pharmaceutical compliance

The 2015 Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress: A Review

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

The Sixteenth Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Compliance Congress, in Washington DC, featured legislators and industry leaders discussing hot topics and best practices to a diverse and rapt audience of compliance professionals.

Annual OIG Update from Mary Riordan

The opening plenary session kicked off with the annual OIG Update, from Mary Riordan, Senior Counsel, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. In addition to her usual review of recent settlements actions (False Claims and otherwise), and the OIG’s Fiscal Year 2015 Work Plan, Riordan focused on the responsibilities of boards of directors in company compliance functions, and urged the audience to use the OIG’s April 2015 Practical Guidance for Healthcare Governing Boards on Compliance Oversight as a starting point for those expectations. Staying on the topic of board responsibility, she pointed out that prior to her appearance at the conference, Millennium Health LLC had entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement that requires the company to maintain a majority of independent (non-executive and non-family) directors as part of the settlement.

When stressing that kickback concerns continue in the industry and for her agency, Riordan suggested that attendees “think about the kickback risks associated with financial relationships and strive to identify the relationships that would implicate risks.” What controls are in place? Are those controls meaningful and effective? She emphasized that the OIG was there to help and their goal is “not to collect penalties, rather, it is to encourage companies to comply.”

She also focused on individual accountability and reminded the audience that “individual accountability at all levels of organizations is under fresh scrutiny as the OIG tries to identify individuals responsible for misconduct.”

AUSA Panel

The Assistant US Attorney’s (AUSA) Panel followed with Charlene Keller Fullmer from the US Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, Jeffrey Steger from the Civil Division of the DOJ, and Kristen Williams from the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, presenting their views on the direction of compliance enforcement. Keller Fullmer said her office continues to see off-label cases focused on kickbacks, particularly with small companies and medical device companies. She pointed out that with smaller companies, pinpointing a paper trail is an easier and less cumbersome process than it is with the larger companies. Following up on Mary Riordan’s comments, she also suggested a review of recent CIAs, and their emphasis on individual accountability.

Williams recited her office’s mantra of “come in, come early, and come often” when discussing how companies should react to an investigation. Demonstrating a robust approach to compliance is critical when she evaluates a compliance program. She recommends a proactive approach, one in which a company responds to issues, before those issues even arise in that company.

For Steger, the key to a successful compliance program is one that involves more than just compliance personnel (a theme throughout the conference). Is compliance part of the company’s culture? Has the company taken proactive steps to initiate and invite feedback, e.g., an 800 number compliance tip line?

FBI’s New Focus on FCPA Investigations

The next plenary presentation was a bit of a twist on the usual agenda, as Jeffrey S. Sallet, National Chief of Public Corruption and Civil Rights for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offered the update on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) from the Bureau’s perspective. The focus was on a “five pillars” approach to successful enforcement and according to Agent Sallet, only through a partnership with the public, industry, and other governmental agencies like the SEC, DOJ, and IRS, can the FBI be successful in its goals to encourage a global culture of compliance.

Agent Sallet’s enthusiasm and energy was a tough act to follow and after a break, Thomas Abrams, Director, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, Food and Drug Administration followed up with his annual FDA-Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) update. As per usual, Abrams presented a plethora of notes and comments describing the FDA’s efforts over the last year, a high-level review of the document and advertisement submission process and summaries of guidance released and/or updated by his office. These include the 2014 guidance documents on the use of social media.

Abrams closed with a great example of a sales aid that spurred a warning letter from his office. The product being promoted was contraindicated for children under 6 year of age, but the aid included an image of a very young child in its montage of images, and it included no risk information. Seeing such a clear violation provided a concrete and powerful case for why companies need to take the OPDP’s guidance seriously, and regularly test the process for submitting samples through the agency’s email dedicated to that process – ESUB@fda.hhs.gov.

Chief Compliance Officer Roundtable

Following the FDA presentation, a Chief Compliance Officer Roundtable focused on the evolution of compliance programs following the expiration of Corporate Integrity Agreements. CCOs from an array of pharmaceutical companies agreed that while the end of the CIA did not cause drastic changes in their programs, it afforded them the opportunity to expand how they approached topics like training.

One panelist began by stating that on Day 1 following the expiration, there were no public displays and no celebrations, saying “it was business as usual.”

Another panelist recalled that her department was relieved that they could now think beyond four hours of online training and include “short spurts of training throughout the year.” When asked about tracking that training, the panelist admitted that doing so was sometimes a challenge, but the organization was able to “focus on getting back to their true purpose, educating the learners.”

A third panelist brought up the topic of policies and how the shift to a post-CIA environment gave them an opportunity to survey the full staff for thoughts on what works best in compliance polies and subsequently revamp those policies based on that feedback. The company even hired a creative agency to help them create documents that presented policy content in a more graphical and engaging fashion.

The fourth panelist emphasized the importance of developing a risk assessment model and addressing risk-based needs accordingly. Others agreed, emphasizing that they are now using data analytics gathered during the CIA to address those risks.

FCPA Anticorruption Panel

Day 1 closed with a unique twist on the standard presentations, as a panel of in-house and outside attorneys discussed the FCPA through the lens of a hypothetical case. The structure offered a relief from the standard didactic approach to the content, with moderator, Gary Giampetruzzi, Partner at Paul Hastings, guiding panelists through the scenario.

