HIPAA

Week in Review, March 6, 2015

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

A potential new law in California calls for greater drug pricing transparency, consumer advocacy groups and industry trade groups in Europe argue over clinical trial data transparency, a Maine law allowing the purchase of pharmaceuticals from foreign pharmacies is overruled, and the issue of off-label speech and free speech is back in the news.

In like a lion and out like a lamb; it’s hard to believe March is here. The really good news…spring is almost here as well (although looking at the seven inches of fresh snow outside the Week in Review windows, we find that hard to believe). Whether you subscribe to the meteorological or astronomical start of spring, one way or another it is/will be here this month, and that alone is reason to celebrate! We are on the downward slope of winter, folks and we couldn’t be happier. Another thing that makes us happing is sharing the news of the week with all of you, so let’s spring in to action and get this week’s Week in Review underway!

Nothing says spring like some sunshine, and nothing says sunshine like transparency laws. A California assemblyman has proposed a law that would require the disclosure of information related to the pricing of drugs. The law would apply to drugs costing $10,000 or more for a course of treatment, and companies would have to report information such as production costs, sales and marketing costs, and financial assistance provided through prescription assistance programs. If the law is passed, companies would submit annual reports to the state, and the information would be made available to the public.

Speaking of transparency and disclosure, there seems to be a kerfuffle blooming in Europe over clinical trial data transparency. Proposed rules by the European Medicines Authority (EMA) have prompted comments from industry trade groups and others regarding the confidentiality of commercial information. Industry groups have said certain data related to clinical trials could reveal trade secrets and compromise patient privacy. Consumer advocacy groups insist the more transparency the better in the name of protecting patients. In a press release, a Germany-based advocacy group accused the EMA of writing such a broad definition of commercial confidential information that the determination of what is confidential is left up the study sponsor. Two bio industry trade groups released a statement saying there should be a “deferral” for the disclosing information from Phase I trials due to the “commercial sensitivity” of the information.

Medical device manufacturer, ev3, had to spring for some past promotional issues allegedly committed by one of its recent acquisitions. The company agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. The government claimed Fox Hollow Technologies, which was acquired by ev3, caused hospitals to improperly bill Medicare and Medicaid for medically unnecessary inpatient stays for patients undergoing atherectomies using a Fox Hollow device. The government alleged the company suggested the inpatient procedures in order to drive sales of the device to hospitals, thereby causing hospitals to be reimbursed more than they were entitled.

There’s been a late freeze on the Maine law that allows individuals to purchase prescription drugs from select foreign pharmacies. A federal judge has ruled the Maine law is overruled by federal law, which prohibits importing drugs from foreign countries. The decision nullifies the Maine law. The state can appeal if it chooses.

The seeds are being planted for another free speech case involving off-label statements. A federal district court in California is considering a whistleblower False Claims Act case against Millennium Pharmaceuticals in which the whistleblower claims that Millennium and Schering-Plough (now Merck) promoted a heart drug for off-label uses. In a motion to dismiss, Merck argued that the False Claims Act cannot be interpreted to prohibit the truthful, non-misleading exchange of scientific information. In making the argument, Merck sited both the Sorrell v. IMS Health and U.S. v. Caronia cases. The DOJ filed a brief with the court saying that truthful speech could be used as a basis for the False Claims Act. PhRMA filed a friend of the court brief in support of Merck’s argument.

With that, we end this “almost spring, we hope” edition of the Week in Review. Have a great week everyone!

 

News Week in Review, February 18, 2015

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

Several companies announce settlements of charges related to the False Claims Act, CMS releases new information to help with system registration and data submissions, and the National Coalition on Healthcare holds a lively panel session on the Sunshine Act.

