drugs

Subscribe to drugs

We follow up on our previous blog post concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of 340B hospitals. The Supreme Court previously held that “absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals” and therefore, that HHS exceeded its statutory authority by varying the 2018 and 2019 rates for 340B hospitals without first conducting such survey.Continue Reading 340B Update: District Court Rejects 2022 Payment Methodology for 340B Hospitals Following Supreme Court Win

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of “340B” hospitals in a notable statutory interpretation case concerning how the federal Medicare program reimburses hospitals for prescription drugs. The case, which was brought by the American Hospital Association, arises from reimbursement reductions imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2018 and 2019 on hospitals participating in the 340B program (which the Court noted are hospitals that “generally serve low-income or rural communities”). In those years, HHS sought to impose reductions in reimbursement due to favorable pricing available to 340B hospitals under that program. The hospitals challenged those reductions based on the process HHS followed when setting the reimbursement rates, claiming that HHS’s failure to conduct a survey of hospitals’ average acquisition costs for the drugs prevented HHS from varying reimbursement rates for this distinct group. Therefore, according to the hospitals, HHS was required to pay them based on the average sales price charged by manufacturers for the drugs.Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides in Favor of 340B Hospitals Regarding Medicare Reimbursement Methodology

On July 9, 2019, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 19-191 “An Act Addressing Opioid Use” (PA 19-191). PA 19-191 makes various revisions to Connecticut’s opioid use prevention and treatment statutes, and also creates new legislation pertaining to opioid use prevention and treatment.
Continue Reading Connecticut Legislature Modifies Statutes Relevant to Preventing and Treating Opioid Use Disorder

On January 24, 2019, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued a favorable advisory opinion allowing a pharmaceutical manufacturer (“Manufacturer”) to temporarily loan limited-functionality smartphones to financially needy patients who lack the required technology to receive adherence data from a sensor embedded in a prescribed antipsychotic medication (“the Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Arrangement did not constitute grounds for penalties under the Civil Monetary Penalties law (“CMP”) and that although the Arrangement could potentially cause remuneration under the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the OIG would not impose sanctions on the Manufacturer as related to the Arrangement based on the low-risk nature of the Arrangement.
Continue Reading OIG Advisory Opinion No. 19-02 Allows Pharmaceutical Manufacturer to Temporarily Loan Smartphones to Financially Needy Patients to Receive Data from a Digestible Medication Sensor

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a Proposed Rule to amend Medicare Advantage (MA) regulations and Prescription Drug Benefit program (Part D) regulations.  The Proposed Rule was published on November 30, 2018. The Proposed Rule is intended to help lower drug prices for health and drug plans and reduce out-of-pocket costs for MA and Part D enrollees. Major provisions include: Providing Plans with increased flexibility in managing drug formularies. Current policy requires Part D formularies to include all drugs in the following categories: (1) antidepressants; (2) antipsychotics; (3) anticonvulsants; (4) immunosuppressants for treatment of transplant rejection; (5) antiretrovirals; and (6) antineoplastics; except in limited circumstances. The Proposed Rule includes three exceptions, allowing: (1) broader use of prior authorization and step therapy; (2) exclusion of drugs that are only a new formulation of an existing single-source drug or biological product, regardless of whether the older formulation remains on the market; and (3) exclusion of drugs with a price increase beyond an inflation-based threshold relative to a baseline month and year.
Continue Reading CMS Proposes Revised Prescription Drug Regulations to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out of Pocket Expenses

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