Week in Review, September 10, 2014

PhRMA pushes for dismissal of Integrilin off-label case, a recent FCPA settlement reveals a shift in DOJ thinking, European companies are not sure how to handle informed consent with EFPIA, and another organization wants CMS to keep the CME exemption in the Sunshine Act Final Rule.

Cue the heavenly choir; all is right with the world once again. Football season is here! The college season kicked off with some unexpected upsets, unexpected blowouts (Johnny Who? Texas A&M is here to play, y’all!), and even disruptions due to weather. The pros started the season with a kick this past weekend. The next several months are sure to be full of excitement as we get our gridiron on. For now, it’s back to the real world, as we take a look at the latest in compliance-related news with this week’s compliance News in Review.

Kicking off this week edition is PhRMA and its request to a California federal court to dismiss an off-label case on First Amendment grounds. The suit was filed by a whistleblower who alleges the three companies violated the FDCA by using truthful, off-label statements to promote a drug. PhRMA says the claim was nullified through the Supreme Court decisions in Sorrell v. IMS and the U.S. v. Caronia. According to the organization, healthcare professionals need accurate, up-to-date information about uses of medication, and neither the government nor the whistleblower alleged that the information provided about the drug was inaccurate.

The recent Smith and Wesson FCPA settlement reveals a couple of new additions to the government’s playbook, which businesses might want to note. First, the case appears to be signaling a shift in the DOJ and SEC’s focus on “high value targets” to those involving small and mid-size companies. Next, in the charges against Smith and Wesson, the internal controls violations centered on the company’s lack of an adequate compliance program, rather than financial documentation. The government noted that there was a policy prohibiting bribery in place, but the company had no process for ensuring the policy was followed.

A recent article from FCPA Professor lists four attributes of a strong compliance program that can be gleaned from a successful football program. First, understand the playbook. Effectively communicating the playbook is the first step toward becoming a successful team. Likewise, FCPA training should be executable by all employees. He suggests companies don’t need to train employees to be FCPA experts, but rather, provide them with “FCPA goggles” by which they can discern if actions are potentially problematic. Second, execution by all team members is key. More FCPA violations occur from the actions of employees doing the day-to-day work, rather than those in the C-suite or Board. Third is having a flexible playbook. A company needs to take a look at its compliance risks, and manage its own risks, not those of another company. Last but not least, play hard, but not too hard. A business can run into issues (penalties) when it competes too aggressively.

Tackling informed consent in regards to the EFPIA Disclosure Code is proving to be challenging for many companies. Data privacy laws in European countries require that companies obtain consent from healthcare professionals (HCPs) and healthcare organizations (HCOs) prior to publishing any data about transfers of value between the company and HCPs or HCOs. To complicate matters, companies also need to manage consent for direct and indirect payments. At a recent aggregate spend conference, audience members were polled as to how their company planned to handle managing consent. Most of the audience was still unsure of how it would be handled and nearly 20% said their company planned to manage consent directly, as opposed to turning it over to a third party.

The CME Coalition is jumping on the pile with comments regarding CMS’ proposal to eliminate the CME exemption from Sunshine’s Final Rule. The Coalition says the idea of eliminating the exemption is problematic because it requires manufacturers to report payments if they become aware of the identity of the payment recipient(s) within 18 months of the grant. In its comments, the organization suggested that CMS keep an explicit definition as to what constitutes accredited and certified CME, and revise the language in the CMS exclusion to be more specific.

The clock is ticking down on this edition of the Week in Review. We close with the suggestion that if your 2015 compliance training playbook needs refreshing, the PharmaCeritfy™ suite of compliance training solutions offers the eLearning modules and mobile apps you need to prepare your team to compete in today’s regulatory environment.

Have a great week everyone!

Week in Review, August 27, 2014

Another industry organization calls for a change to the Sunshine Act, manufacturers claim data entered into Open Payments is now lost, the Supreme Court is petitioned to review the definition of instrumentality as it pertains to the FCPA, and questions are raised about potential reporting loopholes in the Medicine’s Australia Code of Conduct.