Laissez les bons temps rouler, y’all! The end of the Carnival season is here and yesterday was the big send off…Fat Tuesday! Or as you may know it, Mardi Gras. Yes, a time of frolic, frivolity, and according to Turbo Tax, a number of incidents that can affect the filing of your taxes for the next year. Whether you partied until the wee hours in NOLA, or just enjoyed the simple fun of a pancake dinner at home, we hope it was a great celebration. Now it’s time for our regular look back at some of the “celebrated” compliance news of the week, with this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

We start today’s parade with settlement news for several industry companies. Medtronic agreed to pay $2.9 million to settle allegations it violated the False Claims Act. The government alleges the company caused claims to be submitted to Medicare and Medicaid for an investigational procedure. Next, AstraZeneca paid $7.9 million to settle charges it violated the False Claims Act. The company is alleged to have paid kickbacks to PBM Medco in exchange for Nexium’s “solely and exclusively” being maintained on Medco’s formulary. The government claims the kickbacks were provided as prices concessions on other AstraZeneca drugs. Finally, a physician has pled guilty to accepting kickbacks from two pharmaceutical companies in exchange for prescribing the drug, Clozapine. The physician received nearly $600,000 in kickbacks and benefits from IVAX and later, Teva. He also agreed to pay over $3 million to settle a parallel civil case.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has been busy tossing beads and doubloons to the industry in the form of advice and consultation. Another Open Payments Q&A session was held just this past week, and in advance of the Q&A session, CMS released several new resources covering system registration and data submissions. The agency has also posted the audio from the January Q&A session.

Speaking of the Q&A session, the February session covered a couple of important topics for industry stakeholders. First, it was announced that a fix would occur over the Valentine’s Day/Presidents Day weekend that should resolve most of the problems that companies are having with submission of the 2013 data. On the downside, attendees were notified that the release of the Validated Physician List has been delayed. CMS is hoping to have the list ready by February 20. Those on the call were reminded that this list is only comprised of physicians for whom a 2013 record was submitted. CMS is scheduling a full day to take stakeholder questions. As soon as a date is nailed down, it will be announced on the Open Payments website and via a listserv email.

It wasn’t exactly cause for great celebration, but a recent briefing held by the National Coalition on Healthcare led to the call for expanded requirements under the Sunshine Act. The panel was comprised of individuals from the government, physician groups and the Pew Charitable Trust. A representative from Senator Grassley’s office explained that ultimate goal of the Sunshine Act was to spur an open discussion between patients and their doctors. The founder of PharmedOut, an organization that advocates against pharmaceutical marketing influence in medicine, took the harshest stance, saying the law wasn’t strict enough. She accused companies of seeking out the family and friends of physicians as an avenue for delivering marketing messages, and expressed grave concern about the industry engaging in disease state awareness. Drug samples were a hot topic. A representative from the AMA says there is a gap in transparency where the provision of samples is concerned and he believes providing samples is “misdirected and unsafe.” The founder of PharmedOut agreed, stating that patients should refuse samples and ask for older drugs that have stood the test of time.

That’s about it for the edition of our weekly look back on all the news fit to blog. As we get closer to spring (albeit, slowly for those of us in the Northeast), and the annual POAs are in the rear view mirror, this is as good as time as any to clean up your commercial compliance training. With transparency extending beyond the U.S., shouldn’t your training do the same? The newest addition to our PharmaCertify™ suite of off-the-shelf eLearning modules, Global Transparency: Reporting HCP and HCO Transfers of Value covers the key provisions of the EFPIA Disclosure Code, French Sunshine Act (Loi Bertrand) and the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct. Contact Sean Murphy at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com to learn more and see a content outline.

Have a great week everyone!

News Week in Review, January 26, 2015

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

Senator Warren looks to use pharmaceutical company penalties to support research at the FDA and NIH, a new report reveals that a significant amount of businesses in China pay bribes, a physician lobbies for a Sunshine Act in Scotland, and a bill is introduced in the House to exclude CME and medical texts from Sunshine reporting.

Comedy, drama and just a dash of controversy thrown in for good measure. No, we’re not referring to this year’s Oscar nominations – although one does have to wonder how The Lego Movie was snubbed for Best Animated Picture – we’re talking about the NFL’s annual supreme slugfest, the Super Bowl. This Sunday, millions will park themselves in front of their television sets to see the Patriots and Seahawks fight it out for the Lombardi Trophy (and of course, the cursory trip to Walt Disney World). If you’re ready for a brief respite from the politics of “Deflate-gate,” we offer all the compliance news fit to blog, with this week’s News in Review.

