Health Care

Yesterday, May 8, 2019, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released its final rule requiring drug manufacturers to disclose a drug’s wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”) in direct-to-consumer television advertisements. The rule, which will become final 60 days after the official publication of the rule (which will be tomorrow, May 10, 2019) was proposal last fall. CMS is largely adopting the rule as published last fall with minor technical changes for clarification

This week, the House is poised to take action on drug pricing by passing two pieces of legislation. As the House moves bills through final passage, focus will shift to the Senate which will in the coming weeks unveil a legislative package around lowering costs for consumers. The scope of this package is still unclear, but it should include a number of proposals that could pass on a bipartisan basis. We cover this and more in this week's preview, which you can find by clicking here. 

FDA's Comprehensive Regenerative Medicine Policy Framework is nearing the halfway mark of the “grace period” the Agency extended for certain regenerative medicine product developers to come into compliance by obtaining investigational new drug applications (INDs) and working towards premarket approval of their products.

Following the two week recess, Congress is back in session and will have several high profile hearings this week. For starters, the Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee will continue reviewing prescription drug costs, this time focusing in on Medicare. In the Rules Committee, which does not typically host high profile hearings, they will hold the first committee hearing on H.R. 1384, one of the "Medicare for All" proposals.


The House is poised to pass several noteworthy drug pricing bills this work period, as well as legislation to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. Once the House votes on these bills, the question will then become what is the Senate able to pass and what is their appetite for taking it on this summer. We cover this and more in this week's preview.

As many of our readers know, we have been closely following the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case in the Tenth Circuit for the lessons it might offer in defending FCA cases premised on allegations related to lack of medical necessity (among other topics).  Recently, we had the opportunity to consider this case from a different angle: the lessons it might offer to bankruptcy counsel advising clients who are or have been the subject of a health care fraud investigation and/or FCA qui tam case. 

As predicted by our colleagues earlier this month, outgoing Commissioner Scott Gottlieb of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a comprehensive press release setting forth actions for possible FDA regulation of CBD products. FDA also reinforced its position that introducing CBD or THC infused products into interstate commerce, including marketing CBD and THC dietary supplements, continues to be illegal.  In furtherance of this position, FDA released three warning letters to businesses marketing CBD products for using “egregious and unfounded claims aimed at vulnerable populations.”

The Maryland General Assembly recently passed a bill that permits any person to directly or indirectly advertise diagnostic laboratory tests in the state, with certain limitations.  The bill currently awaits the Governor’s signature and will go into effect on October 1, 2019. Maryland law currently prohibits any marketing of laboratory tests to consumers, as well as any direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) testing without a physician’s order. 

This week, Congress will continue to look at lowering health costs. The House has been focused on both drug costs and overall health care costs, advancing packages to strengthen the individual market in addition to a series of bipartisan drug pricing bills. We cover this and more in this week's preview.

On June 28, 2018, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and then further amended it on September 23, 2018. CCPA breaks new state law privacy ground, and this post addresses some of the confusion surrounding the exemptions for health information.

In recent months, we’ve highlighted several changes that CMS is implementing to combat opioid misuse. In this post, we focus on CMS’s new Medicare Part D Opioid Overutilization Policies.


Last year, CMS published a road map outlining the agency’s approach to addressing the nation’s opioid epidemic. CMS’s strategy has three prongs: (1) prevent new cases of opioid use disorder (OUD); (2) expand treatment for individuals with OUDs; and (3) leverage data to improve the agency’s prevention and treatment options.


In line with that strategy, the agency published an article detailing its Medicare Part D Opioid Overutilization Policies for 2019. The policies focus on improving communication between and among Part D plans (PDPs) and providers to better coordinate efforts to prevent opioid misuse. As CMS points out, “Providers are in the best position to identify and manage potential opioid overutilization in the Medicare Part D population. Medicare prescription drug plans can assist providers by alerting them about unusual utilization patterns in prescription claims.”

Regulation of cannabidiol (CBD) was a hot topic on Day 1 of ACI’s Cosmetics & Personal Care Products conference on March 28, 2019. Attendees asked many questions about legitimate uses of and claims for CBD, but definite answers were in short supply due to the current confusion over the legality of CBD as a product itself or other products, such as food or cosmetics, with CBD added.

When asked a direct question about FDA’s perspective on and plans for CBD regulation, Dr. Linda Katz, Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors and Acting Chief Medical Officer for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, did not comment directly but referred all attendees to an upcoming public meeting on CBD in April 2019. It is possible that the public meeting could be the start of an FDA rulemaking process for CBD regulations. Even though Dr. Katz was unable to comment, there was still plenty of CDB advice to share with industry attendees.