Bananas, fish fingers and custard for all! Doctor Who, season eight, is here! Finally, 12 makes his debut, and we can only hope that he still thinks bow ties and fezzes are cool. And can we just take a moment to thank BBC America for scheduling Doctor Who to run here in the U.S. when it runs on BBC 1? Now we don’t have to spend months trying to avoid news about the show, like we do for Downton Abbey. So let’s jump in the TARDIS and take a journey back in time with this week’s News in Review.

Exterminate! Exterminate! That’s the sentiment of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) regarding CMS’ proposed change to the rule in the Sunshine Act about payments for CME. The Council said the current exemption for payments associated with accredited CME needs to remain in place for several reasons. First, a distinction should be maintained between accredited and certified CME and other educational programs in order to preserve the independence of CME programs. Second, faculty payments should not be subject to reporting because the faculty member’s relationship is with the CME provider, not the manufacturer. Finally, attendees of accredited CME should not be subject to the reporting of payments, because like faculty, attendees have no relationship with the manufacturers providing grants for a program.

Speaking of Sunshine, after Open Payments came back online, drug and device manufacturers reported that payment data once in the system is now gone. CMS says the missing data is due to matching issues. Some of the issues are the result of a data marrying problem that took the system down recently. In other cases, information such as license numbers and names do not exactly match the information in CMS’s database. Policy and Medicine was informed by manufacturers and physicians alike that information that was accurate in Open Payments is now missing. One manufacturer claims all of its clinical research data is now gone. According to the article, the problem could be with the NPPES (National Plan and Provider Enumeration System) database. Portions of New Jersey doctors’ state license numbers were cut off in the database. Also, an analysis last year by the OIG found that almost half of the NPPES records that were inspected contained at least one inaccurate piece of information.

What is instrumentality under the FCPA? We could ask the Inner Council on Gallifrey, but since that is fictional (what!?), the U.S. Supreme Court will have to do. The high court has been petitioned by two individuals convicted of bribery under the FCPA to review a federal appeals court’s definition of an “instrumentality.” The two were convicted of paying kickbacks to employees of a government-owned telecommunications company. The government argued the telecom company was an instrumentality of the government, and the appeals court agreed.

 

Some advocacy groups are already looking for a regeneration of Medicines Australia’s transparency requirements in the latest edition of that group’s Code of Conduct. The Code is pending authorization by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The organizations have petitioned the ACCC to not authorize Medicines Australia’s Code of Conduct based on potential loopholes that will allow physicians to opt out of having their payment information publicly disclosed.

 

Well, that bring us to the end of this week’s episode. Based on the plethora of recent news stories related to Open Payments, the demand for transparency when dealing with HCPs isn’t going away anytime soon. The Sunshine Act: The Federal Physician Spend Disclosure Law, from our PharmaCertify™ suite of customizable online compliance modules, offers the content your team needs to stay abreast of the ramifications and reporting requirements of the law. We even offer a complementary Sunshine Act mobile app to help ensure your reps have the information where they need it most – in the field and at their fingertips.

 

Have a great week everyone!

 

Have a great week everyone!

 

Week in Review, August 19, 2014

The widespread use of DPAs and NPAs in bribery cases raises legal concerns, CMS shuts down Open Payments to correct data problems and subsequently announces it will actually withhold one third of the data until June 2015.

Can you feel it? The air is heavy with despair. It may be faint, but the smell of newly sharpened pencils and mimeograph ink (remember that stuff?) is in the air. It’s back to school time! If you need help figuring out what to buy for Junior’s backpack this year, the trusty editors at Good Housekeeping have created a series of school shopping lists divided by grade level. You may be surprised to see tissues and hand sanitizers on there, along with the staples like pencils and glue sticks. Don’t forget the hand sanitizer and tissues!

To go this year started, we begin with a little reading assignment of our own. Put your thinking caps on class, it’s time for this week’s News Week in Review (and most of this will be on the test).

