commercial compliance

Looking Ahead: CBI’s 9th Annual Forum on Transparency and Aggregate Spend

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The release of the first full year of data under the Open Payments Program is just around the corner, which naturally means transparency and aggregate spend are top of mind these days. Will the data be released without any issues? How will the media react?

With aggregate spend on the mind, the NXLevel Solutions PharmaCertify™ team is looking with interest at the conference agenda for CBI’s 9th Annual Forum on Transparency and Aggregate Spend. We’ve selected a few sessions of particular interest.

Here’s what caught our attention:

Strategies to Reduce Compliance Risks and Optimize Commercial Programs Using Transparency Analytics – Obviously, companies are collecting mass amounts of data to comply with transparency requirements here and abroad. Analyzing the data to identify potential compliance risks is a great way to help fine tune training as well. For example, such an analysis may reveal areas where more in depth training is needed, or it may identify a new audience that needs training on a particular topic. We’ll be interested to hear how training fits into the agenda for this session.

State Disclosure Laws – Preemption, Enforcement and Continued Reporting – Just when we thought the Sunshine Act would clarify state reporting requirements, more changes have arrived in our in box; the latest requiring the reporting of payments to nurse practitioners in a couple of states. This session looks to be a great opportunity to learn the latest in state requirements, and to hear how those states plan to utilize the federal data.

HCP Perspectives on Transparency – Impact and Opportunities Moving Forward – Applicable Manufacturers are not the only ones affected by the Open Payments Program and other transparency initiatives. With little to no voice in the matter, healthcare professionals bear the brunt of having information about them exposed to the public. Understanding HCPs’ transparency concerns is a critical step in training those who interact with HCPs.

The Global Transparency track, which includes a session on Building a Global Transparency Solutions Center, is dedicated to the transparency requirements of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). With reporting beginning next year, EFPIA requirements are no doubt a hot topic, but EFPIA’s requirements aren’t the only ones of concern outside the U.S. Understanding the requirements of each code and law and finding commonalities is important when building the systems to manage the data, and building effective training around these requirements. Can training be repurposed from one jurisdiction to another? What “lessons learned” from one location can be applied as more associations and countries implement transparency requirements?

In between conference sessions, we invite you to stop by the PharmaCertify™ booth to discuss your global transparency training challenges in more detail. We’ll be providing demos of our TOV Disclosure Portal™, an exciting new product that gives your company the opportunity to roll out transparency payment data to your partner HCPs for their review and approval before it is submitted to CMS. When disputes are resolved early, HCPs are more confident in the accuracy of the data, and the company/HCP relationship is enhanced. And, if you have to miss this year’s conference, contact Sean Murphy at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com.

Stay compliant and we’ll see you in August!

Compliance News in Review, June 16, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dinosaurs roamed the earth again (at least in the land of movie theaters), over the weekend, with the release of the summer’s first big blockbuster, Jurassic World. You’d think after three films, the characters would have learned not to fool with Mother Nature. Apparently not, and considering the $200+ million the film racked up at the box office, we are not tired of watching them make those same mistakes.

It may not involve death, destruction and extinct creatures, but we have our own epic tale to tell. Break out the popcorn and 3D glasses, and silence your phones please. It’s time for this week’s feature presentation – the Compliance News in Review.

Transparency International is undertaking a project of Giganotosaurus proportions. At the International Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress and Best Practices Forum, Executive Director Robert Barrington spoke to attendees about corruption in the healthcare sector and an initiative underway to evaluate corruption in the pharmaceutical industry specifically. The project will focus on five key areas: procurement and distribution, manufacturing, marketing practices, product registration, and research and development. Barrington noted that the industry should prepare for more scrutiny, with patients demanding to know why increased spending has not led to an improvement in the quality of healthcare.

