CMS has made a series of announcements related to the Sunshine Act Open Payments system, including information about the Open Payments review, dispute and correction process that runs from July 14 through August 27, 2014. This period allows physicians and teaching hospitals to review and initiate any disputes they may have regarding the data reported about them by applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations. CMS has also extensively updated the Open Payments User Guide, which is intended to provide industry, physicians, and teaching hospitals with a comprehensive understanding of the Open Payments system and reporting requirements.
CMS Proposes Changes to Sunshine Act "Open Payments" Regulations in 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Rule
Today the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an advance copy of the CY 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) proposed rule, which includes certain changes to the regulations implementing the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, also known as the Open Payments program. These proposed changes come just three days after the inaugural deadline for applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report to CMS detailed information regarding payments and transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as physician ownership information.
As previously reported, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act and related regulations require pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and GPOs to register with and submit to CMS data on their financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals. This financial data will be made publicly available on the CMS Open Payments website.
In the PFS proposed rule, CMS proposes the following changes to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act regulations:
- Deleting the definition of “covered device” as duplicative of the definition of “covered drug, device, biological or medical supply”
- Deleting the reporting exclusion for payments made to speakers at accredited continuing medical education events when certain requirements are met. Although CMS is deleting this express exclusion, it notes that such payments may still be excluded generally from reporting under the separate exclusion for indirect payments, which applies in those instances in which the applicable manufacturer is unaware of the identity of the covered recipient. In other words, the practical impact of this change may not be significant in the long run.
- Requiring the reporting of the marketed name of the drug, device, biological, or medical supply related to the payment being reported. Previously, CMS finalized that for drugs and biologicals, manufacturers must report the market name of a related product, but that for devices and medial supplies, manufacturers could report either the name under which the product is marketed or the general therapeutic area or product category associated with the device or medical supply.
- Requiring manufacturers to report stocks, stock options or any other ownership interest as distinct categories.
The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2014, and comments are due to CMS by September 2, 2014.
CMS is inviting comments on the Physician Payment Sunshine Act “Open Payments Program” dispute resolution and corrections process. As previously reported, the Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to register with and submit to CMS data on their financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals. This financial data will be made publicly available on the CMS Open Payments website. On May 5, 2014, CMS published a notice soliciting additional feedback on the dispute resolution and corrections process, under which covered recipients and physician owners or investors have an opportunity to dispute certain information regarding a payment or other transfer of value. Comments will be accepted until June 2, 2014.
While attention has been focused on Medicare physician payment data released by CMS yesterday, upcoming Sunshine Act data will shine a new spotlight on financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies – with potential FCA implications.
Last week marked the deadline for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to register with and submit aggregate 2013 payment and investment interest data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on certain financial relationships between themselves and physicians and teaching hospitals, as required by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act.1 In May, manufacturers and GPOs will be required to submit to CMS detailed 2013 payment data. With some exceptions, CMS will be making these data public by September 1, 2014. While the publicly available data are intended to provide more transparency for patients – to allow them to have a better understanding of the financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies – patients will certainly not be the only group interested in this public information. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Justice (DOJ), and relators’ attorneys will likely utilize these data to initiate investigations and support complaints under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). As with the recent release of the 2012 Medicare Part B Physician Fee Schedule data, members of the media will likely make inferences about certain financial relationships.
The U.S. government recovered $3.8 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2013.2 Fiscal 2014 looks to be a record-breaking year, with ever-increasing civil settlements by major pharmaceutical companies.3
As the reporting deadlines approach, it is worth considering an interesting, and largely unknown, potential implication of the public availability of these data: How will it affect future FCA litigation? The publically available Sunshine Act data could become relevant to FCA litigation in a variety of ways; two in particular are discussed below.