Starting on offense in our first story is Senator Elizabeth Warren. During a conference hosted by a health advocacy group, the Senator said she intends to introduce legislation that will create a fund to support research at the FDA and NIH. The fund, which Warren referred to as a “swear jar” for the industry, would be financed through fines imposed on large pharmaceutical companies that break the law. Fines will only be imposed on companies with at least one blockbuster drug, and would equal 1% of a company’s total profits for each blockbuster drug it sells.

PhRMA quickly lined up on the other side of the ball to oppose the issue. The organization pointed out that the industry spends billions of dollars on research each year and is responsible for 20% of all funding of domestic research. The statement went on to say the work of the NIH is important, but to “siphon funding from the groundbreaking medical research happening in the biopharmaceutical industry will have devastating consequences for patients and society.” Those consequences would ultimately include fewer medicines and loss of jobs.

If you think Deflate-gate is controversial, it doesn’t compare to a recent report that found 35% of businesses in China pay bribes in order to do business in the country. One CEO participating in the research called bribery the “unspoken rule.” The problem is more common in foreign companies than those based on the mainland, and the real estate and construction sectors have the highest instances of bribery. The vast majority of research participants describe bribery in China as a “plague,” and just over 60% of the participants would like to see action taken to stave off the problem. Unfortunately, a third of participants are not optimistic about that happening.

It’s third down and goal for a transparency initiative in Scotland. A physician will have his petition for a Sunshine Act in Scotland heard by the Scottish Parliament for the third time. The physician is petitioning the government to create a law that establishes a searchable database of payments from pharmaceutical companies to National Health Service healthcare workers.

We’re back in the transparency replay booth here in the U.S. as well. A bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to exclude the value of CME and medical texts from reporting, under the Sunshine Act. This is the second go around for the bill in the House.

Well, that’s it for this Super edition of the Compliance News in Review. Whether you’re rooting for the Seahawks or Patriots, or just a great halftime show by Katy Perry, enjoy the game and we’ll see you right back here next week. Have a great week everyone!

2014 Year in Review

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

2015 is upon us! It seems like only yesterday we were posting our 2014 Compliance Year in Review. Time sure does fly! We here at the Compliance News in Review wish you and yours the best for a happy and healthy 2015. But don’t toss out that warm glass of sparkling cider or noisemaker yet. It’s time to take a look back at a year’s worth of news, with the Compliance News Year in Review – 2014 Edition.

Our countdown begins with what had to be the big story of 2014 – the never ending saga of Open Payments and the Sunshine Act. The year began with a two-phase registration and data submission process for Applicable Manufacturers and GPOs. Phase 1 opened in February and Phase 2 was supposed to start in May. As it turned out, Phase 2 was delayed until June and was deployed in two phases itself, and not without some technical difficulty. So much so that PhRMA petitioned CMS to extend Phase 2 by as much as 30 days.

The registration of physicians and the opening of the review and dispute period represented the next big milestones. That’s when the fireworks really started. Physicians had problems registering, and when they could finally view the data, there were significant problems – confusing “error” messages, missing payments, payments attributed incorrectly. CMS took the system down to correct the problems, and extended the review and dispute period to accommodate for the time the system was down. When Open Payments opened back up for physicians, almost one-third of manufacturer records were “missing.” Eventually, CMS said the records were withheld due to data matching problems. A number of issues were identified that caused the data to disappear. The primary offenders appeared to be state license numbers and NPI numbers submitted by manufacturers and GPOs that did not exactly match what CMS had in its database for those identifiers. Despite all the delays and problems, CMS said the September 30th date for making payment records public would stand, minus the withheld records. Those records would be published by June 30 of the next year.

September 30th came, data was published, and all was right with the world, right? Onward to 2015! Not so fast there dear readers. As we all spent time regretting those unfortunate photos taken at the office Christmas party, CMS elves were busy at work. The agency released 68,000 records that were previously withheld, notified users that Open Payments would be unavailable for most of January to allow time for system maintenance, and announced it will be hosting an Open Payments Q&A in early 2015.

Yes, it was a full year of Open Payments fun, but the news surrounding the data was not all CMS had up its transparency sleeve. The agency notified stakeholders that changes were on the way for Sunshine’s Final Rule. The one change that sparked the most debate was the removal of the exemption for payments to physicians speaking at accredited CME events. Medical societies, physician groups and CME providers were staunchly opposed to the change, but it was still made official in October. The change will take effect in 2016 but it may not be the end of the road for the exemption. A bipartisan bill was proposed to exempt indirect CME payments, as well as the value of medical textbooks and reprints.