The scenario was structured and branched in a manner that allowed for gray areas and debate as to the best resolution for each question. As an example, when discussing whether post CIA, the Compliance department should be moved back into the Legal department, one panelist avoided what may have seemed the obvious answer of “no,” and stressed that combining the two would be okay if Compliance still had independence despite the structure. An attorney on the panel agreed, especially in terms of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, having that independent voice is the key.

US DOJ Civil Section Update

Day 2 started early, with an 8:15 AM update on the DOJ Civil Section from Benjamin Mizer, head of the agency’s civil division. Mizer discussed the growth in qui tam civil cases (FY 2014 saw 469 healthcare-related cases) and presented compelling statistics on the cases involving rewards to relators. In a comment that was prevalent throughout the conference, he reminded the audience of the government’s use of data to expedite investigations and make a decision as to whether or not to proceed.

Update from CMS on Open Payments

The highly-anticipated presentation from Douglas Brown of CMS didn’t disappoint attendees interested in learning details around the data collected and the updates/improvements to the Open Payments system. Brown pointed out that covered recipients with higher counts of payments records were more likely to review and dispute transfers of value, and there were just over 30,000 disputes, equally divided across teaching hospitals, physicians and principal investigators.

On the enhancements front, the agency is focusing on eliminating the character limitations in the system, so email addresses won’t be blocked. The ability to download reported records will also be enhanced to include dispute information and recipients will have the ability to exchange contact information with the reporting entity to further facilitate the review and dispute process.

After providing the audience with a number of reminders, (e.g., device names are now required on submissions, and TOVs to physician-owned distributors are considered indirect payments and must be reported), Brown informed the attendees that the next Open Payments Open Session Webinar is scheduled for Thursday, October 29th.

Qui Tam Panel

The Qui Tam Panel started with Jillian Estes of James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, PA, reviewing her recent representation of a relator who worked undercover seven years in a pharmaceutical company investigation. Estes used the case to describe who she considered the ideal relator – a principle driven person with a fearless mindset, who is willing to suffer the consequences of a whistle blower. The individual needs to be realistic in expectation and understand that the process is a long one, usually 3-5 years.

Joseph Trautwein, of Joseph Trautwein & Associates LLC, made it clear that the reason potential relators come to him is because they went to their employers first and the situation was not corrected. The panel listed the characteristics of a good whistleblower case:

  • A lie took place
  • A party benefits form the lie
  • The scheme can be easily explained to the government
  • There is enough evidence of misconduct that the complaint will survive a motion to dismiss
  • There is proof of damages
  • It’s a “good story”

Off-Label Communications and the First Amendment

In the final plenary session of the morning, Paul Kalb of Sidley Austin LLP, delved into the Amarin and Pacira lawsuits, whereby the companies presented the argument that criminalizing off-label promotion when it is used to communicate truthful information is unconstitutional. Kalb reviewed the potential ramifications of those cases and closed with the reminder the proverbial jury is still out on how on-going cases will be settled. Based on recent rulings though, we are fast approaching a fork in the road in this core and critical compliance issue.

Mini-Summit: Evaluating Compliance Program Effectiveness

Among the first series of “Mini Summit” breakout sessions, I chose to attend the Evaluating Compliance Program Effectiveness – Board Responsibilities, Board Advisors, and Compliance Experts panel discussion and Q&A.

The first panelist indicated that a good starting point for evaluation of the program is how the company manages high-risk third parties. Are there strong and effective controls in place for third-parties doing business on behalf of the company? Another stressed the need to have outside counsel involved in the program to provide an outsider’s view on the process and the program. A third panelist felt strongly that having people with different backgrounds on the compliance team is important. He also suggested that attendees look at the OIG’s recent guidance for board oversight of the program. “The board needs to demand frequent dialogue,” he said. Another felt that board members have a responsibility to ask questions, review the data, and speak up.

When evaluating training, one panelist emphasized the power of employee surveys to assess whether all participants understood the content of the training. When an audience member asked whether those surveys should be broad or targeted, that panelist said it depends on how each company operates and another added that at his company, they survey the entire employee population.

One panelist also warned the audience about the risk of getting too comfortable in their policies and procedures. New people coming into the company may be coming from a different industry, and may not have had orientation to a compliance program. “Be ahead of the curve,” he said, “when decisions like Amarin come down, you need to be having a conversation.” A fellow speaker followed with the need for an interaction between compliance and the businesses. “It’s important to vet your compliance procedures with the business owners,” he said.

Mini-Summit: Managing Multi-national HCP Meetings

In the Managing Multi-national HCP Meetings: Complying with the Codes and Transparency Requirements session, a panel from around the world discussing the codes and laws relevant to their particular regions.

One industry executive discussed the challenge of holding meetings with physicians from around the world, who each bring their own set of rules from his or her home country. For example, when holding an advisory board with multinational participants, how should meal limits be addressed when those limits vary? The company establishes ground rules but allows common sense to prevail – for example if a limit is slightly above the physician’s home limit, allowing the meals may be a more realistic approach. The executive added that it’s important to create a list of approved meeting places in each country and to train travel agencies on that list.

Hwa-Soo Chung of the Kim & Chang Law Firm in Seoul, South Korea, reviewed the rules in her country, where practices are driven by industry codes with strict limits on speaker meetings no matter where the meeting is held. That severely restricts how much companies around the world can invite Korean doctors to their meetings.