Anti-Kickback Statute Violations
The data could give rise to suspicions of violations of the federal Anti-kickback Statute (AKS). The AKS makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully offer or pay remuneration to induce the referral of, or arrange for the provisions of, federal health care program business.4 In other words, the law prohibits any person or entity from giving, receiving – or offering to give or receive – anything of value in return for or to induce referrals for businesses covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or any other federally funded health care program. Violators of the AKS face imprisonment, criminal, and civil fines, as well as exclusion from federal health care programs.5
It is easy to see how publishing information regarding payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to physicians and teaching hospitals could implicate the AKS, and by extension, the FCA. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) made explicit that violations of the AKS are also violations of the FCA.6 Any payment from a pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturer to a physician who prescribes a product manufactured by the company providing the payment could be viewed as potentially inappropriate remuneration intended to influence prescribing behavior.
Publically available information reported as a result of the Sunshine Act may also have off-label promotion implications. Notably, reports to CMS must include the name of the drug or the type of device that forms the basis of the payment.7 Tying the payment to a particular drug or type of device could raise suspicions of off-label promotion. A pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturer that promotes its products for uses for which the product has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), i.e., off-label uses, is at risk of FCA liability. A false claim can arise when a manufacturer promotes a product for off-label, non-covered uses (that is, for a use that both has not been approved by FDA and is not covered by the federal health care programs). Payments going to physicians who specialize in an area that is outside the scope of a pharmaceutical or medical device’s approved indication could necessarily raise suspicions that the manufacturer is promoting the product for unapproved uses.
Besides the risk of government identifying potential issues for further investigation and prosecution as a result of reported Sunshine Act data, private parties may also mine the publically available data. One substantial impediment to relators’ attorneys using Physician Sunshine Payment data in FCA litigation is the limitation that publicly available data cannot form the basis of a whistleblower claim.8 This is known as the public disclosure bar, although the effectiveness of this defense has been diminished with recent FCA amendments.
That said, the Sunshine Act data, even if not the basis of a claim, could nonetheless impact the litigation in many ways. For example, it could provide additional evidence for the government to review in reaching its decision whether to intervene in a qui tam action. Both OIG and DOJ could review the data before it is publicly available to assist in the determination that a given matter warrants intervention. Additionally, the publicly available data – beyond providing flavor in support of an FCA claim and assisting with meeting the heightened pleading standard associated with fraud allegations9 – could be a potential mine for plaintiff attorneys to locate areas of focus. Relators’ attorneys will no doubt track the data to ascertain potential problem drugs or companies about which they can then dedicate efforts to uncovering fraud and abuse in the federal health care system.
It remains to be seen how all of these risks will play out going forward. Courts will have to decide how these new data will fit into FCA litigation. OIG and DOJ will have to determine how much to rely on the new information. And relators’ attorneys will need to make decisions about how many resources to dedicate to mining the Sunshine Act data.
One potential consequence that we are already starting to see occur is that pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers may halt or limit payments to physicians, and/or that physicians themselves will be reluctant to accept such payments, e.g., for research, for expenses associated with training on a device, and the like. Companies may decide to do so for a variety of reasons, including avoiding the administrative burdens associated with tracking and reporting such payments for purposes of the Sunshine Act, fear of FCA litigation, or for public relations reasons. Many physicians simply do not want their names publicized. It remains to be seen how these trends will evolve.
1 42 C.F.R. § 403.908(a).
2 DOJ Press Release, available at: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/December/13-civ-1352.html. 3 See, e.g., DOJ Press Release, available at: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-ag-1170.html.
4 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7.
6 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). Note that manufacturers may submit “assumptions documents” as part of Sunshine reporting. Although CMS stated in the preamble to the Sunshine regulations its belief that the contents of such documents “should not be made public,” it acknowledged that it could provide access to the documents during an audit or investigation by other HHS divisions, the Office of Inspector General, or the Department of Justice.
7 42 C.F.R. 403.94(c)(8).
8 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4).
9 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 9(b).
This post was written by Katie C. Pawlitz.
On February 7, 2014, CMS announced a two-phase registration and data submission process for the 2013 Open Payments Program, the reporting mechanism for the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Under Phase I, which begins February 18, 2014 and runs through March 31, 2014, applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations will register for Open Payments and submit to CMS corporate profile information and aggregate 2013 payment data. Phase 2 begins in May, extends no fewer than 30 days, and includes submission of detailed 2013 payment data and legal attestation to the accuracy of the data. Both phases of data submission will be complete by August 1, at which point the dispute resolution process will begin. According to CMS, this phased approach to Open Payments registration and data submission is for the 2013 program year only.