Other news of note on the transparency front for 2014 included the passage of a law in Connecticut that requires the reporting of industry payments to nurse practitioners; Minnesota making good on the Board of Pharmacy’s notification that payments to nurse practitioners and others would be required in 2015 reports; and the changes in transparency requirements to the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct.

The cork popped on GSK’s bribery woes in 2014. The company was one of several pharmaceutical companies under investigation by the Chinese government for allegations of bribery. The company announced it was investigating potential bribery in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Poland, and Syria. GSK enhanced its compliance efforts in China and fired several employees over failure to adhere to expenses rules. In the fall, it was able to close the book on the Chinese investigation with a fine of close to $500 million dollars. The head of China operations and four other executives were sentenced in the matter, but all had their jail sentences suspended and avoided actual jail time. The head of China operations, a British national, was deported. The company could still face legal action from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office for violating bribery laws.

The FDA resolved it would make the July 2014 deadline for social media guidance, and it actually did! Three draft guidance documents related to social media were published. One document is related to the submission of advertising content, and the other two dealt with actual postings on social media platforms. The guidance on correcting misinformation on social media platforms applies to correcting independent user-generated content, and not content generated by a company, its employees or agents.

The more anticipated document, and the one that drew the most criticism, deals with the posting of information on character-limited platforms, such as Twitter. Some companies feel the FDA has basically restricted them from using character-limited platforms to promote their products due to strict requirements around presenting risk and benefit. The Washington Legal Foundation and the Medical Information Working Group said the guidance infringes upon manufacturers First Amendment rights.

And there you have it, our choices for top stories of 2014. What will be the “big news” of 2015? If we were betting people, we’d put money on Open Payments and Sunshine being the stories that generate the most headlines. With a full year’s worth of spend data hitting the system for the first time, expect more hiccups. Also, a full year’s worth of data is likely to reveal even more issues and have the pundits buzzing. Transparency overseas will likely make news in 2015, as EFPIA member associations and Medicines Australia members begin collecting data for disclosure in 2016.

There was a noticeable lack of big dollar enforcement cases in healthcare fraud and FCPA cases last year. While the DOJ could boast upwards to $2 billion in healthcare fraud recoveries for the 2014 fiscal year, there were no billion or multibillion dollar settlements with life sciences companies. The crystal ball is a little cloudy on that front. Was 2014 the calm before the next storm, or has the season of the multimillion to billion dollar settlements with pharma and med device companies come to an end?

FCPA enforcement actions were in a bit of a lull through at least the first half of 2014 compared to years past. The DOJ ended the year on a big note though, with its Alstom settlement. As far as we’re concerned, it’s been a little too quiet lately where FCPA enforcement is concerned, so we wouldn’t be surprised to see more activity in 2015. Don’t be surprised if we see actions against the handful of pharma companies that were accused of passing bribes in China in 2013.

Whatever 2015 brings, we’ll be writing about it through our weekly Compliance News in Review. Have a great year everyone and as always, thanks for reading!

Week in Review, September 17, 2014

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

A new study reveals surprising information about FDA panelists and their ties to manufacturers seeking regulatory approval, the DOJ files a False Claims suit against a neurosurgeon and a spinal implant company, the FTC accuses two companies of trying to stymie generic competition for Androgel, and a collection of advocacy groups ask CMS for an indirect payments exemption.

Ahoy there mateys! Stand fast, secure the rigging, and let us hear your best “arrr.” Yes, “Talk Like a Pirate Day” is on the horizon. As you prepare to weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen, we strongly recommend you avoid the parrot on the shoulder idea – that didn’t end well for one of the old salts here at the Week in Review offices last year. The big day isn’t until Friday, so we’ll fill the time with this week’s Compliance News in Review.

It’s not the amount of treasure involved, but rather the type of treasure, that may be more influential in the decisions made by FDA panel members when they decide which drugs to recommend for regulatory approval. A recent study found that panelists who have financial ties only to the drug manufacturer seeking approval are 1.5 times more likely to vote favorably for the company than members with no ties. However panelists who have ties to the company seeking approval and its competitors are no more likely to recommend for approval than those panelists who have no ties. Panelists with multiple relationship may not have a sense of loyalty to any one particular manufacturer. In addition, panelists who serve on advisory boards are more likely to approve a drug than panelists who have research or consulting relationships with the manufacturer.

