Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Subscribe to Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Shortly after Connecticut’s 2023 legislative session kicked off, Governor Ned Lamont announced a series of policy initiatives aimed at reducing health care costs and undertaken in collaboration with the Connecticut Hospital Association. “An Act Protecting Patients and Prohibiting Unnecessary Health Care Costs” (“the Act”), which was passed by the Connecticut Legislature in early June and signed into law by Governor Lamont in late June, implements some of those initiatives. Among other things, the Act targets pharmaceutical marketing practices and imposes extensive reporting requirements. These provisions apply to “pharmaceutical manufacturers” and come into effect on October 1, 2023.

Broadly, the provisions require “pharmaceutical manufacturers” that employ “pharmaceutical representatives” to register annually with the Department of Consumer Protection (“DCP”) as “pharmaceutical marketing firms” and provide annual reports to DCP containing various information about their employed “pharmaceutical representatives.” The provisions also require “pharmaceutical representatives” to disclose specific information to prescribing practitioners and pharmacists and provides DCP with the authority to impose penalties for non-compliance.

The nuance lives in the Act’s definitions, and several key questions remain open, including to what extent the Act applies to medical device and technology manufacturers.Continue Reading New Connecticut Law Targets Drug and Device Manufacturers who Employ Sales Representatives for Additional Scrutiny

On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced its plan to maintain access to COVID-19 vaccines and treatment following the end of the Public Health Emergency on May 11, 2023. The “HHS Bridge Access Program for COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments” is a $1.1 billion public-private partnership between HHS, pharmacy chains, and drug manufacturers. Essentially, HHS and drug manufacturers will provide COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, like Paxlovid and Lagevrio, to pharmacy chains, which will administer them to individuals without insurance at no cost.

Under the program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), will use its existing authority under Section 317 of the Public Health Service Act to purchase and distribute COVID-19 vaccines and allocate them through its network of 64 state and local health departments, as well as through Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) supported health centers.Continue Reading HHS Proposes Bridge Access Program for COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments

On April 7, 2023, only minutes apart, two federal district courts issued rulings on cases challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations governing mifepristone, a key medication for women seeking an abortion. Both rulings faulted the FDA’s handling of the approval and its subsequent restrictions on the dispensing of mifepristone, but the two rulings came to very different conclusions as to what the availability of the drug should be.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a 67-page opinion ordering that the FDA’s initial approval of the drug, which was approved in 2000, should be stayed pending the court’s full review of the merits of the case. The court then stayed its own order for seven days to allow the FDA to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Just minutes later, Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued a 31-page opinion ordering FDA and HHS not to make any changes to the availability of mifepristone under the current operative Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which requires the drug to be prescribed and dispensed only by certified providers, among other requirements. Unlike Judge Kacsmaryk, whose injunction has nationwide effect, Judge Rice limited the effect of his order to only the 17 states and the District of Columbia who brought the challenge in his court. The 17 plaintiff states in this lawsuit are: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington and the District of Columbia.

The most difficult-to-reconcile aspect of the two orders is the fact that Judge Kacsmaryk’s order is a nationwide stay of the drug’s approval, while Judge Rice’s order to maintain the status quo availability only applies to the specific plaintiffs.  Notably absent from the Washington order’s applicability would be California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Virginia.Continue Reading Mifepristone Cases – Our Thoughts

[Note, this is Part 3 in an ongoing series of posts exploring substantive aspects of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) (referred to hereafter as 2023 CAA). Earlier parts covered Medicare Payments and the PIE Act]

The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) is Subtitle E of the Food and Drug Administration Title of the 2023 CAA. The subtitle itself is a major change for the cosmetics industry, bringing almost all manufacturers and distributors into a regulatory and reporting structure similar to that currently used by the FDA to govern drugs and medical devices.

The Senate and House committee markups for both versions of the FDA User Fee legislation included a version of this law. However, the final version of that legislation had almost all policy riders stripped from it. But, it reappeared in the 2023 CAA and is now law.

So, what is MoCRA and what does it do? As with the previous posts on the 2023 CAA, we will go a little deeper on this than a regular blog post. That approach is particularly warranted here since this is an entirely new regulatory structure.Continue Reading Health Provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023: Part 3 Cosmetics Regulation

On June 7, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it would conduct an inquiry into the competitive impact of contracting and other business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), including their effects on access to and affordability of prescription drugs.  As part of the inquiry, which is similar to FTC inquiries into other aspects of the health care industry, the FTC issued orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act requiring the six largest PBMs to provide information and records to the Commission. 

The five FTC commissioners voted unanimously on June 6, 2022 to conduct the study and issue the Section 6(b) orders.  According to the FTC mission statement, Section 6(b) “enables [the FTC] to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose.” 

In February, an earlier proposed review of PBMs failed to receive approval on a 2-2 party-line vote, with the two Republican Commissioners, Noah J. Phillips and Christine S. Wilson, voting against the proposed study. Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya was confirmed by the Senate in May, giving Democrats three seats on the Commission. 

Commissioners Phillips and Wilson issued a statement indicating that they had voted to approve the current inquiry because it has a different scope than the previously proposed study, including relationships between PBMs and both pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers, “including, critically, how those practices might impact out-of-pocket costs for consumers.”

The FTC stated that its inquiry will examine PBMs’ role as middlemen who are hired by health plans to negotiate rebates and fees with drug manufacturers, create drug formularies and related policies, and reimburse pharmacies for patients’ prescriptions.  The Commission said that PBMs “often have enormous influence on which drugs are prescribed to patients, which pharmacies patients can use, and how much patients ultimately pay at the pharmacy counter.”  Chair Linda M. Khan stated that the FTC had received complaints about PBM practices from patients and professionals across the healthcare system, several of which the inquiry will examine.    Continue Reading FTC announces inquiry into PBM practices and orders PBMs to provide information

The House Energy and Commerce Committee seems poised to make substantial changes to the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) Accelerated Approval Program. The committee’s Democratic chairman, Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Republican ranking member, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) have proposed competing bills that were featured prominently in the Health Subcommittee’s legislative hearing on March 17, 2022.

The Accelerated Approval Program was developed in 1982, largely in response to the HIV/AIDs epidemic, to expedite approval of novel drugs that treat serious conditions with unmet medical needs based on a surrogate endpoint.  Drugs that receive accelerated approval must undergo post-approval (Phase IV) studies to confirm the intended clinical benefit.  If the clinical testing does not demonstrate the intended clinical benefit, FDA has mechanisms to remove the drug from the market.

However, concerns have mounted regarding FDA’s ability to remove ineffective drugs from the market, and those concerns were punctuated during a February 3, 2022 Health Subcommittee hearing on the reauthorization of FDA User Fees. Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni, the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA testified that the program’s existing mechanism to withdraw accelerated approvals is cumbersome, resource intensive, and seldom used.Continue Reading Competing bills propose amendments to FDA’s accelerated approval program

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to establish an administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for certain claims between Section 340B covered entities and pharmaceutical manufacturers (e.g., claims of overcharging by manufacturers and claims of covered entities taking duplicative discounts or diverting Section 340B…