Overview and Analysis of the Proposed Federal Sunshine Regulations

On December 19, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) related to section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as the “Physician Payment Sunshine Act.” The Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires applicable manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals, or medical supplies covered under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP to report annually to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) certain payments or other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals. Additionally, applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations (“GPOs”) must report certain information regarding the ownership or investment interests in them that are held by physicians or their immediate family members.

To learn more about this development regarding the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, please see the full post written by Elizabeth B. Carder-Thompson, Katie C. Pawlitz, Nancy E. Bonifant and Debra A. McCurdy on Reed Smith’s Health Industry Washington Watch blog.

Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing - December 2011 (January 12, 2012)

This post was written by Jay Yan, Mao Rong, Zack Dong, Gordon Schatz, and Katherine Yang.

Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Life Sciences/ Health Care Industries.

Some important developments during December include:

  • SFDA Issues Catalogue of Class II Medical Devices Exempted from Submitting Clinical Trial Materials
  • SFDA Issues Notice Concerning Circulation of Guiding Principles of Phase I Clinical Trial Management of Drugs
  • SFDA Issues Notice on Soliciting Comments on Revisions of the Good Supply Practice for Pharmaceutical Products
  • China Adopts Drug Safety Plan: All Drugs to be Qualified by 2015
  • NDRC Issues Rules on Drug Price Parity to Prevent Disguised Price Hikes
  • Guangdong Issues Drug Price Adjustment Program: 307 Western Drugs’ Price have a 22 percent Reduction in Average
  • Shenzhen Public Hospitals to Revoke Drug Price Addition by the End of 2012

To read the full briefing by Reed Smith China team members, click here.

Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing - November 2011 (December 6, 2011)

This post was written by Jay Yan, Mao Rong, Zack Dong, Zhao Hong, Gordon Schatz, Dr. David Kan and Katherine Yang.

Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Life Sciences/ Health Care Industries.

Some important developments during November include:

  • Beijing Hospital Requirements: Overuse of Antibiotics
  • SFDA Issues Second Batch of Class II Medical Devices, For Which Distributors Do Not Need to Apply for Medical Devices Distribution License
  • Interim Measures on Appraisal of Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospitals: Request for Comments 
  • Two Pharmaceutical Companies Fined for Monopolizing Compound Reserpine API
  • China to Build ADR Monitoring System
  • NDRC to Investigate Ex-factory Prices of Drugs
  • China Finalizes Healthcare Reform 12th FYP
  • China to Launch Massive Survey on TCM Resources
  • Notice Concerning Circulation of the 12th Five-year Plan of Biotechnology Development

To read the full briefing by Reed Smith China team members, click here.

Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing

This post was written by Jay Yan, Mao Rong, Zack Dong, Zhao Hong, Gordon Schatz, Dr. David Kan and Katherine Yang.

Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Life Sciences/ Health Care Industries.

Some important developments during October include:

  • SFDA Issues 2010 Annual Report on Drug Registration and Approval
  • CCTV to Restrict Advertisement of Alcohol, Medical Institutions
  • MOH Requires Improvement of the Reward and Penalty System for Antibacterial Drug Administration
  • Draft Mental Health Law Submitted to NPC Standing Committee for First Deliberation
  • SFDA: All Drugs on Market to Have E-ID by End of 2015
  • SFDA Releases 3rd Batch of Illegal Drugs, Medical Devices and Health Food Advertisements in 2011
  • SFDA issues Notice on Release and Delivery of GMP Certification Announcement
  • SFDA issues Notice concerning Circulation of the Administrative Measures on Drug Supervision in Medical Institutions
  • Detailed Summary of SFDA 2010 Annual Report on Drug Registration and Approval

To read the full briefing by Reed Smith China team members, click here.

FDA Proposes Changes to Orphan Drug Regulations

This post was written by Areta L. Kupchyk, Kevin M. Madagan and Erin A. Janssen.

On October 19, 2011 the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would amend the 1992 Orphan Drug Regulations issued to implement the Orphan Drug Act (the “Proposed Rule”). Comments to the Proposed Rule should be submitted no later than January 17, 2012. This client alert summarizes these proposed changes and discusses the potential impact of the Proposed Rule on the drug, biological product, and biotechnology industry.

