Health Care

As we noted in our previous post, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security (Center) has been hard at work studying and providing thought leadership regarding the COVID-19 pandemic from a variety of angles. The Center, in conjunction with Texas State University and the Working Group on Readying Populations for COVID-19 Vaccine, recently released a report exploring the public’s role in COVID-19 vaccination (Report). The Report provides recommendations to U.S. policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders about how to advance public understanding of, access to, and acceptance of vaccines that protect against COVID-19.

As you know, the Draft Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine (the “Draft Framework”) was released earlier this week, and we are highlighting its major sections as stakeholders prepare to submit comments by Friday, September 4th. Building on the lessons learned from past allocation frameworks, this post highlights the key provisions of the Draft Framework.

Continuing with our review of the Draft Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine (the “Draft Framework”), this post highlights a number of uncertainties that will be faced in implementing the proposed allocation. For additional background on the Draft Framework, please see our earlier posts in the Bioethics in a Pandemic series. The final chapter of the committee’s discussion draft identifies specific uncertainties that could present obstacles to the proposed allocation plan’s implementation. Ultimately, a vaccine allocation framework must remain flexible and adaptive when faced with updated scientific evidence and developments like those listed above. These considerations, as well as the public comments, will continue to be inform the development of the framework.

Earlier this week, a committee of the National Academies sponsored by the CDC and NIH released its Draft Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine. This Draft Framework builds on the successes and challenges of past vaccine allocation frameworks, as well as current frameworks for allocating scarce COVID-19 resources. This blog reviews these past frameworks that laid the foundation for the committee to develop its decision-making framework.

The Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security (the “Center”) has been providing thought leadership related to the novel coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic since the beginning of the year. Two of the Center’s recent reports relate directly to our discussion on vaccine distribution.  The first is an interim framework for COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution (the “Report”), and the second focuses on the public’s role in COVID-19 vaccination. Here, we provide a high-level overview of the first report. We’ll dive into the second report in a separate blog post.

As we continue to discuss the ethical considerations related to the distribution of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, it is important to consider lessons learned from other pandemics. Though the particular facts of past pandemics of course differ from those of COVID-19, the goal of public health has always been to promote and protect the health and well-being of a population. Similarly, the ethical distribution of resources amid any pandemic is supported by the balance and tension among the four ethics principles: autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Here, we look at lessens learned from the poliovirus, ebolavirus, and 2009 H1N1 pandemics, as well as the National Pandemic Strategy related to vaccine distribution.

Earlier today, the Committee on Equitable Allocation of Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus released preliminary guidelines on the allocation of initial and limited supplies of a forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine. Once finalized, this framework will inform how policymakers and health professionals should initially prioritize vaccine recipients, taking into account factors such as mitigating community spread, maximizing public health benefits, and ensuring equitable vaccine access for underserved communities.

Though the turnaround time is short, there are two ways for interested stakeholders and member of the public to submit feedback regarding the draft plan:
1. Speak at TOMORROW’s Public Listening Session (September 2, 12 PM EDT). Speakers must adhere to a strict 5-minute time limit and submit their interest in speaking in advance.
2. Submit Written Comment by September 4 at 11:59 PM EDT. Comments and uploaded materials will be made available in the Committee’s Public Access File and should be submitted at this link.

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General recently announced the indictment of a pharmacy marketer who allegedly received and paid kickbacks in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). While the alleged fraudulent scheme isn’t anything new, the actions that the marketer allegedly took to try to cover up the scheme serve as a good lesson.

On Wednesday, August 26th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a notice extending the deadline to finalize significant proposed changes to the Physician Self-Referral Law (commonly known as the Stark Law) announced last year. CMS published the proposed rule on October 17, 2019 in tandem with a companion proposed rule issued by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) with equally sweeping changes to the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). Both rules were issued as part of CMS’s Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care and offer a number of industry-friendly changes designed to reduce regulatory burden associated with the Stark Law and the AKS and allow for increased adoption of value-based arrangements.

Before we continue our Bioethics in a Pandemic series, we thought it would be helpful to provide a quick overview of the various principles that inform ethical decision-making in the health care setting.