Under the “Sunshine Act” provisions of the Affordable Care Act, certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP must report annually to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certain payments or transfers of value they have made to physicians and teaching hospitals. CMS has announced that Sunshine Act reporting thresholds are being adjusted slightly for 2014 to reflect changes in the consumer price index. Specifically, a payment or other transfer of value is excluded from reporting requirements for 2014 if it is less than $10.18 (compared to $10.00 for 2013), unless the aggregate amount transferred to, requested by, or designated on behalf of a covered recipient exceeds $101.75 in a calendar year (up slightly from $100.00 for 2013).
A recent OIG report links the growing presence of physician-owned distributorships, or PODs, to increased spinal surgery volumes and potentially increased Medicare costs. The OIG notes a “substantial presence” of PODs in the spinal device market, with PODs supplying spinal devices for 19% of the spinal fusion surgeries billed to Medicare in FY 2011. According to the OIG, hospitals that purchased devices from PODs performed more spinal surgeries in 2012 than hospitals that did not purchase from PODs, and hospitals increased the rate of growth in the number of spinal surgeries after they began purchasing from PODs. Hospitals identified surgeon preference as the strongest influence on their decisions to purchase spinal devices from PODs. The OIG also disagrees with PODs’ claims that their devices cost less than those from other suppliers; rather, in the categories examined by the OIG, the devices cost the same as or more than devices from companies not owned by physicians. This fact, coupled with increased volumes, according to the OIG, could increase overall Medicare costs over time. In addition, the OIG raises concerns about inconsistencies in hospital policies regarding physician disclosure of ownership to either hospitals or their patients of interests in PODs (although the OIG suggests that the new “Sunshine Act” disclosure rules may improve the ability of hospitals and patients to identify physicians’ investment in device companies). For a case urging an alternative perspective on PODs, see the report on our sister blog, http://www.lifescienceslegalupdate.com/, about a recent complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that seeks a declaration that the OIG’s Special Fraud Alert on PODs unfairly and unconstitutionally burdens First Amendment rights of free speech and due process. The complaint defends the lawfulness of the physician-owned model, and characterizes the Fraud Alert as the result of a multi-year lobbying campaign by “Big Corporations” forced to compete with small physician-owned entities. For more details, see our full report.
Data collection under the ACA Physician Payment Sunshine Act begins on August 1, 2013. To assist covered manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices with reporting obligations, CMS has announced new “OPEN PAYMENTS” mobile applications that could be used to track payments and other financial transfers. While physicians are not required to report any information, CMS notes that they could use this technology to help validate reports submitted by manufacturers about payments the physicians have received. In addition, CMS is compiling answers to frequently-asked-questions on the Sunshine Act. On June 22, 2013, CME released a notice in the Federal Register concerning the collection of information under the Sunshine Act, specifically related to the following subjects: registration; attestation; dispute resolution and corrections; record retention; and submitting an assumptions document. Comments are due to CMS by September 20, 2013. Finally, CMS is hosting an educational call on August 8, 2013 for physicians and teaching hospitals on the Sunshine Act policy, with a focus on third party payments, indirect payments, and the Physician Resource Toolkit.
CMS has released a list of teaching hospital “covered recipients” to which payments and other transfers of value must be reported by applicable drug and device manufacturers under the ACA Physician Payment Sunshine Act Final Rule, as discussed in a posting on our Life Sciences Legal Update blog. The posting also discusses industry efforts to obtain CMS clarification on various outstanding questions related to the reporting requirements. In addition, CMS has announced a May 22 National Provider Call on the Sunshine Act reporting requirements, directed to physicians and teaching hospitals and covering the Final Rule, key dates, the role of covered recipients, and resources available to covered recipients.
In case you missed them, Reed Smith attorneys have recently prepared the following Client Alerts on major regulatory issues:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has published the long-awaited Final Rule to implement the “Sunshine” provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The Sunshine provisions – intended to provide increased transparency regarding the scope and nature of financial and other relationships among manufacturers, physicians, and teaching hospitals - require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, and medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP report annually to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certain payments or transfers of value they have made to physicians and teaching hospitals. In addition, they require manufacturers and certain group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report to HHS information on physician ownership and investment interests.