Public Citizen has accused the FDA of improperly expanding the original approved use of a sleep disorder drug, and has filed a petition with the agency to have the label changed. According to the organization, the drug was initially approved for use in treating the disorder, Non-24, in blind patients, however the drug’s label does not specify the patient population. Public Citizen says this opens the door to the drug being used for other sleep disorders with patients that are not blind. Following the initial approval, the FDA did send the manufacturer a second approval letter which stated a mistake was made and the drug was approved for treatment of Non-24 in general. The second letter notes that the condition is experienced almost exclusively by those who are blind.

Could this be another “blockbuster” decision by the FDA? The FDA sent a letter to Amarin Pharmaceuticals and the court in response to Amarin’s lawsuit against the agency for violating its free speech rights. The company would like to share study information showing its drug reduces the risk of heart attack when taken in conjunction with a statin, which is not an approved use. In its response to the lawsuit, the FDA says it does not have concerns with most of the information the company wanted to share, and it does not consider the sharing of that information to be false or misleading. The letter also reminded the company that new guidelines for sharing off-label information are forthcoming.

In our opinion, the letter from the FDA to Amarin is certainly not an invitation for pharmaceutical and medical device companies to start sharing information about unapproved uses of their products. Situations like this, as well decisions like the Caronia case, may lead some to think the rules have changed, when in fact they have not. Training and communication efforts need to emphasize that the laws and regulations remain the same. Promotional statements still need to be truthful, accurate, not misleading and balanced.

The message should be clear – only company approved studies and statements may be shared, and done so in the way described by the company. The way in which companies play the game may be evolving, but the rules of the game remain the same. Playing within those rules benefits all stakeholders, including the company, and most importantly, the patient.

Have a great week everyone!

Compliance News in Review, June 5, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cephalon settles a generics case with the FTC over its sleep disorder drug and the OIG releases its mid-year update to its 2015 Work Plan, and we offer our take on how it impacts training.

Well, the summer blockbuster season is almost here. Superheroes, Sundance darlings, reboots and rom-coms will all be competing for our attention and discretionary dollars (is that a contradiction in terms?). While it may not carry the cache of the newest Clooney or Cruise release, we proudly offer our own little feature for your entertainment and edification…the latest edition of the Compliance News in Review. On with the show!

It’s finally a wrap on the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Cephalon. The FTC settled its pay for delay case with the company (now part of Teva) for $1.2 billion. The case involved Cephalon’s attempts to delay entry of generics for its sleep disorder drug. The settlement is the largest ever secured by the FTC.

The OIG has premiered its mid-year update to its Fiscal 2015 Work Plan. The update includes several new items, one of which is a review of the financial interests reported via Open Payments.

“We will determine the number and nature of financial interests that were reported to CMS under the Open Payments Program. We will also determine the extent to which CMS oversees manufacturers’ and group purchasing organizations’ (GPOs’) compliance with data reporting requirements and whether the required data for physician and teaching hospital payments is accurately and completely displayed in the publicly available database.”

The OIG’s report on its findings is expected during fiscal year 2016. As Policy and Medicine points out, it will be interesting to see what sort of enforcement follows the OIG’s review, and if the information is used by the agency for its other activities involving fraud and abuse. This potential for enforcement involving this data should not be overlooked.

The first full calendar year of data has not even been released to the public yet, and the OIG is jumping right into a review. The agency’s actions underscore the importance of accurate data and the need for training to ensure that accuracy. From those engaging in transactions with covered entities, to those responsible for the reporting on the back end, understanding data collection and reporting requirements is critical. In addition to in-house staff, third-party vendors and partners that may be involved in reportable transactions on a company’s behalf need training on the basic requirements of the Sunshine Act and Open Payments.

Enjoy the weekend everyone, and we’ll see ya at the movies!

Compliance News in Review, May 27, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Legislation nullifying the need to report payments associated with CME moves to the House of Representatives for a vote, a new article in the NEJM offers thought proving insight on the relationship between industry and physicians, and OPDP issues untitled letters to two pharmaceutical manufacturers.