A physician and spinal implant company have found themselves on the wrong end of a hornswaggle claim by the Department of Justice. The agency has filed a False Claims Act suit against a Michigan neurosurgeon, as well as spinal implant company, Reliance Medical Systems, and two of its distributorships. The company is accused of paying kickbacks through physician-owned distributorships (PODs). The government alleges that the company set up the PODs to induce physicians to use its spinal implants. The physician involved received payments through a POD in which he had an ownership stake. He is also accused of performing unnecessary procedures on patients who did not need spinal implants.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is suing Abbvie and Besins Healthcare for running a rig and trying to prevent generic competition for the product Androgel. The agency claims the companies filed baseless patent infringement lawsuits in an effort to prevent potential generic competitors from entering the market. While the lawsuits were pending, Abbvie then entered into a pay-for-delay deal with Teva in order to postpone the launch of its generic version of the product. The FTC is asking the court to declare that Abbvie and Besins Healthcare violated the Federal Trade Act, and is seeking disgorgement of profits.

The mutiny against indirect payment disclosures under Sunshine continues to grow. A collection of 64 patient advocacy groups sent a letter to CMS requesting an exemption for indirect payments to the groups. The letter claims drug and device manufacturers have no discretion on how funds provided to patient advocacy groups are directed. It also suggests that the process of determining how a manufacturer’s funds are allocated places an unnecessary administrative burden on the groups.

As we heave to on this week’s journey into the world of compliance, we end with a question: arrr your sales representatives prepared with the up-to-date content on topics like the Sunshine Act, HIPAA, and Good Promotional Practices? The PharmaCertify™ suite of solutions offers your team compliance-focused information where and when they need it most – in the field and at their fingertips.

Have a great rest of the week everyone.

Week in Review, August 27, 2014

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

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, June 09, 2014

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

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

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

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.

Week in Review, May 20, 2014

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

A new survey shows that calls to company hotlines are on the rise and a U.S. Appellate Court looks to clarify the meaning of a key term in FCPA cases.

It’s time to dust off that picnic blanket and dig the stadium chair out of the back of the closet…summer concert season is about to kick off. From county festivals to stadium shows, acts ranging from big bands to Buffet will soon be filling the warm air with the sounds of summer. Whether your tastes tend toward rock or Rachmaninoff, you’re bound to find a sound that soothes your soul again this year. While you ponder your live summer playlist, we’ll strike up the band with the compliance news you need to know for this week, with the Week in Review.

Are whistleblowers turning it up to eleven? A recent survey conducted by the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) and the Heath Care Compliance Association (HCCA) found that reports to company hotlines are on the rise. According to the survey, 37% of compliance officers say they have seen a rise in reports to hotlines and another 51% say the rate of reports remains steady. In publicly traded companies, the rise is more pronounced, with 56% of compliance officers reporting an increase in hotline calls. The CEO of SCCE and HCCA says the rise is good news, and points to employees’ willingness to come forward as evidence that their concerns will be heard objectively.

GSK, the first industry company called out in last summer’s bribery accusation parade, faced the music during a press conference this past week. The Chinese police accused the former head of GSK’s operations in China, Mark Reilly, of telling employees to pay bribes to doctors and hospitals in order increase sales. According to the police, the bribery led to higher drug prices and illegal revenue in excess of $150 million. Two other GSK executives were also accused of being involved in orchestrating the bribery scheme. The company said it was continuing to cooperate with the investigation and legal experts say the accusations against Mr. Reilly may cause some companies to rethink their investment in China.

And just when GSK thought the news in China couldn’t get worse, here comes an encore. The company is now accused of tax evasion in a Chinese legal newspaper. According to the publication, which is run by the government, the company failed to pay import duties and taxes for an HIV product between 2005 and 2008. GSK has not issued a comment.