Corporate Bribery + Prosecution Agreement = End to Case. According to a recent Forbes article, the widespread use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements in bribery cases is troubling from a legal standpoint. Using DPAs and NPAs leads to the charges being untested in court and self-reporting can do more harm than good. The authors argue that companies or individuals are better off fighting untrue or exaggerated claims, rather than opting for the settlement route.

No school year would be complete without a little drama, and thanks to Open Payments we have quite the soap opera to tell. Days after physicians and teaching hospitals were able to access Open Payments to review the data reported about them, at least one physician found that payments from another physician with the same name were showing up on his report. CMS subsequently shutdown the Open Payments portal for physicians and teaching hospitals. The shutdown dragged on for eleven days before the portal was reopened, and so far, so good. CMS extended the review and dispute period for physicians and teaching hospitals to September 8. The public website will still be available on September 30th.

All’s Well that Ends Well, right? No so quicketh, faire reader. The malady was resolved, but hark, hear now cometh a report that all information will be revealed not! (okay, we apologize for the rough attempt at Shakespearean English) CMS has announced that due to data inconsistencies, it will withhold one-third of Sunshine data from the public website. The records are being returned to the submitters to address issues of data intermingling. The data will be released in the June 2015 publication. In addition to clearing up the errant records, CMS replaced a confusing error that appeared when a search yielded no payments for a physician or teaching hospital.

As the bell rings on this edition of the Compliance News Week in Review, we dismiss you with the reminder that the PharmaCertify™ suite of eLearning modules and mobile apps offer the up-to-date information your staff when and where they need it most – in the field and at their fingertips.

Have a great week everyone!

Week in Review, August 5, 2014

Industry groups ask CMS to help clarify context of physician payment data, a study finds most physicians have yet to visit the Open Payments website, another medical device company settles a False Claims case and Senator Grassley weighs in on the concept of a gold standard certification for compliance programs.

The calendar tells us the dog days of summer are upon us. Luckily, some of us have had a bit of a “cold spell” recently, so those dog days haven’t had quite the bite they normally do. As you seek ways to deal with the combined heat of the sun and of the Dog Star (as ancient stargazers may have believed), we offer a cool refreshing break of a different sort, with this week’s Compliance News in Review.

Industry and medical groups are putting the heat on CMS. Over 20 medical associations, PhRMA, and BIO sent a letter to CMS asking how the agency plans to help the public understand the nature and purpose of the physician data that will soon be available through Open Payments. The groups cited the recent release of Medicare Part B payments as an example of why they are concerned about proper context. They claim that context was missing when CMS released the Part B data, causing confusion as to which doctors were abusing the system and which were receiving large payments for legitimate reasons. The letter also asked CMS to reach out to the physicians and make them aware that the data will be published soon. Responding to inquiries from the Wall Street Journal, a CMS spokesperson said the agency plans to publish that nature of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals and provide context for the public.

A majority of physicians are slow to step into the Sunshine according to a new survey. The study found only 7% of physicians have visited the Open Payments website and 85% want to review payment data before it is sent to CMS. 80% want to be informed of the value of items before they accept them. The survey also indicates the majority of physicians are concerned with public perception once the data is published. Physicians seem to be more willing to accept certain payments over others. For example, only 16% of physicians said they would no longer accept meals but, 40% say they will no longer accept gifts. The study also addressed companies’ best practices in aggregate spend systems and global transparency.

On the settlement front, medical device company, Vascular Solutions, agreed to pay $520,000 to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act by promoting its product for an unapproved use. The suit was brought by a former sales rep, and alleged the company promoted a kit for the treatment of veins deep in the leg, rather than varicose veins near the surface of the skin, the use for which it has been approved.

No gold stars for compliance programs says Senator Chuck Grassley. At a House subcommittee meeting on the False Claims Act (FCA), several witnesses referenced a Chamber of Commerce report that proposed a program through which companies could be certified as having a “gold standard” compliance program. Companies achieving the certification would be treated differently under the FCA and requirements for whistleblowers would change. In comments following the meeting, Senator Grassley said he was not in favor of a program that provided such a “get out of jail free card.” Grassley is skeptical about companies self-reporting and he claims having a certified compliance program will not change whether they do or do not self-report.