The monotonous strains of Pomp and Circumstance fill the air…graduation season is here! From kindergarten to college, students are donning caps, gowns, cords and stoles in celebration of their academic achievement. If you happen to have a student crossing the graduation stage this spring/summer, congratulations! We hope the commencement address is at least as thought provoking as this one. While you’re sitting there waiting for your loved one’s name to be announced, feel free to fill the time with this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The 21st Century Cures Bill graduates from the House Energy and Commerce Committee and moves on to a vote by the whole House. The legislation aims to improve healthcare through support for research and development and by streamlining regulations. If passed, the law would nullify the requirement for reporting payments associated with CME; require the FDA to provide guidance on the sharing of health economic information; and require the FDA to issue guidance on the sharing of truthful, not misleading scientific information about off-label uses of drugs.

A new article in the New England Journal of Medicine explores the relationship between physicians and the industry. The article suggests the need for a reasoned approach when addressing conflicts of interest. The author acknowledges that conflicts exist, but that there are benefits to the physician industry relationship that shouldn’t be discarded simply because such relationships with industry are perceived as a negative.

Over a period of five days, the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) issued two untitled letters. Until this point, the agency had issued only four letters this year. The first letter, issued to Oak Pharmaceuticals, dealt with misleading statements on an exhibit banner. The statements did not include information about risks or material information about the approved indication of the product. According to OPDP, the only reference to prescribing and safety information on the banner was a directive to talk to a representative at the company’s booth.

The second letter was issued to Actavis over misleading statements on a Watson Pharmaceutical product webpage. The OPDP said the webpage was misleading because it contained unsubstantiated claims. The agency cited a specific marketing statement indicating the drug would help with conditions (sleep disturbance and work productivity) for which there was no evidence in the clinical studies.

When training about promotional speech, life sciences companies often focus on off-label statements, and with good reason. Off-label promotion continues to be a dominant issue in False Claims Act cases. However, other promotional speech issues should not be ignored or forgotten. The OPDP has least one letter every month so far in 2015. Additionally, the agency continues to dedicate considerable resources to educate healthcare providers about its Bad Ad program. That’s why promotional speech training needs to go beyond off-label, and address the need for company representatives to present the benefits and the risks of the products they promote.

Enjoy the week everyone!

Week in Review, May 13, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

European Medicines Agency changes its conflicts of interest policy, ACCME updates its requirements related to the disclosure of commercial support, Siemens may be facing corruption charges in China, Bio-Rad tries to block access to FCPA settlement documents, the FDA schedules a summer session with stakeholders to discuss the topic of off-label, and another pharmaceutical company adopts the First Amendment argument in a fight to promote off-label.

Well, the world welcomed a new royal at the beginning of May, and last week, we even learned the name of the latest little princess, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. A lovely name for a lovely little girl, and a touching tribute to the proud papa’s mother. Of course, if you’re not an Anglophile, you undoubtedly couldn’t care less, so we’ll quickly move on to our own little bundle of joy…the latest version of the Compliance News in Review.

In other news from across the sea, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has made changes to its conflicts of interest policy. The agency will no longer allow individuals with connections to the pharmaceutical industry, or those who know they will be working for the industry, to sit on drug review panels. The previous policy left that decision up to the individual.

The ACCME has issued a royal proclamation updating its requirements for disclosure of commercial support. CME providers will now be allowed to use tabs, hyperlinks, or other electronic means to communicate commercial support to attendees. The ACCME says the move is an effort to “simplify compliance expectations and make them consistent across activity types.” The organization expects learners, as they always have, to receive disclosure information prior to the start of a CME session.

Siemens announced that its healthcare unit’s marketing and business practices are being investigated by Chinese regulators. The company denies media reports that the investigation deals with corruption, and says that it is working with regulators to resolve the matter. A Chinese government website stated that regulators were not investigating the company over bribery concerns. Siemens sells medical equipment and biochemical tests in China.

Bio-Rad raised the drawbridge on a records request from an investor. That investor has now filed a petition to have access to records related to Bio-Rad’s FCPA settlement. In 2014, the company entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ and accepted an Order issued by the SEC to resolve the matter. The investor made a request for records that related to the bribery allegations, but the company said there was no proper purpose for the records and the request did meet certain legal requirements.