According to Yuet Ming Tham, of Sidley Austin and former Asia-Pacific Compliance Director for Pfizer, “the biggest risks are Korea and China.” The companies she works with will go for lowest meal limit among the group of physicians. In terms of content, companies should always follow the rules of where the meeting is taking place.

Summary

The Sixteenth Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Compliance Congress managed to deliver new perspective and debate on the topics facing the life sciences compliance industry, despite what some attendees described as a lack of new guidance, news or government policies in recent months. Each day of the conference was filled wall-to-wall with the type of keynote speeches, panel discussions and networking opportunities both experienced professionals, and newcomers to the field, need to consider as they strive to create and maintain compelling and effective compliance programs.

Thanks for reading,

Sean Murphy

About NXLevel Solutions

Through its PharmaCertify™ division, NXLevel Solutions helps life science companies build positive compliance cultures and reduce risk through innovative training and communication solutions. Our newest tool, TOVdisclosure.com, is a streamlined and intuitive site that enables manufacturers to share payments information with HCPs and HCOs before data is reported to CMS or other authorities. Contact us or visit TOVdisclosure.com for more information.

CBI’s 9th Annual Forum on Transparency and Aggregate Spend: A Review

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

CBI’s recent Forum on Transparency and Aggregate Spend covered a variety of topics affecting the collection and reporting of aggregate spend data. The conference featured speakers from industry, government agencies, and service providers sharing lessons learned and best practices related to aggregate spend collection and data disclosure.

After a day of pre-conference workshops, the main conference began on Day Two, and it started with a bang. The keynote address, An Update on Open Payments Reporting, was delivered by Doug Brown, CMS Group Director, Data Sharing and Partnership Group, Center for Program Integrity. Mr. Brown shared statistics on the data submitted for the 2014 reporting year. 11.4 million records were received, covering 600,000 individual physicians. In a vast improvement over the previous year, 98% of submitted records were accepted. Brown attributed this improvement to the introduction of the validated physicians list (VPL) and better data matching. An analysis of rejected records is underway, and CMS is looking for ways to improve the taxonomies associated with covered recipients.

During the review and dispute period, CMS received 30,000 disputes on 25,000 unique records. The disputes were evenly distributed among the covered recipient type, with physicians representing 35% of disputes, teaching hospitals 38% and principal investigators 27%. According to Brown, disputes were evenly split between the general and research payments reports. Very few disputes were lodged against payments reported on the ownership report. The median value of total payments is 4.5 times greater for registered physicians versus unregistered physicians.

Brown also shared information regarding the anticipated enhancements to the Open Payments system. The restrictions around special characters in the text fields will be removed (cue the heavenly choir). CMS is also working to better facilitate the review and dispute process. According to Brown, many of the disputes were not true disputes, but could better be classified as inquiries. CMS is working to provide a method for distinguishing between a payment inquiry and a payment dispute. The agency is also working to enhance the ability for manufacturers to download their data from the site, regardless of the file size, and it hopes to extend this capability to covered recipients as well.

Brown reminded the group that new de minimums payment information and the list of teaching hospitals will be released on October 1st. CMS is planning more Q&A teleconferences in the future. Speaking of which, during the Q&A period following the presentation, Brown was asked about having a moderator on teleconferences to alleviate the “wild west” that currently exists when the call opens up for participant questions. He said that was something he would absolutely consider, but he prefers the conversational style of the current format.

William Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Jacob Elberg, Chief, Healthcare and Government Fraud Unit, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, also presented on behalf of the government. They discussed current trends in government enforcement. Mr. Killian said emerging enforcement trends in his and other offices involved fraud related to Medicare Part D, lab services, hospital services and hospice care. He noted that the civil and criminal prosecutors are often involved in parallel prosecutions. Mr. Elberg referenced a continuing trend in his office involving the prosecution of kickback cases. He said those cases are typically at the individual practitioner level, and occur locally or globally. Cases that involve activities outside the U.S. can implicate the FCPA and his office shares information with FCPA fraud units. Elberg also discussed other continuing trends involving FDCA prosecutions, including those involving off-label promotion and cGMP violations.

Rounding out the “law-focused” presentations for the day was a presentation about state laws by Brian Bohnenkamp of King & Spalding. Mr. Bohnenkamp led off by discussing federal pre-emption and how it relates to state reporting. He noted that there are times where the reportable items under federal law are not reportable under state law (and vice versa), and reminded the audience of the criteria for pre-emption under the Sunshine Act. He suggested that decisions on whether pre-emption should be applied to a particular payment should be made on a case-by-case basis. He also noted that they are seeing more companies take advantage of federal pre-emption in reporting under state laws, and used the example that a number of companies did not have anything to report under Minnesota’s law due to that pre-emption. Bohnenkemp also highlighted the recent exemption in D.C.’s detailer licensing requirement for individuals who are involved in detailing for “less than 30 consecutive days per calendar year,” and he reviewed prescription drug pricing transparency proposals in a handful of states – one example being Massachusetts, which still had not provided guidance about quarterly meal reports reported under that state’s law.

The majority of the rest of the Day Two sessions focused on data and processes directly related to interacting with the Open Payments system. Sessions and panel discussions covered topics such as leveraging the data within the organization; using data to minimize compliance risk; and remediating data and the data attestation in Open Payments. Two key themes emerged: 1. Clean data is key (the garbage in garbage out idea) and 2. Communication with the organization and those outside the organization (your vendors and physicians) about the data is critical.