With that, we close our dog days of summer issue of the Week in Review. Have a great week everyone and we’ll see you by the pool!

News Week in Review, July 29, 2014

Physicians find confusion instead of data on Open Payments, a judge refuses to dismiss the false claims case involving Thalomid, FedEx is facing arraignment this week for shipping illegal drugs, and the SFO is teaming with the Chinese government on the GSK case.

Time to deck the halls and break out the It’s a Wonderful Life DVD. It’s Christmas in July! While the dog days of summer may seem an odd time for sugar plum fairies to be dancing through our heads, we can at least crank the air conditioning, don a really ugly reindeer sweater, and let our imaginations run wild. It’s time to rip the paper and ribbons off this week’s Compliance News in Review.

Some doctors unwrapped a confusing error message when they tried to access information in the Open Payment system last week. July 14th marked the first day physicians and teaching hospitals could access the information that has been reported about them in the system. A number of physicians reported that it took them up to an hour just to log on. Once logged in, some saw a rather ambiguous error message; “You have the following errors on the page. There are no results that match the specified criteria.” Although the physicians were unsure whether this was a bug in the system, or it really meant no payments were in the system, CMS said the message is clear and anyone with questions should call their helpdesk.

The sleigh ride isn’t over yet for Celgene. A federal judge refused to dismiss a false claims case brought against the company by a former salesperson. The case has drawn interest because it raises questions about when manufacturers can discuss the off-label use of products with physicians. According the whistleblower, initial marketing efforts for the drug Thalomid were focused on off-label uses. The company asked for a dismissal, saying the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim. The judge disagreed, saying the plaintiff’s claims did lay out a sufficient case of wrong doing and that Celgene was “belied by its own evidence.”

The director in the charge of the lab where employees were potentially exposed to anthrax has resigned. Lax adherence to safety protocols in the lab led to the possible exposure. Luckily no one fell ill. An investigation into the incident has found that several other labs, some dealing with dangerous germs, were also not following proper safety protocols. CDC chief, Tom Frieden, said disciplinary action will be taken against those intentionally breaching safety protocol, or those who know of safety breaches but do not report them.

One of Santa’s helpers, FedEx, will be arraigned in federal court this week. The company was indicted for shipping drugs for illegal pharmacies. The government claims it repeatedly warned FedEx about shipping drugs for the pharmacies. FedEx says it ships millions of packages and cannot be responsible for policing the contents of each one. The company says it repeatedly asked for a list of shippers involved in shipping illegal prescription drugs, but was never provided one. United Parcel Service signed a non-prosecution agreement last year over similar charges.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Chinese are caroling together in the GSK investigation. SFO chief, David Green, says this is the first cooperative case between the agency and the Chinese government. Green visited China earlier in the year, and said the Chinese government has a desire to deal with bribery and corruption. The SFO’s interest in GSK has expanded beyond the company’s business in China, and the agency is seeking help from whistleblowers regarding reports of bribery in the Middle East and Europe. GSK chief Andrew Witty says he remains “very concerned” about bribery allegations in China.

Even if you didn’t bother to break out the decorations for Christmas in July, planning for the actual, year-end festivities will be here soon after summer ends. And so will, the need to make your 2015 compliance training plans. The PharmaCertify™ suite of commercial compliance training solutions offers the up-to-date modules and mobile apps your staff needs to help them integrate good compliance practices into their daily activities.

Have a great week everyone, and happy holidays!

Week in Review, July 1, 2014

CMS adds two dozen FAQs to the Open Payments website, PhRMA requests an extension to the data submission deadline, and more companies decide to share clinical trial data with researchers through the ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com portal.

Strike up the fife and drums, it’s time for the annual Star Spangled salute to the U.S.A. Independence Day is almost here! In a letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams suggested this day be celebrated with “pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.” The great statesman’s words could not have been more prophetic. As you ponder how to best celebrate our nation’s independence this year, we offer a tradition of our own, this week’s compliance News in Review.