The FDA will hold audience with the public during the summer to discuss off-label promotion. The agency says the meeting is being called to discuss the issue with a variety of stakeholders. The industry has been vocal about how the regulations infringe on First Amendment rights and have called on the FDA to relax its regulations. Critics worry that allowing companies to promote off-label will lead to less clinical trials and risks to patient safety.

One drug maker has decided to not wait for that summer meeting to take action. Amarin Pharma has filed suit against the FDA over its ability to share off-label information with physicians. Lawyers representing the company say the company is within its First Amendment Rights to share the information, as long as it is truthful and not misleading. The lawyers believe Amarin is the first company to pre-emptively sue the FDA over the issue. At the center of the suit is the company’s ability to share company-sponsored clinical trial information with doctors. The information indicated that the drug may be helpful for a wider patient population than what was approved. Lawyers for the company say the company knows physicians are already prescribing the drug off-label for a wider patient population, and more information, not less, should be shared with the physicians. A director with the health advocacy group, Public Citizen, says if the suit succeeds, it will undermine the FDA’s drug approval process. The FDA had no comment.

With that news of the on-going battle over off-label, we proclaim this issue of the Compliance News in Review as complete. Clearly, the focus on off-label isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s why we continually update our PharmaCertify eLearning module, On-label Promotion, with the content your representatives need to stay in compliance as they interact with HCPs.

Have a great week everyone!

Week in Review, May 6, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Connecticut delays the implementation date for its the APRN reporting law, CMS releases 2013 Medicare Part D data, the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct is approved, and lawmakers release draft legislation that includes an exclusion for reporting CME payments under Sunshine.

Avengers Assemble! The highly anticipated Avengers: Age of Ultron, opened last weekend and apparently a lot of us assembled for the opening. The film managed to land the second largest opening weekend box office numbers in history. Considering the title holder is the first Avengers movie, coming in second isn’t that much of a loss for the franchise. You won’t find any spoilers here…after all, not all of the Compliance News in Review staff have seen it yet.

The next Avengers movie is slated for 2018, but in the meantime we can look forward to 2017 and the new Guardians of the Galaxy movie…and of course, collecting spend data for APRNs in Connecticut.  The State has once again delayed the implementation date for the law, which requires drug and device manufacturers to report transfers of value to APRNs.

$103 billion: Tony Stark’s net worth or Medicare drug spending? If you answered Medicare drug spending, you are correct. CMS released data revealing the prescriptions that were covered by Medicare Part D in 2013 and the names of the doctors who wrote the scripts. The costliest drug was Nexium at $2.5 billion, and the most prescribed drug was Lisinopril (cost $300M). PhRMA said the data does not reflect the substantial rebates pharmaceutical companies pay to Medicare. The American Medical Association said the data could be misleading because the dose and strength of the medication is not included in the information. Doctors often change the dosage or strength when patients don’t respond as expected.

After extensive negotiations, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has approved Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct. Much to the chagrin of industry critics, the ACCC went along with a change that will impose a $120 spending limit on meals and beverages provided to physicians. The “opt out” loophole has also been removed. The Code goes into effect in mid-May.

Lawmakers introduced a draft legislation “sequel” that includes an exclusion for most payments associated with CME from the Sunshine Act reporting requirements. The move to exclude the requirements was applauded by the head of the CME Coalition. The legislation is part of the larger 21st Century Cures effort, and is a paired down version of a draft that was originally introduced in January. Drug makers would also be able to share health economic information about products with physicians.

With that, we have reached the end of this week’s compliance tale. Speaking of the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct, the new PharmaCertify™ module, Global Transparency: Reporting HCP and HCO Transfers of Value includes up-to-date covering the policy, as well as the EFPIA Disclosure Code and Loi Bertrand in France. Contact Sean Murphy at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com for more information.

Have a great week everyone!

Week in Review, April 27, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Week in Review, April 21, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CMS tries to clarify the Open Payments review and dispute process, GSK considers changing its compensation program, and a Florida pharmaceutical manufacturing company is charges with selling unapproved products.

