the choice and use of the proper test to define the relevant geographic market. The Third Circuit concluded that the hypothetical monopolist test should determine the relevant geographic market, and that using patient flow data to show a relevant market is “particularly unhelpful in hospital merger cases.”[1]  This means that using data showing why one patient travels to a farther hospital for services does not have a constraining effect on the price charged by the nearby hospital that the patient does not choose.  Additionally, the Third Circuit expressed extreme skepticism about using an efficiencies defense.  While it recognized that other courts and the government’s Merger Guidelines themselves consider efficiencies in their antitrust analyses, it made clear that “efficiencies are not the same as equities”[2] needed to successfully overcome a Clayton Act Section 7 claim in considering whether an injunction is warranted.

The Third Circuit’s logic may have emboldened the FTC, which on September 30, 2016, formally urged Virginia state authorities to reject the proposed merger of Mountain States Health Alliance and Wellmont Health System, two large regional health systems, claiming that the merger would lessen competition and reduce the quality, availability, and price of health care services in the area.  The FTC is alleging, that if the merger were consummated, the new entity would control 71% of the geographic market for inpatient hospital services in the area that both systems serve, and proposed efficiencies (e.g., greater clinical service offerings, reductions in labor expenses, and reductions in purchasing) are not extraordinary enough to outweigh the anticompetitive harms created.  While Virginia does not require FTC consent to approve the merger, the FTC’s evaluation under the Merger Guidelines carries weight because its process is similar to Virginia’s antitrust review.

Going forward, potential merger partners in the health care space should recognize that the FTC has been energized in its opposition to consolidation and should be attentive to the careful definition of geographic markets with an eye towards the hypothetical monopolist test. As stakeholders begin crafting acquisition strategies to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act’s consolidation opportunities, they should recognize that the enforcement components of the government such as the FTC are in apparent contradiction with the policy arm of the administration and that the FTC won’t back down from its challenges to mergers.

[1] FTC v. Penn State Hershey Medical Center, et al., at 19, No. 16-2365 (3d Cir. 2016).

[2] Id.at 36.

The California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District (the “Court”) in Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquette rendered an decision that was published earlier this year that is helpful to those who engage in provision of management services to physicians or medical groups (possibly other professionals as well) including, without limitation, hospitals, health systems or private equity backed organizations.  In this case, although not directly ruling on the legality of the arrangement, the Court states that if it had so ruled, it would have determined that a comprehensive management services agreement for management of a physician’s practice, which used a percentage-based compensation structure, does not violate California’s anti-kickback statute under Section 650 of the California Business & Professions Code or related fee-splitting or corporate practice of medicine prohibitions.  This decision is most directly relevant to practice, operations and investments in California, but it may also be of use as a point of reference, for context or for its potential persuasive value in other jurisdictions, particularly where corporate practice of medicine prohibitions still remain on the stronger side of the spectrum. 

A physician (“Physician”) and a lay management services company that was at least partially owned by physicians (“Company”) entered into what appears to be a fairly comprehensive management services agreement for the “non-medical aspects of [Physician’s] medical practice” (“Agreement”).  The services to be provided by the Company to the Physician included office space, equipment, non-physician personnel (including nurses), establishment of a marketing plan and marketing services, billing and collection services, accounting services and other support services.  The Agreement provided that the Physician would pay the Company a management fee for all of these services of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the aggregate costs the Company incurred in providing all of the management services per month, not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the collected professional revenue plus twenty five percent (25%) of the collected surgical revenues.  However, the compensation arrangement that the parties actually engaged in consisted of the Company charging and the Physician paying a fee of 50% of the revenue for office medical services, 25% of revenue for surgical services and 75% of pharmaceutical-related revenues.  Notably, it later was determined that this formula likely actually provided less profit to the Company than if the parties had stuck to their original compensation terms, as written in the Agreement. 

The parties performed under the Agreement for about 3.5 years until the relationship turned sour and the Physician terminated the Agreement.  The parties entered into arbitration and the arbitrator concluded that the Physician breached by not paying a portion of the management fees that were due (under the compensation structure, as modified by conduct of the parties).  The Physician moved to vacate the determination and award of management fees, arguing in part that the portion of the payments made to the Company under the modified compensation arrangement violated anti-referral prohibitions in California Business & Professions Code Section 650, among other things.  This argument was based in part on a relatively small number of patient referrals made by the Company to the Physician during the term of the Agreement. 

The trial court reviewing the arbitration award denied the Physician’s motion to vacate.  The trial court’s decision was based, in part on rationale that any illegality (if any) resulting from the small number of referrals of patients made by the Company to the Physician under the Agreement and the modified compensation structure was only “technical”, and not material enough to result in a violation.   

At the Second Appellate District level, the Physician argued that California has an absolute public policy against making payments to anyone making referrals, but the Court noted that Business & Professions Code Section 650 (b), expressly permits such payments in circumstances similar to those at issue and reflected in the Agreement.  Based in part on this, the Court concluded that there was no clear or likely contravention of public policy that would render the underlying arbitration award reviewable. 

However, the Court went further and stated that if the arbitration decision and award were reviewable, it would find that the Agreement did not violate the law

The language under Section 650(b) states, in part that “payment or receipt of consideration for services other than referral of patients which is based on a percentage of gross revenue or similar type of contractual arrangement shall not be unlawful if the consideration is commensurate with the value of the services furnished…”.

The Court noted that the only way that the Agreement could have been found illegal is if it had been demonstrated and a finding had been made that the compensation paid to the Company was not commensurate with management services rendered under the Agreement, but there was no such demonstration or finding.  Moreover, the Court also stated that the terms of the Agreement showed a delineation between the medical elements of the practice that the Physician controlled and the non-medical elements that the Physician engaged the Company to handle.  The Court further noted that the Company exercised no control over the Physician’s practice, notwithstanding the modified, percentage-based compensation structure that the parties apparently actually engaged in and comprehensive services provided. 

The Court’s decision provides useful and recent guidance to hospitals, health systems, private equity investors and others who may engage in similar types of management services agreements in connection with their respective growth, alignment and investment strategies. 

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), which became effective immediately. The DTSA provides the first private federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, and it allows parties to sue in federal court for trade secret misappropriation—regardless of the dollar value of the trade secrets at issue.   Employers in the health care and life science industry may want to note that the DTSA

requires that employers provide certain notices of these whistleblower protections in employment-related agreements that govern trade secrets or other confidential information entered into or amended after May 11, 2016.

For more information, please see the Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog here.