There was an explosion of information on the Open Payments website. CMS recently added over two dozen FAQs to the site. Most of the FAQs deal with Phase 2 data submission and attestation. The questions center on how long it will take CMS to validate submitted data; whether a resubmission of data requires a new attestation; and what the process is for resubmitting corrected data. Other FAQs about data collection, registration, and participation in Open Payments were also added.

PhRMA has sent a declaration of sorts to CMS, requesting an extension to the deadline for Open Payments Phase 2 data submission attestation. In its letter, PhRMA cited the technical issues its members were experiencing with the Open Payments website. The organization claims the problems seem to be occurring most with foreign companies and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. based companies and the CMS helpdesk is not operated during hours that would accommodate European or Asian time zones. Since several manufacturers have not even been able to complete the registration process, PhRMA is asking that the deadline be extended by 30 days. Two other concerns are also addressed in the letter. First, manufacturers do not have the ability to indicate when a manufacturer received a refund on a transfer of value. This is a common occurrence with research grants. Also, manufacturers are unable to use characters such as parentheses and mathematical symbols in the text box for assumptions.

Was last year’s Supreme Court decision concerning pay-for-delay deals the shot heard ‘round the pharma world? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened several new investigations into pay-for-delay deals. In an interview, Markus Meier the head of the FTC’s health-care division, said “Our goal is to bring to an end to this practice by whatever means are available to us.” He did not provide any details regarding the new investigations. The agency is also looking for possible antitrust issues in patent settlements from the last 10 years.

Lilly, Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim are joining the clinical trial data sharing celebration. The companies joined the list of those sharing of patient level clinical trial data through the ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com website. The site provides a secure Internet portal through which researchers can request patient-level anonymized data.

We wrap up this week’s firecracker report with a story from our friends overseas. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) recently launched a website to highlight the disclosure rules associated with the EFPIA Disclosure Code on Transfers of Value to Healthcare Profession and Healthcare Organizations. The agency also released a template for upcoming disclosure reports.

With that, we close out this red, white and blue version of the Week in Review. Have a great week everyone, and an amazing Independence Day!

Week in Review, June 24, 2014

New social media guidance from the FDA has arrived, a new survey points to the need for reps to be comfortable with the science of what they sell, and PhRMA asks CMS for an extension of the data submission deadline.

We have officially, or astronomically anyway, reached summer! The Summer Solstice occurred over the weekend, giving those of us who live in the northern hemisphere the “longest” day of the year. We hope you found a fun and worthwhile way to enjoyed those extra, precious minutes of daylight. While we may slowly be losing daylight from now until the Winter Solstice in December, that doesn’t the party needs to end. We’ll keep the celebration going as we take a look back at the compliance news of the week, with the News in Review.

Two new social media guidance documents from the FDA have finally seen the light of day. One covers the topic of correcting misinformation posted by third parties on the Internet and social media. The document discusses the situations in which the guidance applies; the information that should be included in a response to misinformation; and the type of communication that is outside the scope of the guidance. The other document covers the presentation of risk and benefit information on social media platforms that restrict the number of character spaces. The guidance features examples of how companies can include risk and benefit information in these platforms.

While the limited character guidance was certainly welcomed, companies still need to proceed cautiously with platforms such as Twitter. The guidance does allow for the use of URL shortening services, as well as the use of common abbreviations to help address the character limitations. However, just providing a link to risk information, or posting a follow-up Tweet, is not sufficient for communicating risk.

A new season has dawned for pharmaceutical sales reps according to a recent survey of healthcare company leaders. More than half of the respondents said selling isn’t the most important skill for reps. Today’s products require sales reps be able to hold in-depth scientific conversations with doctors. Evolving technology was also referenced as being a key factor in the changing role of a sales rep.

A former president of the American Medical Association would like to see physicians and industry companies spending time together in the Sunshine. At a recent conference, former AMA president, Jeremy Lazarus, commented that manufacturers need to work with physicians to develop a mutually beneficial relationship when dealing with the requirements of the Sunshine Act. He said many physicians are still unaware of Sunshine, even though information about their relationships with industry companies will soon be publicly accessible.