To read the full alert, click here.

Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing

This post was written by Jay Yan, Mao Rong, Zack Dong, Zhao Hong, and Gordon Schatz.

Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Life Sciences/ Health Care Industries.

Some important developments during September include:

  • SFDA Circulates Guidelines for Monitoring Adverse Events Involving Medical Devices
  • SFDA Issues Letter Soliciting Public Comments on Communication Methods for Responsible Food and Drug Safety
  • Swiss Drugmaker Novartis Expands in China
  • China to Divide Emergency Patients into Four Classes for Medical Treatment
  • China’s Biopharmaceutical Industry to Accelerate Internationalization
  • MOH surveys Clinical Application of Antimicrobials
  • Medtronic Opens Orthopedic R&D Center with Weigao
  • DHL Establishes Second Life Science and Health Care Logistics Center in Beijing

To read the full briefing by Reed Smith China team members, click here.

Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing

This post was written by Jay Yan, Mao Rong, Gordon Schatz and Abraham Sorock.

Reed Smith’s Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Food & Health Care Industries.
Some important developments during June include:

  • Chinese drug company to build production and training center in U.S.
  • Drug company challenged for environmental contamination in China
  • China's national biomedical plan to be released soon
  • Issuance of administrative measures for device recalls
  • Designation of four professional associations to examine Class III medical technology
  • Extension of Drug GMP certificates
  • Recall of an antibiotic

To read the full briefing by Reed Smith China team members, click here.

IRS Extends to June 10 the Deadline for Submitting Error Reports on Branded Prescription Drug Sales

This post was written by Ruth N. Holzman, Angelo Ciavarella, Joseph W. Metro and Vicky G. Gormanly.

On Friday, May 27, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued Notice 2011-46 (the "New Notice"), which extended to June 10, 2011 the deadline to submit error reports in accordance with the dispute resolution process established with respect to the preliminary fee calculation of the 2011 fee imposed on certain manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs.

Background

Section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the “ACA”), imposes an annual fee (the “Fee”) on each “covered entity” (i.e., any manufacturer or importer with gross receipts from sales of branded prescription drugs) with gross receipts of more than $5 million from certain sales of branded prescription drugs. In Notice 2010-71 (the “Initial Notice”), the IRS provided guidance on the calculation of the Fee. For 2011, the aggregate Fee to be paid by all covered entities is $2.5 billion. The IRS will apportion this Fee among the covered entities based on each covered entity’s proportionate share of branded prescription drug sales that are taken into account during the applicable Sales Year. For a detailed description of the Initial Notice, including definitions of these terms and the methodology for calculating the Fee, see Reed Smith’s Tax Alert 10-278.

In Notice 2011-9 (the “Second Notice”), the IRS described the approach that it would use to perform a preliminary 2011 Fee calculation for each covered entity. It provided that the IRS would mail each covered entity notification of its preliminary Fee calculation for 2011 by May 16, 2011, which would be based on sales data received from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health & Human Services (“CMS”), the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and the Department of Defense (“DOD”) with respect to each covered entity’s branded prescription drug sales sold to the Medicare Part D program, the Medicare Part B program, the Medicaid program, and any program under which branded prescription drugs are procured by the VA, DOD and DOD’s TRICARE retail pharmacy program. In the Second Notice, the IRS also requested that comments on the methodology set forth in the Second Notice be submitted by June 15, 2011. For a detailed description of the Second Notice, see Reed Smith’s Tax Alert 11-014.

In Revenue Procedure 2011-24 (the “Procedure”), the IRS established a dispute resolution process with respect to the preliminary 2011 Fee calculation. The Procedure provides the exclusive process available to covered entities to dispute a preliminary Fee calculation and obtain any change to the data that will be reflected in the final Fee calculation. Under the Procedure, the covered entity must provide one or more written error reports to the IRS that is postmarked by June 1, 2011, and the IRS will notify the covered entity in writing of the final determination when it sends the covered entity’s final Fee calculation no later than August 15, 2011. Under section 9008 of the ACA, a covered entity must pay the final Fee amount by September 30, 2011. For a detailed description of the Procedure, see Reed Smith’s Tax Alert 11-111.