While the Final Rule provides needed clarity on some troubling aspects of the proposal, it leaves a number of questions unanswered. Please click here to read our detailed analysis of the Sunshine provisions, including an overview and summary of the Final Rule as well as discussion of the important issues that stakeholders should be considering as they prepare for Sunshine implementation.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released late today its final rule implementing the physician payment transparency provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Section 6002), commonly referred to as the "Physician Payments Sunshine Act." Among other things, the Act requires drug, device, biological or medical supply manufacturers to report payments or other transfers of value to physicians and other covered recipients. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to report certain information regarding ownership or investment interests held by a physician in the manufacturer or GPO.
The official version of the final rule, titled “Transparency Reports and Reporting of Physician Ownership of Investment Interests” (the “Final Rule”), will be published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013. A proposed rule was previously published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2011, for which CMS received over 300 comments from a wide range of stakeholders.
The Final Rule provides important guidance to manufacturers and GPOs regarding the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, resolves several questions remaining after publication of the Proposed Rule, and raises some new ones. Notably, CMS has announced that manufacturers and GPOs will not be required to collect required information until August 1, 2013. Manufacturers and GPOs will be required to report the data for August through December of 2013 to CMS by March 31, 2014 and CMS will release the data publicly by September 30, 2014.
We are in the process of conducting a full review of the lengthy Final Rule and will release shortly a Client Alert providing a detailed analysis of the Rule. In the meantime, please contact Elizabeth Carder-Thompson (202-414-9213), Katie C. Pawlitz (202-414-9233), Nancy E. Bonifant (202-414-9353) or any other member of the Reed Smith Health Care Group with whom you work, if you would like additional information or if you have any questions.
On January 8, 2013, the Obama Administration published its latest semiannual regulatory agenda, outlining planned regulatory initiatives in a number of policy areas. The Federal Register version of the agenda includes only a portion of the regulations in the pipeline, however; the full agenda has been posted on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) web site. Major Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations are highlighted after the jump.
- An HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposed rule that would add new/modify existing safe harbors under the anti-kickback statute; add new/revise existing regulations governing OIG's authority to impose civil money penalties and assessments; add new/revise existing regulations governing OIG's exclusion authority; and codify new exceptions to the beneficiary inducement prohibition (expected July 2013);
- A final Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rule implementing Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions related to Medicaid reimbursement for covered outpatient drugs (expected in August 2013);
- A CMS proposed rule to establish Medicare payment safeguards to prevent providers and suppliers that do not meet Medicare requirements from remaining enrolled in or submitting claims to Medicare (expected May 2013);
- Proposed emergency preparedness requirements for Medicare and Medicaid participating providers and suppliers (expected in July 2013);
- A final CMS rule establishing requirements for disclosure of skilled nursing facilities' ownership (expected May 2013);
- A final rule on long-term care facility agreements with hospice agencies (expected October 2013);
- A proposed rule to establish a prospective payment system for Federally Qualified Health Centers (expected June 2013);
- Annual Medicare payment update rules (various dates);
- Various rules implementing insurance-related provisions of the ACA (various dates);
- A final rule modifying HIPAA privacy, security, enforcement, and breach notification rules (expected but not released in December 2012);
- An advance notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a methodology allowing an individual harmed by an offense punishable under HIPAA to receive a percentage of any civil money penalty or monetary settlement collected (expected March 2013);
- A final rule to enhance human subjects research protections (expected April 2013); and
- A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final rule establishing a unique device identification system for medical devices (expected May 2013).
There are also some surprises on the Administration’s list of “long-term actions” – including the long-overdue final ACA “Sunshine Act” rule requiring applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies to annually report certain payments to physicians or teaching hospitals (“final action” listed as December 2014). Other long-term actions include a final rule implementing ACA requirements related to reporting and returning of overpayments (February 2015); a variety of rules dealing with the 340B discount drug program (timing listed as “to be determined”); and a final HIPAA privacy rule on accounting for disclosures under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (TBD).