A number of speakers and panelists in the sessions stressed the importance of consistency in names, addresses, and format for physician ID numbers across the various in-house and vendor systems that house spend data. A periodic review of the data is an important best practice to deal with any issues along the way. Most panelists and speakers felt that a quarterly review was an achievable goal. More frequent reviews would be ideal, but could prove a challenge for companies with fewer resources. In addition, companies should engage the business early and often about what the data reveals and how that information can be leveraged to reduce risk and impact sales. Communication with physicians in advance of the CMS review and dispute period was recommended. This does not necessarily mean disclosing all the data, nor pre-disclosing to every physician about whom you have data. Setting a minimum TOV threshold for pre-disclosure, or pre-disclosing only to select KOLs were suggested as means of making the pre-disclosure beneficial to both the physician and the company.

Speaking of physicians, Day Two included a panel discussion moderated by PhRMA Executive Vice President and General Counsel, John Murphy, on the physician’s perspective of Open Payments. Panelists included Dr. Maya Babu of the Mayo Clinic and AMA Board of Trustees member, and Dr. David Barbe, former Chair and current member of the AMA Board of Trustees. The panelists said the main concerns of physicians are centered on the potential for bad data being presented to public, the ability for physicians to access the data, the implications of the data, and the impact the Open Payments program will have on relationships with the industry. While there have been improvements in the registration process, there are still issues with access, specifically, problems with particular browsers being able to access the site. The panelists felt strongly that being able to access the data through a site set up by the manufacturer would be helpful, or even having a sales rep provide the data personally.

The United States certainly hasn’t cornered the market on physician spend transparency. Global transparency was addressed on Day Two, predominately in a discussion group at the end of the day. On Day Three an entire morning track was dedicated to issues related to global transparency. The featured presentation (and highlight of the conference) was an address by Andrew Powrie-Smith, Director of Communication for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

Mr. Powrie-Smith briefly covered the nuts and bolts of the EFPIA Disclosure Code before turning to a discussion of transparency in general. The industry believes transparency is about demonstrating that there is value in the collaboration between industry and healthcare professionals/organizations, which ultimately delivers better patient care. However, being transparent is not without its challenges. Primarily, with the exception of countries, such as France, where there are physician spend disclosure laws, managing transparency efforts in face of the EU privacy laws is challenging. The EFPIA Disclosure Code requires the disclosure of certain transfers of value at the individual practitioner level, and requires that disclosure to be made available to the public. In order to meet these requirements, companies must obtain consent from physicians to disclose private information about them. Further complicating the matter is that even if consent is given, it can be revoked at any time.

Mr. Powrie-Smith said EFPIA is currently conducting a survey regarding the industry stance on obtaining the necessary consents for disclosure of transfers of value at the individual level. Thus far, EFPIA has seen a large variance in the rate of consent across Europe. A culture shift is necessary to address the variance and the industry must take a leadership role in that shift.

The concept of gaining and managing consent was emphasized in other presentations as well. Representatives from BMI Systems shared data on the rates of consent presented by various pharmaceutical industry trade organizations at an EFPIA meeting in May. In Germany, the consent rate was 50-55%, and the industry trade organization in the country said that was about what they expected for the first year. Poland’s trade organization noted in March they were at a 20% consent rate, and Spain’s trade organization reports only a 10% consent rate. Representatives from IMS Health dug into issues with gaining consent as well. They discussed how codes and laws differed from country to country, specifically regarding the timelines for obtaining consent (e.g., at time of contract, or at any time during the reporting period); the scope of the consent (e.g., per activity type, per contract); from whom consent is required (e.g., HCPs or HCOs); and required consent documentation (paper or digital).

The 9th Annual Forum on Aggregate Spend and Transparency offered useful information for any attendee responsible for data collection, report submission, or analytics inside or outside the U.S. Beyond the nuts and bolts of aggregate spend, the presentations focused on the value of the data for the organization and the physician. Data provides insight for commercial teams and their programs, and the compliance risks for the company. Most importantly, as communicated by Andrew Powrie-Smith, transparency around spend data is important, because it reveals the benefits of the industry/HCP relationship to patients, payers and the public.

 

News in Review, August 11, 2015

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

Industry support of CME increases in 2014,  NuVasive settles False Claims charges while Mead Johnson deals with FCPA charges, and Amarin wins a preliminary injunction in its off-label case against the FDA.

The dog days of summer have certainly arrived in most of the U.S. with temperatures that are best described as hot, hot, hot! Thanks to Willis Carrier and his wonderful invention, we can at least find occasional respite from the sun’s rays and the humidity. So while you wait for a break in the heatwave, crank the A/C up a few notches, grab a cool beverage, and just chill with this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

According to a report from the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), industry support of CME increased 2.4% in 2014. According to the report, industry support represented about a quarter of all CME revenue in 2014, whereas in 2007, that support was closer to half (46%) of CME revenue. Physician attendance at CME dropped by just over one percent, but non-physician attendance rose six percent.

The heat is off for NuVasive now that it has settled with the DOJ. The company has agreed to pay $13.5 million to settle charges it violated the False Claims Act by marketing a product for surgical uses for which it was not approved. According to the government, the company marketed its CoRoent System for several spinal surgical procedures for which it was not approved. The DOJ also claimed kickbacks, in the form of speaker fees honoraria, were paid to induce physicians to use the system. The company was also accused of paying kickbacks for physicians to attend events hosted by Society of Lateral Access Surgery (SOLAS), an organization that was entirely organized and funded by NuVasive.

