Clinical Research

Subscribe to Clinical Research via RSS

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently issued Advisory Opinion 17-02, allowing waivers or reductions of cost-sharing amounts owed by financially needy Medicare beneficiaries in connection with certain clinical research studies conducted at a non-profit medical center.  In the advisory opinion, the OIG reiterated its longstanding concern about routine waivers of Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing amounts in the absence of financial hardship, and noted this can lead to liability under the anti-kickback statute (AKS).  The research studies were conducted utilizing protocols under the Medicare Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) framework and involved a wound care system used to treat chronic, non-healing wounds.
Continue Reading New OIG Advisory Opinion Allows Waiver of Cost Sharing in Research Studies

In May 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit relied on the “heightened materiality standard” endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2016 Escobar decision in dismissing a False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower suit filed against pharmaceutical giant Genentech related to its billion dollar cancer drug Avastin. In Escobar, the Supreme Court upheld the validity—“at least in some circumstances”—of the “implied false certification” theory of FCA liability, and provided that this theory can attach where at least two conditions are met: a defendant must (1) make a specific representation on a claim for payment to the government, and (2) fail to disclose noncompliance with a material requirement for payment, which failure renders that representation a “misleading half-truth” (even if the representation is true on its face).
Continue Reading Third Circuit Recognizes Escobar “Heightened Materiality Standard” in Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Tied to Avastin

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was delaying until March 19, 2018, a Final Rule that has been viewed as having a chilling effect on scientific speech in attempting to broaden FDA’s authority to find an “intended use” for an approved or cleared medical product.  FDA extended the effective date to allow additional public comments after a petition filed on behalf of various industry groups challenged the Final Rule (dockets FDA-2011-P-0512, FDA-2013-P-1079, FDA-2015-N-2002, and FDA-2016-N-1149).

In the Final Rule, FDA had amended the intended use regulations for drugs and devices at 21 C.F.R 201.128 (drugs) and 21 C.F.R. 801.4 (devices).  In announcing the delayed implementation, FDA attempted to clear up what it viewed as a misunderstanding about the Final Rule.  FDA emphasized that one of the revisions was meant to clarify that mere knowledge that the product was being prescribed or used by healthcare providers for an unapproved new use would not be sufficient on its own for FDA to find an unapproved new intended use for an approved or cleared drug or device.  In addition, the Final Rule was “intended to embody FDA’s longstanding position . . . that intended use can be based on ‘any relevant source of evidence,’ including a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence.”  The Final Rule used the phrase “the totality of the evidence” to accomplish this goal.Continue Reading FDA Delays Intended Use Regulations

Below is a summary of some of the key provisions relevant to investigators and research sites included in the recently enacted, bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, including human subjects protections and the privacy and security of health information used in clinical research.  Among other requirements, the Act:

*requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to harmonize the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Human Subjects Regulations with the HHS Human Subject Regulations (the Common Rule), which should help streamline research that falls under both sets of regulations;

*requires the harmonization of financial conflict-of-interest disclosure policies and regulations of research funding agencies, including minimum reporting thresholds, and the implementation of other measures by HHS to reduce administrative burdens on researchers;

*modifies FDA regulations to allow informed consent to be waived or altered for clinical research that “poses no more than minimal risk” and includes “appropriate safeguards” which are required to be promulgated by HHS, bringing the FDA regulations in line with the Common Rule; and

*allows research sites to use central IRBs for all research studies, including those involving medical devices.
Continue Reading 21st Century Cures Act – Implications for Investigators and Research Sites

On December 13, 2016, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a favorable Advisory Opinion to a university health system (the Requestor) for two arrangements relating to a federally-funded clinical research study designed by a physician-employee (the Study):

  1. a proposal to waive the cost-sharing obligations of Study participants (Participants) for medically necessary health care services received under the Study protocol (the Proposed Arrangement), and
  2. payment of a stipend to Participants for the time and effort required to participate (the Current Arrangement).

Continue Reading OIG Issues Favorable Advisory Opinion for Cost-sharing Waivers and Stipends in a Clinical Research Study