Health Law Year in P/Review: Until Next Year

This new post by Holly F. Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, and Gregory Curfman appears on the Health Affairs Blog as the final entry in a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

It’s been our great pleasure to collaborate with the Health Affairs Blog on this series stemming from theThird Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium at Harvard Law School. This annual event takes a look back over the prior year and previews the year to come with regard to hot topics in health law.

After the symposium, we asked our speakers to keep the conversation going online by expanding on their topics from different angles or by honing in on particularly intriguing features. These pieces were published on the Health Affairs Blog through the spring and into summer.

We heard more from Kevin Outterson on how to promote innovation in the development of new antibiotics, from Rachel Sachs on whether the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to regulate laboratory-developed tests will really stifle innovation, and from Claire Laporte on the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on bio-IP.

George Annas weighed in on the Ebola outbreak, which has already almost faded from public consciousness but offers important public health lessons, while Wendy Parmet and Andrew Sussman tackled important developments in tobacco control. […]

Read the full post here.

The FDA’s Determination On Artificial Trans Fat: A Long Time Coming

By Diana R. H. Winters

[cross-posted at Health Affairs Blog]
On June 16, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its final determination withdrawing the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) designation for partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are the main source of artificial trans fat in processed foods. The agency gave the food industry three years, until June 18, 2018, to phase out the use of PHOs. The FDA’s order was expected based on the agency’s tentative determination that PHOs were no longer GRAS, published in November 2013.

This action is a milestone in — although perhaps not the culmination of — the FDA’s decades-long attempt to grapple with increasing scientific recognition that trans fat poses a serious health risk to consumers. The action is also unusual, in that it is quite rare for the FDA to withdraw GRAS status from a food product, a move that most likely will mean the ingredient is no longer used in foods.

What is not unusual, unfortunately, is the lengthy timeframe of this regulatory trajectory in the context of FDA action. To be sure, this action will lead to a dramatic reduction in the use of PHOs in processed foods, which in turn, will lead Americans to eat less trans fat – a good thing. What this regulatory action does not do, however, is speak to problems with the GRAS process as a whole.

Continue reading

FDA’s Non-Response Response to My New York Times Op-Ed on Gay Blood Ban

On May 21, along with my frequent co-author Eli Adashi, I published an op-ed in the New York Times raising some questions about FDA’s proposed guidance recommending a ban on taking the blood on any man who has had sex with another man in the past year, or in other words imposing a one year celibacy requirement on gay men if they want to donate blood. This built on our critique last July in JAMA, wherein we argued that FDA’s then-lifetime ban on gay men and MSM donating blood was out of step with science and the practice of our peer countries, as well as potentially unconstitutional.

Thanks to our work, and a concerted effort by public health, medical, and gay rights groups, FDA has finally moved off of that prior policy and recognized that it was unjustified, and discriminatory.

Just to put this in context It took more than 30 years to convince FDA that it was problematic to ban blood donation for a lifetime any man who ever had sex with another man, even if both have repeatedly tested negative for HIV, while it imposed only a one year ban on people who had sex with individuals known to be HIV positive or a sex worker. FDA is appropriately a conservative agency, but on this issue of the lifetime ban its willingness to listen and reconsider has gone beyond conservatism to the point of lunacy. [By the way to be clear, I *love* FDA. I represented them while at the DOJ and have a new book coming out about FDA in the fall. You can think highly of an agency but think they have a bad track record on an issue. This is critique not hater-aide].

Well with that background, one should be not so quick to assume that a move to a one year ban — a de facto lifetime ban for any gay man who is sexually active, even one who is monogamously married with children — is the best policy. To put it bluntly, refusing to change a lifetime ban for such a long period makes me skeptical we should accept a “just trust us” line on their new restrictive policy.

The question we raised in our op-ed was whether FDA had adequately justified retaining a one year ban in light of the evidence from places like South Africa (with a much shorter time period ban), Italy (which does individualized risk assessment instead of stigmatizing all gay men as high risk for disease), etc.

Well FDA responded…sort of … through a NY TImes Letter To the Editor.

Here is what FDA said with my analysis in bold:

Continue reading

New from Bioethicist Art Caplan: How State Right-To-Try Laws Create False Expectations

A new piece by David Farber, Preeya Noronha Pinto, Bill of Health contributor Arthur Caplan, and Alison Bateman-House the Health Affairs blog:

Over the past year, state Right-to-Try (RTT) laws that claim to enable terminally ill patients to access unapproved, experimental drugs, biologics, and devices have swept the nation. As of early May, seventeen states have enacted RTT laws (most recently, Florida and Minnesota), and bills creating such laws are currently pending in over twenty state legislatures.

