Health Care

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) recently offered covered entities and business associates (Regulated Entities) not-so-subtle reminders in its October 2023 Cybersecurity Newsletter that effective sanction policies can encourage HIPAA compliance. Regulated Entities are required by HIPAA to implement sanction policies in which they impose “appropriate sanctions” against their respective workforce members who fail to comply with the Privacy Rule or Security Rule, the Regulated Entity’s privacy policies and procedures, and/or the Regulated Entity’s security policies and procedures, as applicable. These sanction policies are important administrative safeguards meant to ensure there are objective, documented consequences for HIPAA non-compliance among workforce members. The recent proliferation of social engineering attacks and increasingly sophisticated nature of external cybersecurity threats in health care underscore the importance of Regulated Entities consistently reviewing and applying sanction policies.

California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) is set to begin advance regulatory review of certain health care transactions beginning January 1, 2024. As further explained in our previous post, subject to certain exceptions, third party payers and administrators, hospitals, hospital systems, fully integrated delivery systems, pharmacy benefit managers, physician organizations, and other providers (collectively, Health Care Entities) will soon be subject to potential prospective transaction review. OHCA initially published proposed regulations for the new transaction review process in early August (for more details, see our prior post and our podcast). Multiple stakeholders expressed concerns with the proposed regulations during the public comment period, which ended August 31, 2023. In response to these comments, OHCA has published revised proposed regulations (Revised Regulations) allowing for an abbreviated comment period that ends October 17, 2023. The Revised Regulations are available here.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed multiple bills into law as part of California’s ongoing efforts to safeguard access to reproductive and gender affirming health care. The new laws are intended to increase protections for health care providers and patients, increase health care provider availability, and improve patient privacy. In a recent press release, California Legislative Women’s Caucus Vice Chair Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry noted: “Last year, we enacted 14 bills and budget funding to expand and protect reproductive rights and services in our state. This year, we build on that momentum with legislation that ensures California remains a national leader in the fight for reproductive justice.”

In a significant development with far-reaching implications for health plans and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), Justice John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has recently struck down a federal rule that allowed health plans to use copay accumulator programs to exclude drug manufacturer copay assistance from a patient’s out-of-pocket costs. This ruling has significant implications for the way health plans and PBMs operate and interact with patients and copay assistance programs.

A recent Massachusetts Federal District Court decision adds to divergent opinions deciding an important health care enforcement question: what causation standard applies to a False Claims Act (FCA) case based on a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)? The AKS states that a claim that includes items or services “resulting from” a violation of the AKS constitutes a “false or fraudulent claim” under the FCA. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). On September 27, 2023, Chief Judge Saylor of the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A No. 20-11217-FDS, which adopted a “but-for” standard of causation applicable to the AKS’s “resulting from” language.

The capabilities and sophistication of digital health technologies are constantly expanding, especially with the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Many companies, both existing and start-up, are developing software aimed at health care systems, hospitals, physicians, and lay-users for various levels of use, from assisting diagnoses in a clinical environment to tracking exercise and general health indicators in the home. In particular, a growing number of companies is focusing on the development of digital therapeutics - a class of software devices that deliver and monitor medical interventions for the purpose of treating, managing, or preventing certain diseases or conditions - for use in a patient’s home. With all of the new players jumping into the digital health technology game, we thought it might be useful to provide a brief primer on certain factors to consider when evaluating the potential regulatory requirements for such products.

Last week the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO), which advised that a proposed arrangement between certain laboratories for the purchase of the technical component (TC) of anatomic pathology (AP) services (Proposed Arrangement) could generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and thus be grounds for the imposition of sanctions.  As we discuss below, this AO was notable because the OIG’s decision seems to be driven by its views on the (lack of) commercial reasonableness of the arrangement and its skepticism regarding arrangements that “carve out” federal health care program business.