The New Notice

The New Notice states that the IRS has been told that certain covered entities may have difficulty meeting the June 1 deadline for submitting error reports because of the volume of data they need to review. Therefore, the New Notice “defers” the deadlines for the following:

  • The date by which error reports under the Procedure must be postmarked in order to receive IRS consideration is extended from June 1 to June 10, 2011; and
  •  The date by which the IRS will send covered entities their 2011 final Fee calculation and, if applicable, notification of the final determination with respect to error reports, is extended from August 15 to August 24, 2011.

While many prescription drug manufacturers will be focused for the next two weeks on preparing their error reports for submission to the IRS, they should not forget that June 15 is the deadline for submitting their comments to the IRS on the methodology for calculating the Fee set forth in the Second Notice.

Reed Smith’s tax and government pricing lawyers are ready to assist clients who wish to submit error reports with respect to their preliminary Fee calculations.

This Tax Alert is intended only to provide a general summary of the information contained in the New Notice. We will provide updates as appropriate upon the issuance of any future guidance with respect to the Fee. If you have questions, would like additional information about the New Notice, or want to submit an error report with respect to your company’s preliminary Fee calculation, please contact one of the authors or the Reed Smith attorney with whom you regularly work.

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

IRS Extends Filing Date for Reporting 2009 Sales of Branded Prescription Drugs Under the Affordable Care Act, Clarifies Information Requested From Covered Entities

This post was written by Ruth N. Holzman, Angelo Ciavarella, Joseph W. Metro and Vicky G. Gormanly.

On January 14, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued Notice 2011-9 (the "Notice"), which extended the filing date for reporting on Form 8947 a covered entity's 2009 sales of branded prescription drugs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the "Affordable Care Act" or the "ACA"). The filing date for Form 8947 with respect to 2009 sales of branded prescription drugs was extended from January 20, 2011 to February 11, 2011. In addition, in response to numerous comments received by the IRS, the Notice made certain changes to Notice 2010-71, 2010-50 IRB (the "Initial Notice"), primarily with respect to the information requested from covered entities. Please click here to view the full alert prepared by Reed Smith Tax and Life Sciences Health Industry attorneys.

On November 29, 2010, the IRS issued the Initial Notice, which provided guidance on the calculation of the annual fee imposed on certain manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Click here to view Reed Smith's previous alert which includes a detailed description of the Initial Notice, including the definitions of "branded prescription drugs," "covered entity," "Sales Year" and "Fee Year."

IRS Issues Guidance on Calculation of the Annual Fee Imposed on Manufacturers and Importers of Branded Prescription Drugs Under the Affordable Care Act

This post was written by Ruth Holzman, Angelo Ciavarella, Joe Metro, Jeffrey Kaylor, and Vicky Gormanly.

On November 29, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) issued Notice 2010-71, 2010-50 IRB (the “Notice”), which provides guidance on the calculation of the annual fee imposed on certain manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010, pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or the “ACA”). Reed Smith Tax and LSHI attorneys have prepared an analysis of the guidance which provides background on the annual fee and a summary of the information contained in the Notice. While the Notice provides a solid starting point for IRS guidance, there are nevertheless areas of ambiguity that companies will need to evaluate. Please click here to view our full alert.

FDA Issues Proposed Rule Governing Major Statements in Television and Radio Advertisements

This post was written by Paul Sheives, Areta Kupchyk and Kevin Madagan.

FDA has released a proposed rule that would amend the regulations affecting direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) advertisement regulations to implement a provision of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The change in regulations would require DTC television or broadcast advertisements of prescription drugs to place the “major statement” in a “clear, conspicuous and neutral manner.” Under the regulation, FDA would use the following standards to determine whether the information meetings the clear, conspicuous and neutral requirement: 1) information is presented in language that is readily understandable by consumers; 2) audio information is understandable in terms of the volume, articulation, and pacing used; 3) textual information is placed appropriately and is presented against a contrasting background for sufficient duration and in a size and style of font that allows the information to be read easily; and 4) the advertisement does not include distracting representations (including statements, text, images, or sounds or any combination thereof) that detract from the communication of the major statement.

