drug and pharmaceutical law

Subscribe to drug and pharmaceutical law

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

This month, pharmaceutical manufacturer, Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”), as well as four chambers of commerce, have filed suits against the federal government, arguing that the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 stands in violation of multiple constitutional provisions.Continue Reading The Drug Price Negotiation Program Faces Pushback from Private and Public Industry Participants

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

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