Mead Johnson entered into a settlement with the SEC to resolve charges it bribed Chinese government healthcare workers to recommend its infant formula, in violation of the FCPA. According to the SEC, the company funded the payments through distributor allowance funds paid to a third-party distributor, and then directed the third-party on how those funds were to be used. Allegedly, the payments were not properly reflected in the company’s books and records.

Insys also finds itself in the doghouse; or in this case, we’ll say the duck house (okay, it’s a reach, but stay with us here). Insys Therapeutics has entered into a settlement with Oregon to resolve a deceptive marketing case. The State claims the company marketed an opioid painkiller for treating mild pain that was only approved for treating pain in cancer patients who are not responding to other types of painkillers. The State also claims the company paid physicians for writing prescriptions and used unqualified physicians to promote the product. The settlement will be split between the State and an organization dedicated to the prevention of opioid abuse, which will be selected by Oregon’s Attorney General.

So it appears, this off-label promotion dog can hunt. Amarin, the company suing the FDA over its ability to promote its fish-oil drug for off-label uses, has won a preliminary injunction against the agency. The injunction is not a final order, but for now, the FDA cannot prevent Amarin from the truthful off-label promotion of its product. The drug is approved for treating patients with very high levels of triglycerides. Amarin would like to promote the drug for use with patients that have moderately elevated triglycerides levels, despite being on a statin.

Like the Caronia decision before it, the Amarin case certainly raises interesting questions about the future of truthful off-label promotion. While a compliance training session may not be the place and time to delve into a discussion of that future, the decision does present an opportunity to discuss off-label promotion and how to address questions related to off-label use. Why not take this opportunity to launch refresher training, or distribute an updated, quick-reference communication piece? On-going reminders about what constitutes off-label promotion, and the policies your organization has in place to address unsolicited questions, are part of any effective compliance curriculum. The case also creates an opportunity to work with commercial team managers on a plan to increase the dialogue about the topic with their teams. Off-label is in the news and the training opportunities abound.

Compliance News in Review, July 20, 2015

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

The House of Representatives passes the 21st Century Cures Act, two companies settle AMP charges, oral arguments begin in Amarin v. FDA, and CMS updates its Open Payments FAQs.

Diamonds are not only a girl’s best friend…a very special mouse is fond of them as well. The Happiest Place on Earth (or, at least the one in California), is celebrating its diamond anniversary. Happy 60th Disneyland! The place has certainly changed in its 60 years, but fan favorites such as Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and the Jungle Cruise have stood the test of time. In true Disney fashion, the party isn’t just a one day affair; it actually started back in May and will likely continue through the fall, if not into 2017. Before we cut the cake with the big ears, we have a bit of “magic” of own to administer. Grab a churro and settle in for this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The House is celebrating the overwhelming passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. The bill is designed to fund research and change the FDA’s drug and device approval process. It includes a change to the rule its provisions are changes to the Sunshine Act which would exclude the reporting of the value of journal reprints and payments for CME.

AstraZeneca and Cephalon may be feeling a bit Grumpy. The two companies reached separate agreements with the government over charges related to underpaid Medicaid rebates. According to a whistleblower, the companies improperly reduced the Average Manufacturers Price (AMP) of their products by subtracting fees paid to wholesalers. The companies paid $46.5 million and $7.5 million respectively to settle the matter.

Oral arguments began in Amarin’s suit against the FDA. The company cited the Caronia decision and the Sorrell v. IMS decision in its argument. Much of the discussion centered on the type of disclaimers need to accompany off-label promotion and not whether Amarin even has a right to do so. The FDA’s lawyer argued the interpretation of the Caronia decision should be very narrow but the judge disagreed. A judicial order is expected in a few weeks.

The whistleblower in a case against Endo may be throwing a Mad Tea Party now that she’s been awarded $33.6 million for her efforts. The case, which was settled with the government in February of last year, involved the off-label promotion of the company’s pain patch. Despite a recommendation from government lawyers that the whistleblower receive 19% of the settlement, the federal judge awarded her 24%, citing her “extraordinary effort” in the case. The whistleblower initially filed suit in 2005, and spent five of the nine years that followed working under the direction of the FBI.

CMS has sprinkled some Pixie Dust over the Open Payments FAQs, and sure enough new FAQs have taken flight. Several of the new FAQs have to do with physicians and teaching hospitals being able to access, review and dispute the data now that the review and dispute period has closed.

If the FAQ updates weren’t enough, CMS was back for a second ride with updated information about the reporting of CME payments on the Law and Policy page of the Open Payments website. Beginning in 2016, manufacturers will have to report indirect payments to CME providers if the manufacturers learn the identity of the physician attendees or speakers within the reporting year, or the first two quarters following the reporting year.

The updates to the Open Payments website remind us that the program is evolving. Your company’s training needs to evolve and grow as well. Affected personnel need to be updated on changes, and reminded of the need to communicate with their physicians. Now is the time to map out your plan for refresher training and refocus your aggregate spend and sales personnel.

That’s a wrap on the compliance news fit to blog for now. Have a great week everyone.

 

 

Compliance News in Review, July 10, 2015

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

The government targets Novartis for False Claims violations, pharmaceutical companies map out a plan to keep medication flowing into Greece throughout the crisis, and the industry as a whole ponders the impact of the CMS release of 2014 transparency data.

