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
On June 15, 2022, in a win for hospitals, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Hospital Association et. al. v. Becerra (“Becerra”), overturning massive reimbursement reductions in the 340B drug pricing program (“340B Program”).Continue Reading Supreme Court Saves Hospitals from $1.6B Cut to 340B Program
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
On April 1, 2021, the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) will be transitioning all Medi-Cal pharmacy benefits from managed care to fee-for-service (“FFS”). This
Continue Reading Medi-Cal Rx: California to Transition Medi-Cal Pharmacy Benefits to Fee-For-Service
On December 11, 2020, five hospital groups, including the American Hospital Association (“AHA”), and an organization of hospital pharmacists representing participants in the 340B drug pricing program (“340B Program”), filed a federal lawsuit (the “340B Program Litigation”) against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) over HHS’ alleged failure to enforce 340B Program requirements that obligate pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide 340B Program prescription drug discounts to pharmacies contracted by 340B Program-participating hospitals to dispense 340B Program drugs.[1]
Continue Reading Contract Pharmacies and the 340B Drug Discount Program: New Litigation and an Advisory Opinion Point to Ongoing Skirmishes on the 340B Battlefield
In a December 12, 2017 Advisory Board article, “The 340B drug pricing controversy, explained,” Scott Orwig wrote, “the 340B Drug Pricing Program is one of the most contentious issues in health care: Its critics say it ‘hurts patients’ and is being ‘abused’ by hospitals. Its defenders say it’s ‘vital’ to the health of low-income patients and essential to helping safety net hospitals care for their communities.”
Continue Reading Maneuvers on the 340B Drug Pricing Program Battlefield: Duplicate Discounts and Contract Pharmacies
The House and Senate continue to focus on prescription drug pricing though it is unclear whether any of the proposals currently pending in either chamber will become law. On December 6th, Senators Grassley and Wyden introduced an updated version of the bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (the “PDPRA”). Senate leadership, however, appears to be in no rush to vote on the bill. On December 12th, the House passed its own version of a prescription drug price reduction bill, H.R. 3, called the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which was introduced by Speaker Pelosi. Senate leadership has already indicated the Senate will not take up the measure. While members of Congress on both sides agree that reducing prescription drug prices is a “must do,” they don’t agree on how to do it.
Continue Reading Congress Continues to Focus on Prescription Drug Pricing
U.S. Attorney’s Offices (“USAOs”) across the country are issuing warning letters to physicians and other prescribers (collectively, “Prescribers”) cautioning them about their opioid prescribing practices (the “Warning Letters”). In just the last week, the USAO for the Eastern District of Wisconsin sent warning letters to over 180 prescribers identified by Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) data as prescribing opioids at relatively high levels. The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission have also been issuing their own warning letters to opioid marketers and distributors over the past several months, evidencing a concerted effort to combat the opioid epidemic on a number of fronts through various federal enforcement and regulatory efforts.
Continue Reading Compliance Risk Alert: Opioid Warning Letters issued by the U.S. Department of Justice Target Prescribers