Although these laws have created an expectation that terminally ill patients will be able to quickly access potentially life-saving treatments by being exempted from the rules of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this expectation is, quite simply, false.

Read the full article here.

Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen: New Blood-Donor Policy, Same Gay Stigma

Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen has co-authored a new Op-Ed in the New York Times:

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration released highly anticipated draft recommendations that would allow gay men to donate blood after one year of celibacy. While an improvement from the current, highly criticized lifetime ban, the new policy, which was announced in December, still caters to fear and stigma rather than science. It should be reconsidered. […]

Read the full article here.

New Discussion Draft of 21st Century Cures Act Released (Again)

Earlier today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released the most recent draft of the 21st Century Cures Act, in time for it to be marked up by the Health Subcommittee tomorrow.  At 300 pages, the new draft adds back in a number of provisions that were excised from the previous, 200-page iteration of the draft.  I haven’t had time to uncover all of the new additions just yet, but given that this is my third blog post on the subject, I wanted to highlight some of the ways in which this version differs (and doesn’t differ) from the last draft.

Continue reading

New Discussion Draft of 21st Century Cures Act Released

Yesterday, a new discussion draft of the 21st Century Cures Act was released, just in time for today’s hearing on the draft before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  At just 200 pages (although with some sections still “to be supplied”), this version is just half the size of the previous draft.  As such, it is perhaps more notable for what it took out of the original draft than for what it added in.  I haven’t had time to digest fully all of the cuts just yet, but in advance of the hearing this morning I wanted to highlight two significant deletions from the first draft and one potentially significant addition.

First, when I blogged in February about the first draft of the Act, I expressed excitement over the idea of a Medical Product Innovation Advisory Commission.  The Commission would have had the ability to oversee the way in which agencies like the NIH, FDA, and CMS all interact with each other to affect the development and dissemination of medical products.  A significant portion of my scholarship focuses on precisely these ideas, and I was hopeful that the Commission would make it into the second draft.  Alas, it did not.

Second, the first draft of the Act contained a series of very controversial exclusivity provisions.  Chief among them may have been the draft provision giving “dormant therapies” (essentially, new drugs for unmet medical needs) the option of 15 years of exclusivity.  Alexander Gaffney’s Regulatory Explainer on the first draft provides a helpful overview, for those who are interested in learning more about this provision.  But interestingly, this and other provisions relating to increased exclusivity are gone from the new draft.  Now, it is possible that some of this language will reappear later, especially as the section of the draft relating to “Repurposing Drugs for Serious and Life-Threatening Diseases and Conditions” has yet to be supplied.  But in the first draft of the document, the sections for “Repurposing Drugs” and “Dormant Therapies” were separate, so it is not clear that this is likely to happen.

Continue reading

Call for Abstracts: Constitutional Challenges to the Regulation of Food, Drugs, Medical Devices, Cosmetics & Tobacco Products

The Food and Drug Law Journal is pleased to announce a forthcoming symposium—Constitutional Challenges to the Regulation of Food, Drugs, Medical Devices, Cosmetics, and Tobacco Products—to be held at the Georgetown University Law Center (GULC) on Friday, October 30, 2015, and co-sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute and GULC’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

The deadline for submitting abstracts is June 1, 2015. Download more information about the symposium here.

Medicare’s Costly Drug Problem

By Zack Buck

Last week, Dr. Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist who practices in North Palm Beach, Florida, was indicted on Medicare fraud charges. Melgen was charged with a variety of crimes, with prosecutors alleging he falsely diagnosed patients and falsified their files. Melgen’s name may be familiar. Last year, he was reported to be the provider with the highest total of Medicare Part B reimbursements in 2012, reportedly reimbursed by Medicare for more than $20 million, a substantial percentage of which was directly based upon his prescriptions for, and administration of, the drug Lucentis.

But the allegations against Melgen highlight a deeper challenge facing Medicare.

Continue reading

TOMORROW (4/14): The FDA’s Impact on Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Lecture by Neil Flanzraich

The FDA’s Impact on Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Lecture by Neil Flanzraich

15.04.14, Flanzraich poster FINAL DPI AdjustApril 14, 2014 12:00 PM

Harvard Law School
Griswold Hall, Room 110
1525 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Please join us for a lecture by Neil Flanzraich, Chairman and CEO of Cantex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., discussing the balance between speed and safety in FDA’s regulation of pharmaceutical products. Topics will include how FDA’s approach has ebbed and flowed over time, the various tools FDA has introduced to reach this balance, and the potential impact of FDA’s various approaches on products and companies, especially start-ups.

