Drug and Pharmaceutical Law

Subscribe to Drug and Pharmaceutical Law via RSS

For a brief moment in time last April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) approval of the commonly-used abortion medication, Mifepristone, was curtailed. Just days after a Texas federal judge’s ruling suspended the FDA’s approval of the drug, the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) asked the Fifth Circuit to grant an emergency or administrative stay of that decision. On review, the Fifth Circuit held that Mifepristone could only be prescribed in the first seven weeks of pregnancy, under a physician’s supervision, and the drug cannot be sent by mail, temporarily suspending more recent modifications to the FDA’s approval. Continue Reading Access to Abortion Pill on the Precipice: A Deep Dive into the Federal Court Rulings that will Decide the Fate of Mifepristone 

This week, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”), issued a temporary rule extending the telemedicine waivers of the Ryan Haight Act (“RHA”) promulgated during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”). This is notable as access to care, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, remains a crucial industry focus, especially as the transition to the post-PHE has begun.Continue Reading DEA and SAMHSA Extend Tele-Prescribing Flexibilities

The Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”) requires drug manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare when the prices of their Part B and Part D prescription drug increase faster than the rate of inflation. We recently discussed the guidance documents issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) detailing the proposed implementation of the Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Inflation Rebate Programs.Continue Reading CMS Releases First Set of Part B Rebatable Drugs for Coinsurance Adjustment Under IRA

The Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) has approved a modification to the Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) Program, increasing the accessibility of mifepristone for patients with a prescription. [1], [2] Continue Reading FDA Approval Mifepristone REMS Program Modification Expands Patient Access to Abortion Care

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are challenging the breadth of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) in federal court, arguing that the government is harming the very vulnerable patients it aims to serve by prohibiting cost-sharing subsidies for life-saving oncology drugs. In October, we discussed the Office of Inspector General’s (“OIG”) Advisory Opinion No. 22-19 (the “Advisory Opinion”), which declared that a charitable organization funded by manufacturers would violate the AKS if it offered certain cost-sharing subsidies under Medicare Part D (“Part D”), even if the organization was independently run and patients had equal access to discounts for 90% of drugs on the market. On November 9, 2022, the Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access (“PCPA”), presumably the organization behind the Advisory Opinion, filed a lawsuit against OIG, seeking declaratory judgment that its cost-sharing program is legal under the AKS and that the Advisory Opinion violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the First Amendment.[1]Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ask EDVa to Allow Cost-Sharing Under the AKS

On October 5, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) posted Advisory Opinion No. 22-19 (the “Opinion”), which limits the ability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer cost-sharing subsidies to Medicare Part D (“Part D”) beneficiaries via 501(c)(3) charities without running afoul of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”).Continue Reading OIG Limits Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Ability to Offer Drug Cost-Sharing Subsidies

Now approaching a year-long battle, drug manufacturers and 340B covered entities, which include hospitals and community health centers, participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Discount Program (“340B Participants”) continue to dispute the issue of whether drug manufacturers are required to give 340B Participants discounts on drugs dispensed through contract pharmacies.  The most recent point of contention involves the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration’s (“HRSA”) May 17, 2021 letters sent to six drug manufacturers stating that the manufacturers’ actions to limit access to 340B Program pricing for 340B Participants who dispense drugs through contract pharmacies is in direct violation of Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (also referred to as the “340B Statute”).  The letters also included HRSA’s demand that the manufacturers immediately begin offering their drugs at discounted prices to these 340B Participants as well as credit or refund all 340B Participants for overcharges that resulted from the limiting policies, or be subject to civil monetary penalties.  As anticipated, certain drug manufacturers, including Eli Lilly, have filed motions in federal court to stop the HRSA from placing monetary penalties based on their refusal to provide 340B discounts to contract pharmacies.
Continue Reading 340B Drug Pricing Discount Program Update: HRSA Now Demands That Drug Manufacturers Provide 340B Discounts To Contract Pharmacies Amid Ongoing Litigation