It came as a surprise to nobody in health care circles when, on Friday, September 29, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly announced that its much-anticipated proposed rule on laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, had made it through internal regulatory review processes and would be published imminently in the Federal Register. The agency moved very quickly following the White House Office of Management and Budget’s clearance of the rule, which had occurred just two days prior, likely due to the high probability that the federal government was going to shut down on October 1 if Congress did not come to a budget agreement. That shutdown was narrowly averted over the weekend, but had it not been, the last significant publication of the Federal Register would have been on Tuesday, October 3.

Since the beginning of Chair Khan’s tenure at the Federal Trade Commission (and in line with President Biden’s aim to curb rising health care costs), the current FTC has committed to bring enforcement actions against health care consolidation and rising prices. Over the past two years the FTC has employed novel competition tools to achieve this purpose, as demonstrated by the Commission’s suit last week against a private equity firm and its related specialty practice—alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Read about controversial CMS decisions related to the IRA’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, including groupings of the selected drugs, the “bona fide” marketing standard, excessive penalties for opting out and nonparticipation, and use of the average sale price of therapeutic alternatives as a negotiation data point.

The breadth of programs and regulatory changes stemming from the IRA require implementation to occur over a yearslong process. Below is a high-level overview of the major IRA milestones on the horizon through 2026. We will continue to monitor updates to these milestones and provide updates to this timeline as needed.

Read about significant changes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made to the Medicare program to improve access to care and lower prescription drug costs in the first year since the IRA’s passage.

Read about the plaintiffs’ claims in legal challenges to the IRA’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, including on constitutional grounds and administrative rulemaking doctrines, as well as the government’s response.

Read about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, how CMS selected the first 10 drugs included in the program, and implications for manufacturers.

Read about the Medicare Prescription Drug Inflation Rebate Program for Medicare Part D and Part B drugs and the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan Program.

Mintz’s PBM & Pharmacy practice is proud to present the Mintz IRA Update, a regular publication that delves into the spectrum of developments under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) impacting the health care industry.

On August 21, 2023, the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) issued updated guidance regarding its Self-Disclosure Program (Updated Guidance). In the final days of 2022, New York’s Department of Social Services adopted revised regulations that set forth the requirements for participation in OMIG’s Self-Disclosure Program, as well as regulations regarding Medicaid fraud, waste, and abuse prevention, and Medicaid compliance programs. Since the enactment of these regulations, OMIG has promulgated several guidance documents, including in January 2023, when it first published guidance (Original Guidance) regarding the Self-Disclosure Program. In the Updated Guidance, which replaced the Original Guidance, OMIG announced its new Abbreviated Self-Disclosure Process (ASDP).

Most of the recent focus around the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) by the press and the industry has been on the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and its potential impact on manufacturers. But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been regularly releasing guidance regarding IRA-related changes that Part D plan sponsors had to implement for 2023 and in future years. CMS recently released guidance (Part One Guidance) on the Maximum Monthly Cap on Cost-Sharing Payments Program or the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan Program (previously referred to as the “OOP Smoothing Program”). The Medicare Prescription Payment Plan Program (the Program) will require Part D plans (PDPs) to make significant operational and system changes to meet its requirements. Many questions remain regarding the Program.

On August 15, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued a negative Advisory Opinion regarding a turnkey physician-owned entity (Newco) operated by an existing provider of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) services. In reaching its determination, the OIG stated that Newco and its arrangements with the IONM Company would present a significant risk under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) primarily because it exhibits many indicia of a suspect contractual joint venture.

On August 7, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published Draft Guidance for Industry: Registration and Listing of Cosmetic Product Facilities and Products (the Draft Guidance), which provides much-needed clarifications to the registration and listing requirements that will soon apply to cosmetics companies under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), for review and public comment. MoCRA was signed into law in December 2022 (see our prior post here) and added significant new provisions on cosmetic products to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Under Section 607 of the amended FD&C Act, facilities that manufacture or process a cosmetic product for distribution in the United States must register with FDA and submit a cosmetic product listing, and the Draft Guidance answers basic and essential questions about who must register and list, what information must be included, and how to submit information to FDA. This post summarizes key takeaways from the Draft Guidance and discusses its implications as the December 29, 2023 initial registration and listing deadline approaches.