Neil Flanzraich graduated from Harvard Law School in 1968 and was appointed by Dean Martha Minow as an Expert in Residence at the Harvard Innovation Lab (i-lab) in fall 2012.

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided. Full event details are here.

Watch Mr. Flanzraich’s previous lecture for the Petrie-Flom Center, “Responsibility and Integrity in the Pharmaceutical Industry.”

The Complex Effects Of The FDA’s Proposal To Regulate Laboratory-Developed Tests

This new post by Rachel Sachs appears on the Health Affairs Blog, as part of a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

Last fall, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally took steps toward an action that it had been publicly considering for over four years: the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). The FDA defines LDTs as tests which are “designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory.”

This definition encompasses a wide range of diagnostics, including complex multigene panels that are performed in just a single laboratory in the United States, and basic diagnostic tests like a complete blood count, which are performed in thousands of laboratories nationwide.

As long as a manufacturer does not make and sell a kit for use in other laboratories, its test can be provided as an LDT. Estimates suggest that tens of thousands of diagnostic tests, including the majority of genetic tests, are currently available as LDTs.

Yet at present, the FDA exercises essentially no regulatory authority over LDTs. As such, they can be performed without any of the safeguards that typically apply to other medical technologies, including pre-market review and adverse event reporting. This is not to say that these tests are entirely unregulated. […]

See the full post here.

Transatlantic Lessons in Regulation of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy: Prospect of Disease-Free Children for Women Carriers through MRT

Cambridge, Mass., April 9, 2015 – A paper forthcoming on Friday in Science discusses the regulation of a new technology that gives hope to women who carry genetic disease. Mutant mitochondrial DNA gives rise to a broad range of heritable clinical syndromes. Cure of those affected remains out of reach. However, recently developed Mitrochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) – sometimes known as “three-parent IVF” — has raised the prospect of disease-free progeny for women carriers.

In the UK, legislation regulating the clinical application of MRT has recently been approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, after a 10-year process.

In the United States, the vetting of MRT, underway for a year, remains a work in progress. A new paper in Science released Friday, April 10, compares and contrasts the regulatory history of MRT in the UK and the United States, discusses the relevant ethical overlay, examines potential lessons learned, and charts the likely path forward in the United States. It is written by I. Glenn Cohen, Harvard Law Professor and Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School; Eli Adashi, Professor of Medical Science at Brown University; and Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at Oxford University and Director of The Oxford Centre for Neuroethics.

“There is much FDA and the U.S. can learn from the way in which the U.K. has evaluated and regulated MRT,” said Professor Cohen. “These lessons are particularly important because MRT is just one of a series of new reproductive and genetic technologies, including gene editing and In Vitro Gametogenesis, that FDA and regulators across the world will soon be confronting.”

Read the full paper now on the Science website.

Recent Judicial Rulemaking Leaves Life Science Patents Hanging In The Balance

This new post by Claire Laporte of Foley Hoag LLP appears on the Health Affairs Blog, as part of a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

Do patents nurture or stifle innovation?

In a recent series of decisions, the Supreme Court has begun to express concern that some patents suppress innovation. And it has done so in a number of cases that turn on what used to be a sleepy backwater of the patent law: 35 U.S.C. § 101. This statute says, simply, that “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, … may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title [i.e., the other requirements of the patent law].”

You might think that this language means that all you have to do is figure out whether an invention falls into one of the permitted categories. If it does, it’s something that can be patented (assuming you meet the other requirements — which are numerous). But no! Over the past few decades, the Supreme Court has engrafted a whole new set of judge-made requirements onto this statute: you cannot get a patent on something that is a “law of nature,” a “product of nature,” or an “abstract idea.” And starting in 2010, the Court put real teeth into these doctrines. […]

See the full post here.

4/14: The FDA’s Impact on Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Lecture by Neil Flanzraich

The FDA’s Impact on Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Lecture by Neil Flanzraich

15.04.14, Flanzraich poster FINAL DPI AdjustApril 14, 2014 12:00 PM

Harvard Law School
Griswold Hall, Room 110
1525 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Please join us for a lecture by Neil Flanzraich, Chairman and CEO of Cantex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., discussing the balance between speed and safety in FDA’s regulation of pharmaceutical products. Topics will include how FDA’s approach has ebbed and flowed over time, the various tools FDA has introduced to reach this balance, and the potential impact of FDA’s various approaches on products and companies, especially start-ups.