To learn more about FDA's proposed rule on DTC advertising, please read our full alert.

Drugs for the Masses: Taking a Closer Look at China's Healthcare Reform and Its Impact on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

As noted in our September 2009 post discussing China’s new National Essential Drug System (NEDS), China continues to make progress in its healthcare reform efforts. However, new national drug lists and price caps designed to provide low-cost drugs to the masses, have at the same time raised questions about the program’s economic impact on local and multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers.

To learn more about how China’s healthcare reform package and how it may affect your company, we invite you to read Reed Smith Life Sciences Partner Gordon Schatz and ZS Associates Inc. consultant Patrick Nowlin’s “Drugs for the Masses,” recently published by China Business Review.

China Launching National Essential Drug System

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

The Chinese government officially launched the National Essential Drug System (NEDS) Aug. 18, 2009 at a press conference held by the State Council, during which it explained the concentration of specific drug purchases in urban and county grass-roots health institutions as the first step in the implementation of NEDS. By 2009, NEDS will be implemented in 30 percent of government-run urban and county health care institutions in each province, region, or municipality. NEDS could have significant implications for the marketing, sale, distribution, and pricing of drugs by multinational and Chinese pharmaceutical companies in China.

As part of the implementation of NEDS, nine government ministries, including the Ministry of Health (MOH), National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), Ministry of Supervision (MOS), Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (MOHRSS), Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), and State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (SATCM), jointly issued the "Implementing Opinions on Establishing the National Essential Drug System," the "Administrative Measures on National Essential Drug List (Interim)," and the "National Essential Drug List – Section for Primary Medical and Public Health Institutions Use (2009 Version)."

NEDS is intended to more effectively manage the selection, production, distribution, usage, pricing, reimbursement, supervision, and evaluation of essential drugs, as well as to improve public health, medical services, and medical security. The new regulations note that all government-run grass-roots health care institutions are required to purchase and use essential drugs, while other types of health care institutions are required to use essential drugs based on standardized percentages for minimum use. 

To read the full alert, click here.

FDA Commissioner Announces Aggressive New Enforcement Policy

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.

 

1. 15 Day Post-Inspection Deadline

FDA will now set post-inspection deadlines. When FDA finds that a firm is significantly out of compliance and issues inspectional observations on Form FDA-483, it will expect a prompt response, generally no more than 15 days. Failing to respond in 15 days will trigger FDA to move forward with a warning letter or enforcement action.

2. Streamlined Warning Letter Process – Chief Counsel Pre-Review Policy Abandoned

Abandoning a policy implemented in 2002, FDA’s Chief Counsel Office will no longer review every warning letter issued by the agency. The Chief Counsel will limit warning letter review to significant legal issues only. In other words regional offices will now be permitted to issue warning letters.

3. Closer Collaboration with Regional Partners

FDA will continue to seek to work more closely with regulatory partners (e.g., state, local, and international officials) to develop risk control and enforcement strategies, as these entities have more authority to take action quickly than FDA. “When the public health is at risk, the FDA will reach out to our partners to take rapid action while we alert the public and prepare longer-term responses.”

4. Prioritize Enforcement Follow-Up

FDA will prioritize its follow-up with non-compliant firms. After a warning letter is issued or a product recall occurs, FDA will “make it a priority to follow up promptly with appropriate action.” This may include an inspection or investigation to ensure the problem has been resolved.

5. Swift and Aggressive Action Without a Warning Letter

FDA is prepared to take swift aggressive action to protect the public. The agency will no longer issue multiple warning letters. In addition, FDA will consider immediate action, such as action before it issues a warning letter, to address significant health concerns or egregious violations. Although FDA has had the authority to take enforcement action without issuing a warning letter, the agency generally reserves use of enforcement actions such as seizure or injunction for serious public safety situations requiring immediate action to stop manufacturing or distribution to prevent harm. 