April showers bring May flowers, or so the saying goes. Well if you live in the southeast or northeast corner of the country, it will apparently be an extra flowery May. Rain, rain and more rain has fallen over a good chunk of the country. While that rain is certainly a good thing, the accompanying flooding isn’t. Luckily, sunny weather is on the way according to the pundits and folks can dry out. As we wait for those flowers dry out enough to bloom, we’ll rain some compliance information down on you in this week’s Compliance News in Review.

The Sunshine is back out over the medical community, but the mood is a little gloomy. CMS held a conference call for reportable recipients under the Sunshine Act to discuss the Open Payments review and dispute process. CMS reiterated its stance, that it will not intervene in disputes, but will be monitoring the process. The agency is particularly interested in the number of disputes that are initiated and how many remain unresolved. Reportable recipients expressed frustration that there was not enough context or consistency among manufacturers in how payments are classified under the “nature of payment.” This makes it difficult for reportable recipients to determine whether a payment is correct. CMS said input from all parties would be required before any changes are made.

The winds of change are blowing for GSK and its sales rep compensation structure…again. A task force has been put in place to examine how to simplify the company’s “Patient First” program. The current program establishes bonuses on factors such as product knowledge and understanding the needs of patients and doctors, rather than prescription numbers. A GSK spokesperson says the company remains committed to their commercial model, and while the company has looked for ways to simplify the program in other countries, the fundamentals of the program remain the same.

There’s been no singing in the rain for Florida based Stratus Pharmaceuticals. The distributor had $1.5 million in unapproved drugs seized by U.S. Marshals. The confiscation of the drugs came at the request of the FDA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern Florida District. According to the FDA, Stratus was marketing and distributing a number of unapproved drugs, including an antibiotic skin cleanser, a topical cream to treat psoriasis and eczema, and a topical ointment for treating wounds. The drugs were manufactured by Sonar Products of New Jersey.

With that, we bring this rain-soaked edition of the News in Review to a close. Remember, if the winds of change are long overdue for your compliance training curriculum, the PharmaCertify™ suite of customizable compliance solutions offers the up-to-date training where your learners need it most – in the field and at their fingertips.

Have a safe (and dry) week everyone!

News Week in Review, April 13, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Spain and Malaysia amend their anticorruption laws, researchers from the NIH say the government rules on paperwork and travel are too complex, and India considers dedicated oversight for medical device.

Golf voices and claps only, please. It’s time to celebrate the greenest spectacle in sports – the Masters. The lush fairways, that somewhat disturbing green jacket and we can’t forget the green ($10M total) won by the top players. This year’s event saw the return of Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus making a career first hole-in-one at the Par 3 tournament, and the record breaking victory by Jason Spieth. Now that the drama is over and the young man from Texas held off the field, it’s time to tee off on this week’s Compliance News in Review.

A pair of countries legislating compliance programs are the first on the tee this week. At the end of March, the Spanish Congress approved amendments to its Criminal Code, which requires companies to adopt a compliance program. The change is effective as of July 1, 2015. According to the law, compliance programs must be supervised by a group or individual that can exercise a high level of control. The law provides a company protection from criminal prosecution when the company’s compliance program when the individuals responsible for the compliance program did not neglect their duties. It also details six element’s that must be included in order for the company to be protected from prosecution.

Malaysia’s Attorney General wants to amend country’s current anticorruption law to address corporate liability. A deputy with the Malaysian Anticorruption Commission (MACC) said the U.K. Bribery Act and FCPA were being used as guidelines for the Malaysian law.

Medical researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would like a mulligan, of sorts, on the paperwork required for travel to attend medical conferences. Researchers say the government’s paperwork and travel approval process is time consuming and is hurting science and it can take up to six months to learn whether they’ve been approved to travel to conferences and meetings. The strict rules were put in place following a scandal involving travel at the General Services Administration. One researcher said he had to turn down a speaking request at a popular conference because the agency has to limit how many individuals it sends to any one event, and he is often passed over as a speaker because conference organizers don’t believe he’ll be able to attend. The NIH spent over $14 million in oversight of travel and expenses in 2014, which was nearly a quarter of its total travel budget for the year.