This week, House Democrats are pressing forward with a health care package designed to lower drug costs and strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This package will provide a platform for Democrats to tout legislation that stabilizes the ACA or counteracts actions taken by the Administration. While this legislative package is sure to get a lot of attention following the Department of Justice announcement regarding Texas v. Azar, it's unclear how much support it will garner in the Senate.

The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari last Monday in U.S. ex rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 17-5826 (6th Cir. June 11, 2018), again declining to revisit or clarify the False Claims Act's “materiality” standard set forth in its 2016 decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016). 

In Prather, the relator alleged that defendant Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. (Brookdale), a home health provider, submitted bills for medical services that were “untimely” signed and certified by physicians in violation of Medicare regulations.  When submitting Medicare claims, Brookdale purportedly did not obtain the required physician certifications attesting that the medical services provided by Brookdale were necessary until months after establishing a patient’s plan of care.  Because Medicare regulations under 42 C.F.R. § 424.22(a)(2) require physician certifications “at the time the plan of care is established or as soon thereafter as possible,” the relator alleged that Brookdale’s untimely certifications rendered the claims false under the implied false certification theory.  The district court dismissed the complaint on materiality grounds, holding that the noncompliance was insubstantial and that the relator failed to allege that the government had ever denied a claim based on a violation of the timing requirement under the Medicare regulations.

Earlier this week, Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), delivered keynote remarks at AHLA’s 2019 Institute on Medicare and Medicaid Payment Issues. 

Framing his remarks around two key initiatives of the Administration, regulatory reform and affordable healthcare, Secretary Azar promised a bold and swift approach to regulatory reform over the coming years. 

Secretary Azar discussed HHS’ initiative known as the “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” which we’ve previously discussed on the blog. The agency is undergoing a “comprehensive reexamination of rules that may be impeding coordinated care.”  As a “sprint,” he noted the goal is to issue rulemaking to alleviate impediments “as soon as possible.”

No one wants to be faced with a large, unexpected medical bill after receiving health care services. Unfortunately, patients often find themselves in this situation after seeking emergency treatment or transportation, undergoing a surgical procedure, or even the birth of a child. These “surprise medical bills” occur when the patient goes to a hospital or facility that is “in-network” with the patient’s health plan, but the physician providing the services is not and is considered “out-of-network” or “OON.” This issue found its way back to the national stage this week, with several important highlights.

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an advisory opinion (Advisory Opinion No. 19-03) (Opinion) concluding that a program consisting of free, in-home follow-up care to patients at a higher risk of admission or readmission (the Arrangement) was “low risk” under the civil monetary penalties prohibition on beneficiary inducement (the Beneficiary Inducement CMP). This comes as good news to hospitals and other providers who are focused on care coordination and value-based programs.

On January 15, 2019, Governor Cuomo released the 2019-2020 Executive Budget, which proposes substantial legislative changes that would affect pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).  Among other things, the law would require PBMs to be licensed and places limitations on how they can be compensated. This week, the State Senate released its own Budget that, while joining the Governor's efforts to regulate PBMs, purports to create additional safeguards around PBM business activities, including increased financial penalties on PBMs that violate the law.

Last week, a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of Florida upheld a magistrate judge’s decision to dismiss False Claims Act (FCA) allegations against a compounding pharmacy, its private equity firm owner, and two individuals. DOJ filed its complaint in intervention last February against the pharmacy, Patient Care America (PCA); its private equity backer, Riordan Lewis & Haden, Inc.; and two individual executives. The government alleged that the parties engaged in an illegal kickback scheme that resulted in the submission of false claims to TRICARE for expensive compounded drugs. This case is reportedly the first in which the federal government intervened against a private equity firm owner.

In our first two Device Modernization series posts, we discussed FDA’s 510(k) modernization efforts and the proposed De Novo regulation. FDA has also had a heavy hand in legislative efforts to retool oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and other in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). The proposed approach would create an entirely new category of medical product separate from medical devices known as in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs).

AltaMed Health Services (AltaMed) and California Physicians Services (doing business as Blue Shield of California (BSC)) recently received notice from their business associate, Sharecare Health Data Services (SHDS), of a hack of SHDS’s network that stores patients’ medical records.  The hacker was able to acquire and/or access patients’ protected health information (PHI) contained in the medical records kept by SHDS on behalf of AltaMed and BSC. The breach of AltaMed’s data was discovered on June 22, 2018, and the breach for BSC was discovered a few days later on June 26, 2018. Upon investigation, however, officials determined that both breaches went undetected for over a month and actually began on May 21, 2018.