The days are long and lazy – it’s time for summer vacation! From the beach, to the mountains to foreign destinations, the News in Review staff is finalizing plans for summer R&R. Rest assured though, we are still hard at work keeping up with all the compliance news fit to blog, starting with this sun splashed edition of the Compliance News in Review.

The Justice Department and 11 states are putting a dent in the Novartis vacation account with a $3.4 billion charge for damages and fines in a False Claims Act case involving kickbacks to pharmacies. According to prosecutors, the company offered rebate and discount programs to pharmacies in exchange for increased prescriptions of two drugs. Novartis disputes the allegations and says it will continue to defend itself. A trial has been set for November.

Pharma companies are mapping out a plan to keep medication rolling into Greece. According to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), the complexity and fragmented nature of the Greek medicine supply chain makes the flow of medication vulnerable. Pfizer, Roche and Novartis said they have plans to ease any shortages during the crisis, and AstraZeneca and GSK have both said they are drawing up contingency plans to keep medicines in supply.

CMS and agg spend folks are probably ready for a break in their routine now that the 2014 Open Payments data has been published. The data shows that companies paid physicians almost $6.5 billion for the year, with over 11 million transactions reported. Research payments topped the list with over $3 billion paid, there were $2.5 billion in general payments and $700K was reported on the ownership reports. CMS was able to validate close to 99% of records submitted to the system, which is a vast improvement over the 2013 data. As was the case in 2014, the majority of the reported payments were small. Sixty-six percent were for payments of less than $20. Research and royalty payments represented the largest dollar amounts.

Once the Open Payments data was released, the numbers quickly found their way into the media. The focus on payments to physician and the influence those payments have on prescribing decisions and healthcare at large is at an all-time high. That level of scrutiny highlights the need for training on the Sunshine Act and Open Payments – especially for those interacting with HCPs. While much of the work related to the reporting requirements is a “back office” function, those interacting with HCPs are often the first to hear concerns from the field and they need to be prepared.

In addition, the public release of the data opens companies to examination of their business practices from whistleblowers and enforcement agencies. Critical evaluation of training is important. Are all the appropriate audiences being covered? Is the training up to date? Is a refresher required? Regular audits of training curriculums and plans are key to reducing the risk of questionable payments, and could spare the company expensive costs down the road.

Have a great weekend!

Compliance News in Review, July 2, 2015

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

A former medical device CEO is sentence to two years in prison, the House of Representatives moves on the exemption of payments for CME, textbooks and medical literature under Sunshine, a Connecticut APRN finds herself in hot water over kickbacks, and the first full year of physician payments data is officially available for review.

Unfurl the flag and fire up the grill! It’s time to celebrate the good ole U.S.A. Independence Day is almost here! Whether your celebration of the shot heard ‘round the world and 239 years of the great experiment take you to the shining sea, across the fruited plain, or just to your backyard, we hope it’s a safe and joyous weekend. Until the party begins, we’ll dole out a little history less of our own, with this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Former OtisMed CEO will have his liberty temporarily revoked. The executive was sentenced to two years in prison for intentionally distributing an unapproved medical device in violation of the FDCA. He was also order to pay a $75,000 fine.

The “people’s house” has been busy recently. The House Energy and Commerce Committee announced that over 200 representatives have signed on to the 21st Century Cures Act. The exemption of payments for CME, textbooks and medical literature from the Sunshine Act is included in the bill. The House also approved a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical device manufacturers. The bill now moves to the Senate for a vote.

A Connecticut APRN has admitted to accepting $83,000 in kickbacks from the drug maker Insys Therapeutic. The nurse was a top prescriber of the company’s cancer pain drug. Most of the kickbacks were in the form of payments for serving as a speaker and according to prosecutors, more often than not, the nurse and the sales rep were the only people in attendance at the speaker events. On some occasions, the attendees were friends or colleagues of the nurse who were allowed to prescribe drugs. She will be sentenced in September.

We’re waiting for the fireworks to start now that the first full year of physician payments data has been released by CMS. The payments for 2014 totaled nearly $6.5 billion, and represented 11.4 million transactions to over 600,000 physicians and teaching hospitals. Data from the 2013 program year that could not be posted during 2014 is also included in this year’s release. According to a CMS press release, “registered physicians and teaching hospitals reviewed nearly 30% of the total value of the data and the agency plans on continuing its efforts to work with HCPs to increase that review rate.”

While it’s the multi-million dollar corporate settlements that make the headlines, this week’s news shows that in the world of compliance, individuals suffer significant consequences as well. From the Board to the C-suite, across the corporation and even to the contractors, training needs to emphasize that potential violations are not just a “company problem.”

The release of the 2014 Open Payments data highlights the amount of money being spent by industry on physicians, and exposes physicians to potential criticism and scrutiny. HCPs need to be aware of the rules and regulations companies face because as far as the government is concerned, they represent the company just as the employees do. Providing training that respects these contractors as men and women of science, while fully covering product promotion regulations and law, not only protects the company, it enhances the relationship with these valued partners in healthcare as well.

Have a great Independence Day everyone!

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!

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.”

Compliance News in Review, March 24, 2015

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

Oregon considers the idea of requiring pharma companies to disclose pricing information, CMS offers Open Payments updates, Sandoz settles with the OIG over alleged pricing data misrepresentations, the DOJ beefs up its FCPA enforcement team, and Public Citizen petitions the FDA on the issue of companies distributing peer-reviewed articles.

