Photo of Dominick DiSabatino

Dominick DiSabatino

Subscribe to Dominick DiSabatino's Posts

Dominick DiSabatino is a partner on the Life Sciences team in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

Contact:Read more about Dominick DiSabatino

In late April this year, the Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) announced that it would make changes to its existing body of healthcare compliance program guidance (CPGs) as part of its current Modernization Initiative.[1] These CPGs were directed at various segments of the health care industry and provided specific guidance on risks posed by industry practices. To kick off the initiative, OIG indicated that it would first issue a new general compliance program guidance (GCPG) by year end applicable to individuals and entities in all segments of the health care industry that would address overarching compliance elements regarding federal fraud and abuse laws, compliance program basics, compliance program effectiveness and general process and procedures. Thereafter, OIG said it planned to update existing industry-specific compliance program guidance (ICPG), which would include tailoring each to address fraud and abuse risk areas specific to a particular industry and describing the compliance measures that industry could take to reduce these risks[2].Continue Reading OIG General Compliance Program Guidance November 2023

Connecticut is the latest state to join the efforts of jurisdictions such as Oregon, Nevada, Washington D.C., and the City of Chicago, Illinois, in further regulating the activities of pharmaceutical representatives. In June, Governor Ned Lamont signed into law “An Act Protecting Patients and Prohibiting Unnecessary Health Care Costs” (the “Act”), which imposes new registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements on pharmaceutical representatives in the State of Connecticut. The Act builds on Governor Lamont’s policy initiatives, which aim to improve the delivery of care and reduce healthcare costs for Connecticut residents and includes the initiative to regulate pharmaceutical marketing practices. The Act sets forth certain requirements for pharmaceutical manufacturers and “pharmaceutical representative(s)” which remain subject to further clarification based on any forthcoming guidance and regulations from the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (“CT DCP”).Continue Reading Connecticut Follows in the Footsteps of Other Jurisdictions Requiring Registration of Pharmaceutical Representatives

On Thursday, February 23, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) issued its first Advisory Opinion (“AO”) of the new year – OIG AO No. 23-01 – permitting a drug manufacturer to provide financial assistance for transportation, lodging, meals, and other out-of-pocket expenses to eligible patients receiving the manufacturer’s drug (the “Arrangement”). Overall, OIG concluded that: (1) the risk of fraud and abuse presented by the manufacturer’s Arrangement was sufficiently low under the Federal anti-kickback statute; and (2) the remuneration offered under the Arrangement was not likely to influence a beneficiary to order the manufacturer’s drug (the “Drug”) from a particular provider and therefore did not constitute grounds for the imposition of sanctions under the Beneficiary Inducements CMP. Ultimately, the crux of this decision came down to the unique manufacturing and distribution of the Drug, which (i) is the only available potentially curative treatment for an ultra-rare disorder; (ii) pursuant to its FDA approval, can only be manufactured at a single facility, located on the campus of a treatment center (the “Treatment Center”); (iii) can only be administered within 3 hours after being manufactured; and thus, can only be administered at the single Treatment Center site.Continue Reading OIG Advisory Opinion Alert: Medical Flights for Patient Access

On February 9, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released two highly-anticipated guidance documents (the “Guidance”) detailing the agency’s proposed implementation of the Medicare Part B (“Part B”) and Medicare Part D (“Part D”) Prescription Drug Inflation Rebate Programs (each, a “Rebate Program” and, collectively, the “Rebate Programs”). The Rebate Programs are administered as part of the prescription drug affordability provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”), which is aimed at “lower[ing] out-of-pocket drug costs for people with Medicare and improv[ing] the sustainability of the Medicare program for current and future generations.”[1] The IRA represents the most sweeping healthcare legislation passed by Congress since the Affordable Care Act.[2] Please refer to our previous blog post on the IRA.Continue Reading CMS Releases Guidance on Implementation of Rebate Programs for Certain Medicare Part B and Part D Drugs

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 Thursday, March 16, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) issued OIG Advisory Opinion (“AO”) No. 22-05, relating to subsidization of certain Medicare cost-sharing obligations in the context of a clinical trial involving medical devices (the “Proposed Arrangement”). This is the third AO in a recent series of AOs (see AO 21-17 on November 19, 2021 and AO 21-13 on October 4, 2021) focused on Medicare cost subsidies in a clinical trial setting for serious conditions that affect large portions of the population in the US. Like these other AOs, OIG found that while the Proposed Arrangement could generate fraud and abuse risks under both the Federal anti-kickback statute (i.e., Section 1128A(a)(7) and 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (“Act”)) and the Beneficiary Inducements CMP (i.e., Section 1128A(a)(5) of the Act), the Proposed Arrangement nevertheless presented a minimal risk of fraud and abuse under the law on the facts presented. Medical device manufacturers should pay close attention to this trend when considering trial designs and patient populations.
Continue Reading OIG Advisory Opinion Alert: Yet Another Favorable Decision for Medical Device Manufacturers