India is bringing medical device oversight on par with how drugs are regulated. A government task force is recommending a separate regulator be put in place to oversee safety and price controls of diagnostic equipment, implants and hospital equipment. Currently, devices are regulated under the same act as drugs, but both industry and public health advocates have argued that devices are different and should be regulated under different rules.

With that, we put a bow on another year of the “tradition unlike any other,” and another edition of the Compliance News in Reviews. Have a great week everyone, and as you hit the greens this year, remember the words of the late, great Paul Harvey, “golf is a game in which you yell ‘fore,’ shoot six, and write down five.”

Week in Review, April 6, 2015

NXLevel Compliance Team , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

West Virginia repeals its disclosure law, Connecticut modifies its requirements for insurance coverage related to off-label use, two whistleblowers file a suit against Teva, and tighter transparency rules are debated in New Zealand.

Spring has sprung! Woo hoo! Since a number of us “enjoyed” up to 5 inches of snow on the first day official of spring, a break from the drudgery of the bitter temperatures is well-deserved, nay, warranted. The compliance news doesn’t take a break though, so for now, we’ll put our visions of sand castles and sea gulls to the side and focus on all the news fit for blogging, with this week’s Compliance News in Review.

It seems there’s no vacation when it comes to state transparency laws. The governor of West Virginia has approved a bill that will repeal the State’s requirement for pharma companies to report drug advertising and promotion expenses. Expenditures for 2014 are due in April, but the repeal will end the reporting requirement from January 1, 2015 forward. The GOHELP organization has not publicly published advertising expenditures reports since 2010.

Consumers in Connecticut could be getting a break when obtaining medications for off-label uses. A modification to the state’s current law will increase insurance coverage of drugs prescribed for off-label uses. The current law requires off-label coverage if the drug appears in one of three specific medical compendia. Unfortunately, two of the references are no longer published. The revision to the law would require coverage if significant information in peer-reviewed publications support the off-label use.

BioChemics was ordered to pay over $17 million to settle investor fraud charges brought by the SEC. The SEC says the company lied to investors about its research, FDA communications, and status of clinical trials, and provided false valuations for the company. The company collected over $9M from 70 investors. The judgement supplements another judgement against the company’s founder and two promoters from earlier in the month.

Party crashers? A new survey shows securities fraud class action suits against life sciences companies are on the rise. In 2013, there were 19 suits against life science companies. In 2014 that number rose to 39, and represented 23% of all securities fraud cases for the year. Most of the defendants were smaller companies.

Green is the color of spring, and apparently the color of honorarium envelopes at Teva, according to two former sales reps. A whistleblower suit filed against the company claims that Teva engaged in sham consulting arrangements in order to boost prescriptions of Copaxone and Azilect. The two claim that doctors were only allowed to remain speakers for the company if they increased the number of prescriptions written for covered drugs, and that the content of the programs had very little educational value.

The “sunshine” is shining bright in New Zealand, even though they are celebrating the fall season there. In a recent New Zealand Medical Journal article, transparency advocates made an appeal for a U.S. style Sunshine Act. The authors argue that while disclosure requirements are being tightened in other countries, the situation remains “murky” in New Zealand, where doctors receive remuneration for a variety of services, and sponsorship for accommodations and travel to conferences. One of the authors has spoken out about the topic in the past, and has been critical of Medicines New Zealand for its lack of transparency regarding the disclosure of physician payments. While not outright dismissing the idea, Medicines New Zealand has stated that adding disclosure requirements would be complex and require a significant amount of resources.

With that, we close out this spring season edition of the Compliance News in Review. Speaking of sunshine, as transparency requirements grow around the world, the PharmaCertify suite of training solutions offers your learners the content they need to navigate the cloudy world of pharmaceutical compliance reporting regulations.

Have a great week everyone!