It’s time to dance everyone! March Madness is here. And what a dance it has been so far. As per usual, a couple of Cinderella moments wreaked havoc on brackets far and wide. Now it is onto the Sweet 16. Is your team still in the mix? While there’s a momentary break in the action, let’s take a look at the stories that filled our dance card this past week. Time to tipoff this week’s Compliance News in Review.

Our first story takes us to the home of the Oregon Ducks. Perhaps taking a cue from its neighbor to the south, a bill has been introduced in the Oregon legislature to require pharmaceutical companies to disclose information related to drug pricing. California introduced similar legislation recently, and like the California proposal, Oregon’s proposal would apply to drugs with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000. Companies would be required to file an annual report with the State, detailing information such as the manufacturer’s costs related to R&D, and costs paid for distributing the drug. Representatives from industry groups, PhRMA and BIO, testified before a committee, saying that the proposed law would harm patients and industry companies.

The clock is running down for 2014 data submission to Open Payments. With that in mind, CMS recently held a Q&A session to deal with any burning questions from Applicable Manufacturers and GPOs. During the call, CMS suggested that companies that have United States spelled out in their files deleted their records, change to “U.S.” and resubmit. So far the work around has proved largely successful. The agency also noted that it can trace deleted manufacturer records and said in order for companies to avoid audit issues and possible penalties, companies should separate rejected records from accepted records.

Sandoz was called for a costly foul when the company agreed to settle with OIG for $12.6 million over allegations it misrepresented drug pricing data. According to the OIG, between 2010 and 2012, Sandoz misrepresented the Average Sales Price (ASP) to CMS. As part of the settlement, Sandoz had to certify that it has established a government pricing compliance program.

The DOJ is adding quite a few new players to its FCPA enforcement team. The agency has confirmed it is adding 30 new agents specifically to deal with FCPA violations. More hands on the DOJ deck raise the stakes for companies in their compliance efforts. Legal experts say companies need to take a look at their internal and external anticorruption programs, and conduct reviews of internal controls, risk assessment, and third-party due diligence.

The SEC plans on beefing up its FCPA enforcement schedule. At the Corporate Counsel Institute conference, the SEC’s enforcement director, Andrew Ceresney, said that the agency’s regulatory focus would be on internal controls, and more FCPA enforcement actions. He pointed out that the SEC has already brought more FCPA cases in the five months of the 2015 fiscal year, than it did in all of 2014.

Public Citizen is asking the FDA to withdraw a proposal that would allow pharmaceutical companies to distribute peer-reviewed articles containing data stating a drug is not as risky as indicated on the label. The group sent a letter to Health and Human Services, saying the proposal would allow drug companies to “sell more drugs by making them appear safer than the FDA judged them to be.” Public Citizen has obtained and published all the comments the FDA has received on the proposal. Most of them are in opposition to the idea.

That about wraps it up for this edition of the Compliance Week in Review. Here’s hoping your favorite college squad is still in the hunt for a Final Four – we’ll be here wondering what exactly happened to our Villanova Wildcats (there’s always next year…again).

Have a great week everyone!

The 2015 Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress: A Review and Recap

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

The 12th Annual Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress provided an overflow crowd of rapt attendees with two days of best practices and updates on critical compliance-related topics. While the usual array of content was covered, the focus often turned to two key topics – Speaker Programs and the FCPA.

Day 1

The conference kicked off with a keynote speech from Michael Shaw, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer for GlaxoSmithKline. Shaw’s presentation was focused on the idea that instilling a culture of compliance is not enough in today’s regulatory environment. He emphasized the importance of ‘explaining the why’ behind the values, and the need to hold individuals accountable for compliance. As an example, at GSK, while Compliance is responsible for facilitating the process, Brand Directors are held accountable for managing the risk. As Shaw says, “compliance programs are important, but they’re not enough. The elements of the programs need to have traction.”

Otsuka ‘s Regina Gore Cavaliere and Brian Miller showcased their use of humor as a core tool for compliance training. Cavaliere and Miller have integrated a variety of creative elements, including a mock mini-series called The Pharm, comic books, and live talk shows, into their curriculum to keep the training fresh and appealing. Much of what was presented was indeed witty and engaging, and it showed that comedy can clearly be an effective tool when developed professionally and integrated carefully into a blended campaign.

In the Chief Compliance Officer Panel titled, Working with the Business – Ensure Compliance Adds Value to Operational Success, Jeffrey Rosenbaum from Vertex, Sujata Dayal from J&J, and Sumita Ray from Pharmacyclics, offered their perspectives on the keys to an effective program. With limited resources and time, Rosenbaum starts with his company’s business objectives while managing the issues with the highest risks. Ray agreed, saying she evaluates what risks she has to address on a daily basis, making training her first priority. As part of a large global company, Dayal begins with a formal risk assessment and conducts testing on a regular basis to ensure that mitigation is working. Rosenbaum also emphasized the importance of recruiting allies in the company when resources are stretched, as with Sunshine Act reporting, while Ray echoed Michael Shaw’s points about the importance of holding businesses accountable for their actions and results.

The presentations shifted to a governmental and regulator’s perspective with Doug Brown from CMS updating the audience on the state of Open Payments, a panel of US Attorneys addressing trends and top priorities in healthcare enforcement, and Andrew Ceresney, Director of Enforcement at the SEC covering disclosure issues relevant to the pharmaceutical industry.