On November 27, 2012, CMS sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget for final clearance its long-awaited final rule implementing the ACA’s “Physician Payment Sunshine Act” provisions. Under the ACA, applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP will be required to report annually to the HHS Secretary certain payments or other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals. Additionally, applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations (GPOs) must report certain information regarding the ownership or investment interests in them that are held by physicians or their immediate family members. CMS published the proposed version of the rule to implement these provisions on December 19, 2011, and subsequently announced that it will not require pharmaceutical, device, and other applicable manufacturers and GPOs to begin collecting reportable data before 2013. We will be providing an analysis of the final rule when it is available. In the meantime, for our previous reports on the Sunshine Act provisions, click here.
On November 21, 2012, the Massachusetts Public Health Council finalized amendments to the State’s Marketing Code of Conduct, which restricts certain payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to Massachusetts health care practitioners and imposes other disclosure requirements regarding such payments. The rules, which are effective December 7, 2012, are summarized on the Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Legal Update blog.
Massachusetts Approves Emergency Amendments on State "Sunshine Act" Drug/Device Manufacturer Reporting Requirements
On the Reed Smith Life Sciences Legal Update blog, there is a recent post regarding the Massachusetts Public Health Council’s approval of emergency amendments to the State’s Marketing Code of Conduct regulations. The underlying regulations restrict certain gifts and payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to Massachusetts health care practitioners (HCPs) and require disclosure of payments and transfers of value to HCPs. The emergency amendments, which follow state legislative amendments, now allow manufacturers to provide modest meals and refreshments to HCPs at non-CME educational presentations and modify applicable reporting requirements. The amendments also address the interaction of state requirements and federal law, including the ACA’s Physician Payment Sunshine Act provisions. For additional details, see our full post.
A number of recent Congressional hearings have focused on health policy issues, including the following:
- A House Small Business Healthcare Subcommittee hearing on “Medicare's Durable Medical Equipment Competitive Bidding Program: How Are Small Suppliers Faring?”
- Senate Aging Committee hearings on “Implementing the Physician Payments Sunshine Act” and “Eliminating Waste and Fraud in Medicare: An Examination of Prior Authorization Requirements for Power Mobility Devices.”
- A House Oversight Committee hearing entitled “Administration's Failure to Prevent/End Medicaid Overpayments.”
- House Ways and Means Committee hearings on (1) implementation of ACA health insurance exchanges and related provisions; (2) the status of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans; and (3) the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) implementation of various ACA tax provisions.
- A House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on HHS’s use of special hiring authorities under Title 42 to appoint and compensate specialized science and research positions.
On September 12, 2012 the Senate Aging Committee will hold a roundtable forum entitled “Let the Sunshine in: Implementing the Physician Payments Sunshine Act.” The ACA's Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP to report annually to the HHS Secretary certain payments or other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals. Additionally, applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations must report certain information regarding the ownership or investment interests in them that are held by physicians or their immediate family members. For our previous reports on the Sunshine Act provisions, click here.
Vermont Offers Limited Amnesty to Device and Biologic Manufacturers who Failed to Report Payments to Health Care Providers
This post was written by Katie C. Pawlitz.
Today the Office of the Vermont Attorney General announced that the Vermont Attorney General is offering limited amnesty to medical device and biologic manufacturers who have failed to report pursuant to Vermont’s Prescribed Products Gift Ban and Disclosure Law. The offer will remain open until October 1, 2012. In order to take advantage of the offer, manufacturers must email email@example.com with the following information: (1) manufacturer name; (2) reporting periods not reported; and (3) name, address, email, and phone number of the representative with whom Vermont should communicate.
The reporting obligation under the Vermont Law became effective July 1, 2009 and, to date, manufacturers have been required to report to Vermont with respect to three reporting periods. The amnesty offer is limited to financial penalties authorized under the Law and does not apply to back-payment of registration fees or penalties for violations of other aspects of the Law, such as gift ban violations. The Office of the Attorney General has indicated that it does not anticipate seeking full disclosure for unreported activity, but that it does anticipate requiring at a later date, disclosure of aggregate information regarding the activity.