PhRMA would like to see the Sunshine “extended.” Last week PhRMA sent a letter to CMS suggesting that the June 30 Phase 2 data submission deadline be extended. In the letter, PhRMA said its members are reporting technical problems with the registration process in Open Payments. Companies have also encountered numerous problems when uploading data. The problems are particularly troublesome for foreign entities, and those entities are having issues getting help because the CMS helpdesk does not accommodate European or Asian time zones. PhRMA would like CMS to extend the deadline 30 days once the agency confirms that the glitches have been corrected and the system is operating correctly.

The release of the latest social media guidance by the FDA is a timely reminder that promotional statements must meet certain requirements, regardless of the communication platform. That’s why we are updating the PharmaCertify™ Good Promotional Practices module to include the new information. The module is targeted to sales and marketing staff and topics include gifts, meals and entertainment; promotional statements; advisory boards; and the handling off-label inquiries.

Have a great week everyone!

Compliance Week in Review, June 18, 2014

Comments to CMS show physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are wary about the Sunshine dispute resolution process, the American Medical Association passes a resolution to modify the Act, and Minnesota makes changes to its aggregate spend law.

Well, that was a big weekend. First we had a Friday the 13th to escape and/or celebrate (your choice), and then the big day, Father’s Day. Hopefully, you avoided any unfortunate incidents or questionable neckties. So now here we are on just another plain ol’ day in June. We’ll keep the “party” rolling by taking a look back at some of the big news stories of the past week. Time to for this week’s Compliance News in Review.

Comments received by CMS regarding the Sunshine dispute resolution process show physicians and the industry alike are feeling a bit wary about the future. Physician groups commented that the 60 days to resolution period is too short. It was pointed out that even if a physician submitted a dispute to CMS when the window opens, there is no guarantee CMS will forward the dispute in a timely manner to the manufacturer. In addition, teaching hospitals will need more time to complete their review of the data than an individual physician. The CME Coalition suggested that data publication be delayed until March of 2015. The group said physicians should be allowed more time to deal with discrepancies. On the industry side, PhRMA noted that CMS was correct in allowing manufacturers the ability to determine what disputes will be investigated and resolved.

The “lucky” number for the AMA House of Delegates is 100. During a recent meeting, the House of Delegates passed a resolution to lobby Congress to enact two significant changes to the Sunshine Act. First, the Medical Society of New Jersey (MSNJ) suggested the minimum threshold for reportable transfers of value be raised to $100. The MSNJ said the current threshold is too difficult for the industry and physicians to track. The second change involved the inclusion of medical textbooks and journal articles in the educational items exclusion. The change was suggested by the American Medical Group Association. The passage of the resolution is considered to be a message to the Washington D.C. office of the AMA to work with Congress to institute the changes to the Act.

A new article disputes the argument that conflicts of interest between the industry and physicians result in decisions that are harmful to patients. The authors of the article say the “conflict of interest campaign” has directed resources away from worthwhile medical care and research issues. The authors claim the huge settlements in off-label cases give the impression that patients were in harm’s way, however there is very little evidence that was actually the case. Where publication biases are concerned, the article’s authors say the conflict of interest detractors are asking the wrong question. Detractors focus on whether there are differences in industry-funded studies and studies conducted by non-profits, rather than focusing on whether the studies are scientifically unsound. Removing the assumption that positive results from industry studies are the result of misconduct, no reason exists to assume the studies are scientifically flawed.

Changes have been made to the granddaddy of aggregate spend laws. The Minnesota legislature passed a bill that expands the definition of a practitioner to include APRNs, Medical Assistants and Dental Assistants who are authorized to prescribe, dispense or administer medication. The expansion means these professionals now fall under the state’s gift ban and reporting laws. The Board of Pharmacy suggested companies begin tracking spend related to these professionals since reporting would likely be required in 2015.