As you might imagine, providing health care to individuals with diverse background and values presents ethical choices for health care professionals every day, throughout the entire health care system – providers, administrators, policymakers, insurers, employers, and even the health care lawyers! Well-recognized bioethics scholars Tom Beauchamp and James Childress offer a principle-based approach to guide ethical decision-making in health care. The four principles are (1) Respect for Autonomy, (2) Nonmaleficence, (3) Beneficence, and (4) Justice.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided a case that created a new standard to assess requests by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss declined qui tam (whistleblower) suits under the False Claims Act (FCA). See U.S. ex rel. CIMZNHCA LLC V. UCB Inc. et al., No. 19-2273 (7th Cir. 2020). Prior to this decision, federal Courts of Appeals applied either the Sequoia Orange standard or the Swift standard, discussed below. In this decision, the Seventh Circuit opined that the standard should be informed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 41, and this standard “lies much nearer to Swift.” The Seventh Circuit also decided a key jurisdictional issue: whether the United States can appeal a denial of its motion to dismiss a declined qui tam action. Again, taking a new tack, the panel resolved this issue by construing the motion to dismiss also as a motion to intervene and construing the district court’s decision as a denial of that motion, thus obviating the need to invoke the collateral order doctrine.

As we discussed in our previous blog post, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released guidance this past June to address how health care providers could contact, in a HIPAA-compliant manner, recovered COVID-19 patients to provide them with information about donating blood and plasma to potentially help other COVID-19 patients. On August 24, OCR released an updated version of that guidance to address similar communications from health plans. The amended guidance provides that health plans may also reach out to recovered COVID-19 patients about blood and plasma donation, subject to the same restrictions applicable to health care providers.

Clinical trial sponsors and principal investigators can consider themselves on notice that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is poised to ramp up enforcement activity relating to responsible parties’ obligations regarding clinical trial registration and results reporting. In a new guidance it released on August 12, 2020, FDA outlines how it intends to identify parties who have failed to register a clinical trial on, or submit results to, the ClinicalTrials.gov databank, as required by the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 and final regulations promulgated in 2016 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

After months of stay-at-home orders, quarantine protocols, social distancing, and back-to-school planning, the ever- present question on everyone’s mind is, When will we get back to business as usual?  For many, the answer involves discussion of a safe and effective vaccine, including when it will be available and who will be able to get it. Even though a vaccine likely won’t be available until 2021 at the earliest, experts are already thinking about how to distribute it.  This post is the first in a blog series that will consider the various bioethics issues and principles related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comments made by Department of Justice attorneys during a recent webinar provided insight into the government’s civil enforcement priorities related to the coronavirus pandemic. In particular, government attorneys expect that civil enforcement related to COVID-19 relief funds will focus on certifications made by applicants seeking loan forgiveness and anticipate increased investigations into telemedicine services.

On August 4th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published the 2021 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) proposed rule. The rule proposes to cut Medicare Part B reimbursement for 340B drugs by an additional 6% in 2021 and comes days after the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld a 340B rate reduction of nearly 30% in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 OPPS rules. The agency is relying on data collected through a recent 340B acquisition cost survey to justify the additional rate reduction.

As promised, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated the Purple Book: Database of FDA-licensed Biological Products, providing greater transparency and a more user-friendly search functionality for the biological product and biosimilar industries. Earlier this year, FDA transitioned the Purple Book to a searchable online database. The August 3, 2020 release offers additional information on all FDA-licensed allergenic, cellular and gene therapy, hematologic, and vaccine products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) expanding the dataset used by the database. FDA also updated the available exclusivity information for further industry ease of reference. This update is the next phase of the agency’s plan to improve the accessibility of information related to biological products through expansion and digitization.

On August 4, CMS posted a proposed rule on CY 2021 Payment Policies, which included important updates about the expansion of Medicare covered telehealth services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we cover this and other important developments related to telehealth access during the pandemic and beyond.

This week, the Friday surprise came courtesy of the D.C. Court of Appeals. In a long-awaited split decision, the court ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acted lawfully when it reduced Medicare Part B reimbursement to hospitals for 340B drugs by nearly 30%. The reduction in Part B reimbursement was originally proposed in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment Services (OPPS) rule. HHS estimated it would reduce total Part B spending by $1.6 billion annually, and save Medicare beneficiaries millions in copayments. Covered entities sued to overturn the rate cut, and litigation has been ongoing since the rate cut was implemented in early 2018.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling recently announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Special Inspector General Brian D. Miller of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery to investigate and prosecute fraud in the distribution of the funds authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security.