Life Sciences Legal Update : Life Sciences Lawyers & Attorneys : Reed Smith Law Firm : Healthcare, Food and Drug Law, Biotechnology, Privacy, Product Liability

The American Health Lawyers Association released a white paper on August 10, 2009, which analyzes the problems and benefits of the Stark Law and challenges amidst pending health care reform. In light of these significant policy discussions, many are wondering whether Congress will take action. Reed Smith's Karl Thallner was quoted in BNA's Health Law Reporter article discussing difficulties of the Stark law and the proposed improvements suggested by AHLA Committee. The article, "AHLA Stark Reform Proposals Welcome, Have Little Chance of Success, Attorneys Say" is reproduced with permission from BNA's Health Law Reporter, 18 HLR 1105 (Aug. 20, 2009). Copyright 2009 by The Bureau of National Affairs,Inc. (800-372-1033).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Hugh Scogin, Gordon Schatz, Amanda Tao and Amanda Yang.

On May 20, 2009, China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of Health, and the State Food & Drug Administration together issued new regulations for medical device manufacturers and distributors who advertise medical devices and diagnostic products, entitled, "Measures for the Examination of Medical Device Advertisements" and "Standards for the Examination and Release of Medical Device Advertisements." To read a summary of key points contained in the regulations, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Frederick H. Branding, R.Ph., JD, Areta L. Kupchyk and Kevin M. Madagan.

After just passing her eighth week as FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg announced on August 6, 2009, six new enforcement procedures to a group of industry representatives, attorneys, consumers, and others attending a speech sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute in Washington, D.C.

“The FDA must be vigilant, the FDA must be strategic, the FDA must be quick, and the FDA must be visible,” according to Commissioner Hamburg. She stated that vigilance means regular inspections and follow-up to ensure problems are resolved; identifying and resolving problems early; a “greater emphasis on significant risk and violations”; rapidly responding to egregious violations or violations that jeopardize public health; and using “meaningful penalties to send a strong message” to discourage future offenses. The Commissioner also said that the agency must be visible and publicize its enforcement actions (and the rationale for those actions) widely and effectively. Commissioner Hamburg described six new policy changes to meet these goals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, August 4, 2009, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions met for a hearing called "Protecting Patients from Defective Medical Devices" regarding Senate Bill 540, a companion bill to the House bill, H.R. 1346, the "Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The House Subcommittee on Health, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce also met earlier this year on this issue, with some of the same speakers. 

S. 150 and H.R. 1346 seek to overturn the Supreme Court's important ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008), which held that the PMA approval process for Class III devices imposes federal requirements that preempt state tort claims which would impose additional or different "requirements" regarding the safety and efficacy of the device, pursuant to the express preemption clause found in the Medical Devices Amendment of 1976.

Speaking in support of the bill were William Maisel, Director of the Medical Device Safety Institute, Thomas McGarity, Professor at the University of Texas School of Law, and Michael Mulvihill, a patient who was formerly implanted with a medical device. The arguments they presented echoed those of preemption opponents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As as an update to our last post on the Stark Law changes adopted in the 2009 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule, additional changes to the Stark Law regulations will go into effect on October 1, 2009, causing many “under arrangements” relationships between hospitals and physician-owned, third party service providers to fall out of compliance. In addition, new rules governing the compensation terms of lease agreements involving physicians will become effective on the same date. As existing arrangements will not be grandfathered, the final rule’s new restrictions will force many arrangements between physicians and hospitals, particularly hospital/physician joint ventures, to be restructured or noncompliant arrangements abandoned. Parties are encouraged to revise potentially noncompliant arrangements. To read the full alert written by Reed Smith attorneys Daniel Cody and Paul Pitts, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was written by Carol C. Loepere, Erik T. Atkisson and Catherine A. Hurley.

The Medicare secondary payer (“MSP”) law requires Medicare to be the “secondary” payer of health benefits for Medicare beneficiaries where another entity is the “primary” payer of health benefits. Determining whether another entity is “primary” and when Medicare is “secondary” has often been difficult due to the wide range of circumstances in which another party may be responsible for a Medicare beneficiary’s health expenses, the number of potential parties involved, and the somewhat confusing terminology in the law itself. As a result, Congress enacted new rules to enhance the enforcement of the MSP law. Any entity that might pay settlements to Medicare-eligible plaintiffs that would cover any health expenses, or might otherwise compensate Medicare beneficiaries for health expenses as part of group health insurance, workers’ compensation, or any other arrangement or plan, needs to become familiar with these new rules. Specifically, Congress now requires such entities to (1) register as a responsible reporting entity (“RRE”), and (2) electronically report information to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”).CMS will use this information to track and recover health expenses it incurred on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries but that another entity, as a primary payer under the existing MSP requirements, may be responsible for paying.  To read the full alert, click here.

Update:  For more information about this topic from an insurance industry perspective, please check out the Reed Smith Policyholder Perspective blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link