What stood out during the enforcement panel was the increased amount of cases the regulators are seeing involving small to mid-size companies. Greg Shapiro, from the District of Massachusetts added that the audience should expect to see more criminal liability with those cases. Jacob Elberg, from the District of New Jersey encouraged those who identify a problem to self-report since “it sends the right message to employees and regulators.” More than one panel member delved into the risks of Speaker Programs, with Shapiro calling them “areas prone for abuse” and William Killian from Tennessee reminding the audience that Speaker Programs must not be tied to any promotion of business.

Ceresney covered the FCPA and the risks particular to the pharmaceutical industry. According to Ceresney, the SEC is focusing on three enforcement areas: pay to prescribe, pay to get on formularies, and charitable contributions. He emphasized the need for risk assessments and training, and the need to take measures when issues are identified.

After lunch, the sessions were divided into smaller groups, and I opted to stay with the FCPA theme in the session titled, Strengthen your FCPA Compliance through Smarter Training. David Nicoli, former VP, Corporate Affairs, AstraZeneca, and a panel of vendors walked through the steps they consider to be crucial when training on the FCPA. Collaboration is key, Nicoli claimed, and during his tenure at AZ he partnered on training initiatives with key allies, such as the Heads of Human Resources and Social Responsibility, who truly understand the work environment. The panel stressed the need for short, quick hits in FCPA training, and the fact that bad decisions make for good stories that stick in learners’ minds.

After the FCPA session, I jumped into the track dedicated to Product Promotional Compliance. Paul Silver from Huron presented statistics from a recent industry survey on company interactions with HCPs. For example, 86% of companies reimburse for HCP travel time and 1/3 of the companies surveyed have a limit on hotel expenses. Overall, the statistics presented a strong baseline for how the industry handles HCP travel time and I highly recommend the data for those interested in knowing what their peers are doing.

The session on overseeing the relationships between Sales, MSLs, and Managed Care Reps, was highlighted by one powerful statement from Kevin Stark, Director of GHH Compliance, at Merck, which could be considered a compelling theme for the entire conference, “build a culture where it’s okay for people to admit when they made a mistake.”

Day 2

The second day opened with Tom Abrams of the FDA and his annual update on enforcement trends at the Office of Prescription Drug Marketing. In the area of policy and guidance development, OPDP has released six draft documents since January 2014, and three draft guidance documents on social media.

Abrams’ agency continues to allocate resources and priorities based on potential threats to public health. The most common violations over the past year were related to omission and minimization of risks, and unsubstantiated superiority claims.

Day 2’s enforcement panel, titled, A View from the Outside —Mitigate Risk and Prepare for the Future featured a panel of defense attorneys well-versed in the areas of risk for small and large pharmaceutical companies. Scott Lieberman of Loeb and Loeb stressed the need for sales representatives to know exactly how to handle off-label questions when dealing with HCPs. Matthew O’Connor, of Covington & Burling warned smaller companies to allocate enough resources to monitoring, an area often neglected. When asked about the relationship between Compliance and Legal, Allison Shuren from Arnold & Porter said Compliance should be the “boots on the ground, moving issues up the food chain,” and John Richter, from King & Spalding, noted that Compliance should be ‘setting the policy and evaluating the balance between costs and risks.’

I was particularly interested in the Life After a CIA — Impact on Internal Team Structures and Resource Allocation panel, so I attended the breakout session: Compliance Program Structure and Effectiveness.

Sujata Dayal, from J&J, stressed the need to continue the conversation between the businesses and Compliance but that dialogue needs to change as the role of the business shifts from one in which the businesses mandates company priorities to one in which they influence actions and decisions. Gregory Beeman, from Eli Lilly, said the first step was to see what can be streamlined and continued post-CIA. In other words, what was under OIG oversight that could be eliminated now that the CIA has expired?

In Successful Promotional Programs — How to Use Data Analysis & Market Research to Drive Compliant, Effective Results, Mark Dizon from Actelion, and David Gilman from Huron led a spirited discussion on the use of data and analytics to assess risks and results of Speaker Programs. The idea of whether Speaker Programs should be evaluated against Return on Investment was of particular interest as audience members and the panel members debated the merits and risks associated with acknowledgement of the ROI.

The final session I attended was focused on the challenges faced by small to mid-size businesses as they struggle to allocate compliance resources. The panel, consisting of Timothy Ayers of Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, Katrina Church of Merz North America, Jeff Rosenbaum from Vertex, Sarah Whipple from Aegerion, and Greg Moss from Kadmon, offered a diverse set of best practices based on their experiences with limited resources and time. The perspective offered by those who are literally ‘departments of one,’ and those, like Church from Merz, whose departments are growing rapidly, had enough content, suggestions, and tips to fill a conference unto itself. As one example, the panel and audience debated the benefits and challenges of live training versus eLearning. While live training offers the opportunity to work face-to-face with each trainee, which is easily achieved in very small companies, Church was quick to point out that as Merz grew, a shift to more eLearning, with its streamlined tracking, became a necessity. And, like their colleagues from larger companies, these participants emphasized the need to include the Board of Directors and the C-Suite in the importance of compliance training; and in getting buy-in at all levels of the company.

To sum up, the details brought forth over two days by many well thought out presentations and panel sessions in this year’s Pharmaceutical Compliance Congress offered veteran attendees and new comers alike a wealth of practical and impactful information, making attendance not only a good idea, but crucially important to staying abreast of new developments and best practices in life sciences compliance.