To no one’s surprise, the Sunshine Act is still dominating the news. During a recent webinar aimed at physicians and teaching hospitals, CMS said that the dispute resolution period would be in the August/September time frame, but the agency did not offer specific dates. CMS still appears committed to a public release of the data by September 30. However, one of the callers on the webinar pointed out that the September 30th date was not included in the Final Rule and the Rule only states that 2013 data reports will be published in 2014. If CMS pushes the public release back, this would address one of the issues raised in the comments about the dispute resolution process. CMS also said it would not be expanding covered recipients to include mid-level practitioners. That sort of change would have to come from Congress.

There sure was plenty of Sunshine in this week’s news and there are bound to be plenty of Sunshine-related questions from healthcare professionals. The PharmaCertify™ eLearning module, The Sunshine Act: The Federal Physician Spend Disclosure Law, provides your sales representatives to up-to-date training on the Act, and includes a comprehensive list of the disclosure requirements included in the law.

Have a great week everyone!

Week in Review, June 09, 2014

France publishes its first public reports related to physician payments, several companies pay out millions in settlement fines,  medical affairs professionals discuss their changing role in compliance, and Massachusetts releases a notice regarding the reporting of the same spend information required under the Sunshine Act.

Break out the mortarboard and fire up Pomp and Circumstance, it’s that time of year again. has arrived. There’s nothing quite like watching the graduates cross that stage, receive their diploma and bask in the achievement. Here’s hoping they enjoy the moment before they have to face the harsh realities of the next phase of life. (Remember that moment when we realized that “nap time” in first grade did not include a mat? Welcome to the real world!) With that in mind, we proudly present this week’s graduating class…and this week’s compliance News in Review.

A transfer story from France leads our parade of worthy stories. France has published the first public reports of industry transfers of value (TOVs) to healthcare professionals, as required by the French Sunshine Act. To manipulate this database you’ll need to dust off your old French text book, or quickly invest in a Rosetta Stone course, because there is no option to switch to an English (or any other language for that matter) translation. The company information is all .txt files that are practically impossible to read, but if you know some HCPs in France you’d like to search for, that information is slightly more reader friendly…except for the whole being in French thing. Oh well, the information is there for the linguistic and inquisitive among us. According to the folks at Policy and Medicine, there has been little press coverage of the release of the data.

Don’t get to comfortable with the French Sunshine Act though, it appears there may be a major change coming soon. Recently, the Ministry of Social Affairs of Healthcare issued a draft order that would modify some of the regulations. One modification will simplify the details reported about HCP arrangements. Another will lessen the level to which companies need to protect HCP information. Finally, a change to the schedule initially set up to declare the benefits and the conventions has been proposed.

Several industry companies are facing unexpected fees and fines. Medtronic will pay $9.9 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act. According to the government, the company used a variety of payment schemes to induce physicians to use its pacemakers and defibrillators. The company is alleged to have paid physicians to speak at events to increase referral business, created marketing/business development plans for physicians at no cost, and provided sporting event tickets to physicians.

Boehringer Ingleheim has agreed to pay $650 million to settle 4,000 lawsuits involving the drug, Pradaxa. According to a BI spokesperson, the average payout per settlement will be $162,500. Plaintiffs claim the company didn’t adequately warn patients of the risks associated with use of the blood thinner. The company says the drug’s safety has been repeatedly demonstrated, and the settlement does not change the drug plays in patients’ lives.

GSK has agreed to pay $105 million to 44 states and the District of Columbia to settle claims they illegally promoted two antidepressants and an asthma drug. In the agreement with the states, the company agreed to changes in its incentives to sales people, not use paid physicians to promote products, and to refrain from making deceptive or misleading statements in its advertising.

Chicago is throwing its cap in the ring and has filed suit against five manufacturers of highly addictive painkillers. In a suit similar to one filed by several California counties, Chicago is claiming the companies overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks associated with the use of the pain drugs. The suit says the companies violated laws related to consumer fraud, misleading advertising and false claims. In addition to the civil penalties and punitive damages, the city is seeking to reclaim profits associated with the illegal marketing activity.