6. Warning Letter “Close-Out” Process

FDA is developing a formal warning letter close-out process. For example, after FDA reinspects a facility to ensure that a firm has fully corrected violations identified in a warning letter, FDA may provide to the firm a formal “close-out” letter, indicating that the issues have been successfully addressed. This letter will then be posted on FDA’s website. However, not every warning letter will be eligible for a formal close-out letter. Such letters will likely be sent to companies with a history of ongoing violations. 

Commissioner Hamburg expects these new policies will ensure violative inspection results are taken seriously, warning letters and enforcement actions occur in a timely manner, and steps are taken promptly to protect consumers.

New Postings on the Reed Smith Health Industry Washington Watch Blog

The Reed Smith Health Industry Washington Watch blog has been updated to discuss a variety of health policy developments, including the following:

 

House To Hold Hearing On Patent Settlements Involving Generics And Impact On Competition

On June 3, 2009, the House Judiciary Courts and Competition Policy Subcommittee will hold a hearing, "Pay to Delay: Are Patent Settlements That Delay Generic Drug Market Entry Anticompetitive?", sure to interest all prescription drug manufacturers. No witness list is posted yet.

Commentary: FDA's New Good Reprint Practice Rule

This post was written by Areta L. Kupchyk, James M. Wood and Kevin M. Madagan.

FDA's Good Reprint Practice (GRP) Guidance went into effect in January 2009. The GRP Guidance establishes criteria that FDA will now use to determine whether the distribution of medical or scientific reprints and reference texts about off-label uses of a drug or device would constitute impermissible promotional activity under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Read Reed Smith’s full commentary analyzing the GRP Guidance, which includes a Good Reprint Practice Checklist.

Good Reprint Practices

The FDA published a notice on January 13, 2009 announcing a final guidance document entitled “Good Reprint Practices for the Distribution of Medical Journal Articles and Medical or Scientific Reference Publications on Unapproved New Uses of Approved Drugs and Approved or Cleared Medical Devices.” The guidance, which finalizes a February 20, 2008 draft policy, is intended to provide manufacturers with the agency's views on permissible distribution by a company's sales representatives of medical journal articles and scientific or medical reference publications that discuss unapproved new uses for FDA-approved drugs or biologics or FDA-approved or cleared medical devices to healthcare professionals. As with the 2008 draft guidance, the final version notes the need to balance the law’s prohibition on distributing or promoting “unapproved uses of approved drugs and approved or cleared medical devices” with the “important public policy” of providing information that “may even constitute a medically recognized standard of care.” The FDA concludes that the touchstone for lawful dissemination of literature about unapproved uses is that the publications “are truthful and non-misleading.” To meet this standard, the FDA final guidance lists “principles of Good Reprint Practices” that include criteria for determining the type of publication and the manner in which the publication can be distributed. Although the final guidance closely tracks the draft guidance, it has some important clarifications, including revisions to the Good Reprint Practices and a specific reference encouraging manufacturers to seek approvals and clearance for new indications and intended uses for medical products.   A Reed Smith analysis of the final guidance is available here.

Submission of Bioequivalence Data

On January 16, 2009, the FDA published a final rule requiring an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) applicant to submit data from all bioequivalence (BE) studies the applicant conducts on a drug product formulation submitted for approval. In the past, ANDA applicants have submitted BE studies demonstrating that a generic product meets bioequivalence criteria in order for FDA to approve the ANDA, but have not typically submitted additional BE studies conducted on the same drug product formulation, such as studies that do not show that the product meets these criteria. The FDA now believes that additional BE study data may be important in determining whether the proposed formulation is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, and will increase FDA’s understanding of how changes in components, composition, and methods of manufacture may affect product formulation performance. The rule is effective July 15, 2009.

Certifications of Clinical Trial Registry/Results Submissions; Final Guidance

The FDA has released final guidance on “Certifications To Accompany Drug, Biological Product, and Device Applications/Submissions: Compliance with Section 402(j) of The Public Health Service Act, Added By Title VIII of The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.” The guidance describes the FDA’s current thinking regarding the types of applications and submissions that sponsors, industry, researchers, and investigators submit to FDA and accompanying certifications under the FDAAA related to the submission of required information to the clinical trials data bank, www.ClinicalTrials.gov.