Mallinckrodt plc agreed to pay $260 million to resolve separate U.S. allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by underpaying Medicaid rebates for its H.P. Acthar Gel (corticotropin) and that it violated the anti-kickback law by using a foundation as a conduit to illegally pay Medicare patients’ copay subsidies.
The FDA’s device center has published two guidances dealing with patient engagement in relation to the conduct of clinical trials, including a final guidance for patient input into clinical trial design. The final guidance is mum, however, as to whether consultations with patient representatives constitutes a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), a predicament the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) said may represent a serious legal hazard for device makers.
Arthrex Inc., of Naples, Fla., is well known for lobbing a legal hand grenade into the inter partes review (IPR) process for patent disputes, but the company is now drawing ink for a different legal reason. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), Arthrex has agreed to pay $16 million to settle allegations that it engaged in kickbacks to a surgeon, payments ostensibly made to pay for assistance with device design, but which the DoJ claims were intended to induce the surgeon’s use and endorsement of Arthrex products.
Biopharma companies that have agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice millions of dollars to resolve allegations that they illegally used charities to cover patients’ Medicare copays for brand drugs are finding those settlements may be just the beginning of their legal woes, even when the companies admit no liability in the settlement.
The first day of the annual meeting of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) included a brief address by two members of Congress, including Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Guthrie acknowledged that the reset of the Medicare clinical lab fee schedule was not going as intended, but declined to identify any possible fixes pending a report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
The latest global regulatory news, changes and updates affecting medical devices and technologies, including: Health Canada updates list of recognized standards; FTC posts draft consent agreement for Flo Health; Two more snared in PGx testing scam.
Two U.S. federal agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have finalized rules that affect how drug and device makers interact with the health care system, but under the Congressional Review Act, neither rule can go into effect until February 2021. This timeline comes up a couple of weeks after President-elect Joseph Biden is sworn in, thus raising the risk that the new administration at HHS will either modify or overturn these rules altogether.
If the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has its way, one of the casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic would be the in-person speaker programs many drug and device companies sponsor. The OIG issued a special fraud alert Nov. 16 questioning the need for such events in which health care professionals are often paid a hefty honorarium or fee to provide colleagues with information that’s readily available online and in the labeling of a drug or device.
Drug and medical device manufacturers have several compliance matters to deal with under the False Claims Act (FCA), only one of which is the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). Nonetheless, the AKS might be a good area for members of industry to emphasize, given that it accounted for the vast majority of federal enforcement actions in fiscal year (FY) 2019, according to a new report by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The draft rules for the Stark and Anti-Kickback statutes (AKS) seem to have excluded makers of devices, but Meena Datta of Sidley Austin told BioWorld MedTech that while these agencies have plenty of reasons to rethink that notion, the final rules are unlikely to emerge in 2020 simply because of the complexity of the undertaking. While the final rules may reverse the drafts’ exclusion of makers of devices and diagnostics, device makers were upbeat at the prospect that they could engage in value-based payment arrangements with providers.
