The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) has revised its U.S. Code of Ethics for Interactions with Health Care Professionals, with updates that take effect January 1, 2020. Until then, the current AdvaMed Code remains in effect.

Continue Reading AdvaMed Revises Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care Professionals

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

On June 13, 2018, Attorney General Maura Healey filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of the Commonwealth against Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., Connecticut-based drug companies that manufacture and market OxyContin.  The lawsuit also names sixteen individual defendants, including current and former CEOs and certain members of the board of Purdue Pharma Inc. This is not the first time a Purdue Pharma company has been accused of wrongdoing with respect to the marketing of opioids. In 2007, Purdue Frederick Company (an affiliate of Purdue Pharma L.P.) paid nearly $700 million dollars in fines and plead guilty to criminal charges, admitting that, with the intent to defraud or mislead, it marketed and promoted  its drugs as less addictive and less subject to abuse.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Files Suit Against Connecticut-Based Purdue Pharma for Opioid Related Harms

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