Teva settles a pay-for-delay case, the FDA migrates toward electronic submission of promotional materials, a circuit court rejects off-label claims against Medtronic, and several states introduce legislation requiring drug makers to release the costs associated with expensive drugs.
Lordy, lordy, King Arthur is Forty! Monty Python’s version of King Arthur that is. The comedy classic, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, is celebrating its 40th anniversary. If you’re not familiar with the film, forget what you think you know about King Arthur’s quest for the Holy Grail. This version certainly reveals a side to Arthur, his Knights and life in medieval Britain that has never been explored. Whilst we consider the merits of this classic comedic cinematic achievement, we’ll leave you with an epic tale of our own. To horse fine people…it is time for the Compliance News in Review.
Now this is a lot of coconuts. Teva has agreed to pay $512 million to settle a pay-for-delay case involving its Cephalon subsidiary. Drug wholesalers and retailers accused the company of paying generic drug makers to delay marketing a generic version of Provigil. The settlement is the largest in a pay-for-delay case.
The FDA has released new guidance that will make it easier for drug companies to submit promotional materials to the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). Currently, companies are required to submit promotional pieces through a paper-based process, using form FDA-2253. The new guidance offers instructions for submitting promotional materials using the FDA’s electronic common technical document (eCTD). The use of eCTD was mandated in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. According to the guidance, in two years, all promotional materials must be submitted electronically.
They don’t have a shrubbery, but they would still like safe harbor. The National Infusion Care Association (NICA) has issued a paper arguing that OIG’s position stating that co-payment coupons and other financial assistance runs afoul of the Anti-kickback Statute (AKS) should not apply to specialty biologics for which there is no generic available. The OIG issued a report saying the coupons could be problematic under the AKS if they entice a patient to purchase a drug that is paid for by the government. NICA says while well intentioned, the position is really only valid if there is a generic alternative available for a specific drug. The organization claims that for many specialty biologics, no such alternative exists, and they worry that patients on government programs could be left with few treatment options if they are not able to accept co-payment coupons offered by manufacturers. NICA would like to see CMS, HHS, OIG and others in the government create a safe harbor allowing those on government programs to participate in co-payment programs if there is no generic alternative.
It may not have had the same drama as the process for determining if someone is a witch, but a circuit court has rejected claims against Medtronic over its off-label promotion of a medical device. The company was sued by an Oklahoma woman who said her physician implanted the product, Infuse, in a manner that was different than the FDA-approved approach. The woman said her doctor was urged to by a Medtronic representative to use the particular approach, and that the company had violated state tort laws. The court said her claims either did not have sufficient proof or were pre-empted by federal law.
Several states will soon be asking drug companies to bring out their drug costs. Massachusetts, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are the latest states to introduce legislation requiring manufacturers to disclose the costs and pricing information associated with expensive drugs. The Massachusetts’s bill will impose a limit on what a company can charge if the state determines the price of a drug is “significantly high.” If that bill is passed, the state will develop a list of drugs for which reporting is required. Companies will have to report costs related to production, research and development, and marketing. North Carolina’s law will require disclosure reports on all drugs sold in the state, and like Massachusetts, the production, research and marketing costs will have to be reported. Pennsylvania’s law will require disclosure reports for drugs with an average wholesale price of $5,000.00 or more, annually or per treatment. The Pennsylvania bill allows insurance companies and state programs to not cover a drug if the manufacturer has not filed a transparency report with the state.
With that, our tale for this week has nearly ended dear readers. We leave you with the reminder that many knights prefer accessing up-to-date compliance training whilst jousting about on horseback rather than hoping for a strong wireless connection over a mug of mead at the local tavern. The PharmaCertify™ suite of compliance-focused training solutions offers that training where your knights need it most – beyond the round table and at their fingertips.
Farewell for now dear friends.