As the regulatory landscape changes, medical affairs personnel are becoming more important in conversations with HCPs and more involved with health economic and outcomes research (HEOR). Within these two areas, concerns regarding off-label use of products are becoming a hot issue. Speakers at last week’s World Congress said their companies have evolved their policies on responding to unsolicited requests for off-label information. Compliance issues related to HEOR include the nature of the studies used and whether or not the company is providing payers with balanced information regarding the safety and efficacy of products.

Massachusetts has finally moved the tassel on some of its HCP spend reporting requirements. The state recently released a Notice of Federal Preemption, which stated that the Department of Public Health could not require pharmaceutical and med device companies to report the same spend information that is required by the Sunshine Act.

And with that, we bring this week’s ceremony to a resounding close. We wish all of the graduates out there good luck with whatever life holds for them next. Toss those caps in the air everyone and have a great week! We’ll see you right back here next week.

Week in Review, May 27, 2014

CMS prepares for Phase 2 of Open Payments registration, data submission, and attestation; Washington D.C.’s Department of Health announces it will not require the reporting of gift expenses; Roche gets a visit from the State Authority for Industry and Commerce in China; and the FDA evaluates its off-label promotion policies in light of First Amendment cases.

Summer has arrived! Well, not really, but Memorial Day certainly marks the unofficial start of the season. And nothing says summer more than a trip to the beach. Or as our New Jersey staffers like to say, “down the shore.” If you’re struggling to shake the sand off of a memorable weekend at the beach, and refocus on all things compliance, we’ve got just the remedy…this Week’s News in Review.

Break out those beach towels and SPF 70, it’s time to bask in the Sunshine. Phase 2 of Open Payments registration, data submission and attestation will begin on June 1. This phase will occur in two parts, with the first beginning June 1. Applicable manufacturers and GPOs will be able to register in Open Payments; confirm the reporting entity profile; assign roles within the system; and upload test files. Then, beginning June 9, manufacturers will be able to submit final reports and attest to the accuracy of those reports. Companies have until the end of June to complete both parts of Phase 2.

The Sunshine is a little less intense in Washington D.C. The District’s Department of Health will not require pharmaceutical companies to submit gift expenses for physicians and teaching hospitals. For the 2013 reporting year, manufacturers and labelers do need to report physician and teaching hospital gifts provided prior to July 31, 2013. Also, expenses for all other recipients must be reported. Reporting requirements for advertising and aggregate expenses remains the same.

Roche may have found themselves caught up in the wave of bribery investigations in China. The company revealed that China’s State Authority for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) paid a visit to one of its facilities in China. The SAIC is generally the lead agency in bribery cases. Roche said the reasons for the visit were not immediately clear.

Could the FDA be rearranging the beach chairs when it comes to off-label promotion? Recent court decisions have raised issues around the First Amendment and drug promotion, and FDA chief counsel says the agency is taking the “First Amendment concerns very seriously.” The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research chief, Janet Woodcock said, “We are currently carefully evaluating our policies in light of court decisions on First Amendment issues.” While the agency may be revaluating its stance, the DOJ still intends to aggressively pursue off-label cases.

Speaking of the FDA, the agency is planning a study to determine if bargain-hunting consumers weigh price more heavily than other attributes of a drug. The study will show three versions of an ad for a diabetes drug to patients and HCPs. One ad will feature a price comparison between the advertised drug and a competitor, another will feature pricing information only for the advertised drug, and the third version will state the drug’s safety and efficacy profile, and one that will inform the viewers that actual prices may vary. The FDA currently allows manufacturers to include pricing in advertising but very few do.

June 1 not only marks the beginning of Open Payments Phase 2 for manufacturers, it’s also the start date for physicians to register with CMS to access the reported data. This is a critical time for the industry, and keeping your team up to speed on requirements of the Sunshine Act is more important than ever. The PharmaCertify™ module, The Sunshine Act: The Federal Physician Payments Disclosure Law, includes a comprehensive list of the disclosure requirements included in the law and the physician spend information that will be shared with the public.

Have a great week everyone.