Could an Appellate Court’s decision in an FCPA case be music to the ears of prosecutors, defense teams and companies alike? In a closely followed case, the court provided a definition of the word “instrumentality” as it pertains to who qualifies as a foreign official under the FCPA. The case hinged on that definition. The court wrote that an instrumentality is, “an entity controlled by the government of a foreign country that performs a function the controlling government treats as its own.” The court went on to say that the facts of a case will determine what constitutes “control” and a “function the government treats as its own,” but did suggest there are certain factors for judges and juries to consider, such as whether the government has a controlling interest in the entity, or the ability to hire and fire the principals.

Well, that just about brings us to the end of this week’s performance. Obviously, the sound of settlements and investigations continues to fill the airwaves. Now, more than ever, the PharmaCertify™ eLearning modules, Commercial Compliance Overview and Good Promotional Practices offer a perfectly harmonized solution to compliance training challenges. Compliance Overview presents a comprehensive introduction to the critical commercial topics all employees need to understand, while Good Promotional Practices targets those in the field, highlighting the policies and best practices related to product promotion and HCP interactions.

Have a great week everyone and rock on!

Week in Review, May 13, 2014

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

CMS posts help for applicable manufacturers to prepare for Phase 2, Maine’s Pharmacy Board questions the validity of an Internet pharmacy, the OIG asks Boston Scientific about two of its products, and Brazil fines Eli Lilly for manufacturing violations.

We’re not sure how it happened, but somehow, nearly half the month of May has passed with us not realizing that this is Barbeque (or Barbecue if you prefer) Month. And if you thought (insert your favorite sports rivalry here) was a topic that could fire up a heated conversation, just mention proper barbecuing techniques. Pork versus beef, sauce versus no sauce (we won’t even open up the type of sauce can of worms), dry rub versus wet rub…it’s all a point of contention and fierce debate. So break out the brisket and make your plans to celebrate Barbecue/Barbeque Month while we fire up this week’s Compliance News in Review.

CMS is getting the coals all nice and hot for Phase 2 of the Open Payments data submission process. The agency announced that it will post a series of tutorials to help applicable manufacturers and GPOs prepare for Phase 2. The first of three tutorials is available now on the Open Payments website. CMS also announced that physicians and teaching hospitals will be able to register in CMS’ Enterprise Portal beginning June 1. Registration is not necessarily required for physicians or teaching hospitals, but it is needed if anyone from those institutions wants to see their Open Payments data.

The Maine Pharmacy Board is asking the Attorney General to apply some direct heat to an Internet pharmacy that has been advertising inexpensive drugs in the state. The president of Maine Pharmacy Association filed a complaint with the Board, saying the online drug seller wasn’t a licensed pharmacy. He says he ordered three medications from the company and all were made outside of Canada.

Is there a secret sauce for determining fair market value (FMV) rates in emerging markets? It certainly can get complicated in a constantly changing global economy. In an article for Policy and Medicine, Mario Prohasky, of Polaris, suggests companies should update their FMV rates when macroeconomic changes occur. For example, when an annual inflation rate exceeds 10% to 15%, or a local currency experiences a devaluation of 20% or more, a company should re-evaluate its FMV rates.

HHS is asking Boston Scientific to carve out a little information related to one of its products. In a regulatory filing, the company revealed that the OIG has asked for information regarding the 2008 launch of two of its defibrillators.

On the physician spend front, the total cost of payments to physicians and hospitals in Massachusetts dropped between 2011 and 2012. While recently released data shows a 12% drop in the total amount of payments, the number of payments actually increased. This can be credited to the change in the Massachusetts law that allows companies to provide modest meals. Spending on food (barbecue and otherwise) was up 65%.

Eli Lilly is disputing the ingredients it’s been accused of using at one of its manufacturing plants. The company was fined $450 million by a Brazilian court for allegedly exposing employees to hazardous materials at the plant. Lilly is appealing the decision, saying the chemicals to which the plaintiffs claim they were exposed were not used in manufacturing. Lilly also claims the court’s ruling is based on bad math and “inaccurate scientific claims.”

And with that, we bring this week’s feast of compliance news to a close. If you’re wondering if your compliance training curriculum offers the right list of ingredients, the PharmaCertify™ suite of eLearning modules and mobile apps offers comprehensive and up-to-date training on the regulations and policies your learners need to understand as they interact with healthcare professionals.

Have a great week everyone!