Neil Flanzraich graduated from Harvard Law School in 1968 and was appointed by Dean Martha Minow as an Expert in Residence at the Harvard Innovation Lab (i-lab) in fall 2012.

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided. Full event details are here.

Watch Mr. Flanzraich’s previous lecture for the Petrie-Flom Center, “Responsibility and Integrity in the Pharmaceutical Industry.”

The Newest Twist in the State Regulation of Off-Label Marketing

By Zack Buck

The newest chapter in the legal drama involving Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (“J&J”) and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. (and a subsidiary previously known as Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (“Janssen”) was written late last month. Specifically at issue was whether or not the alleged off-label marketing of its blockbuster antipsychotic Risperdal violated state anti-fraud and consumer protection statutes. In late February, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict finding for the state under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“SCUTPA”), but reduced the damages award from $327 million to $136 million. In a series of cases at the state level involving the marketing of Risperdal, this is the first time that a jury verdict against J&J/Janssen has been upheld by a state supreme court. Cases in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Louisiana have ended with verdicts for the pharmaceutical company.

I’ve been following these cases for years and have undertaken further analysis on the topic here. Of course, news headlines have been dominated by the startling penalty amounts states had sought—and, in some states, had been initially imposed. Most noteworthy, an Arkansas jury imposed a $1.2 billion fine before the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the finding; in Louisiana, the fine was $330 million before its state supreme court did the same. Indeed, these litigated claims are in addition to settled claims—the largest of which were entered into by J&J with the federal government and various states for $2.2 billion in 2013.

Continue reading

Bioethicist Art Caplan: Why a New Alzheimer’s Drug Isn’t A No-Brainer

A new piece by contributor Art Caplan on NBC News:

Biogen, a Cambridge, Massachusetts biotech company, announced last week that early tests of their new drug aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, had shown impressive results in treating those with early stage Alzheimer’s disease. The drug significantly reduced the amyloid plaque buildup in the brain that is associated with Alzheimer’s.

In a very early stage safety test aducanumab slowed the cognitive decline and dementia associated with Alzheimer’s in people. On the Mini Mental Status Exam, a widely used measure of cognitive function, people at risk of Alzheimer’s who got a placebo lost around 3 points over a year. But those who got the lowest dose of aducanumab worsened by just two points and those who got a higher dose lost less than a point.

Biogen was so excited by the early results in 166 volunteers that it is going to try to go directly to a much bigger clinical trial of the drug. Wall Street was very excited too—Biogen’s stock price shot up 10 percent. […]

See the full article here.

Ensuring Timely Approval Of Generic Drugs

By Ameet Sarpatwari and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Cross posted from Health Affairs Blog

Having saved US consumers over $1.5 trillion in the past decade, generic drugs are one of the most cost-effective interventions in our entire health care system. Using generic drugs instead of brand-name drugs, when a generic is available, has been shown to increase medication adherence and improve health outcomes for chronic conditions.

Importantly, generic drugs offer these advantages without sacrificing quality; the Food and Drug Administration’s bioequivalency standards are met and often exceeded by generic-name manufacturers, and no randomized controlled trials—the gold standard of medical evidence—have identified clinically significant variations in outcomes between brand-name and FDA-approved interchangeable generic drugs.

However, to perform the tests the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires before approving a generic drug, manufacturers need access to one vital component: the brand-name product. Samples of the brand-name version of a drug can be used as a comparator to demonstrate the similarity of the molecular structure, or even the clinical outcomes from the generic product. Physico-chemical details about the brand-name drug, such as its molecular structure, stability, and cross-reactions, can be even more helpful in ensuring that the generic version adheres to the highest quality standards.

Continue reading

The “Right to Try” – Compassionate Use of Experimental Medicine, 5th Annual Cathy Shine Lecture

SHINE_headerThe “Right to Try” –  Compassionate Use of Experimental Medicine

5th Annual Cathy Shine Lecture

Thursday, March 19, Noon – 1 p.m.
Boston University Medical Campus Instructional Building
Bakst Auditorium
72 East Concord Street, Boston, MA
Free and open to the public
Reception will follow

Is it fair to use social media or personal connections to get experimental drugs? Is it possible to reconcile so-called “right to try” laws—which allow patients access to novel, unapproved treatments—with evidence-based medicine and a drug-approval process charged with ensuring safe and effective medicines? Professor Caplan examines whether the duty to rescue should play a role in regulatory policies, physician advocacy, and corporate behavior in the US. Continue reading

Open Payments: Early Impact And The Next Wave Of Reform

This new post by Tony Caldwell and Christopher Robertson appears on the Health Affairs Blog, as part of a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, a provision in the Affordable Care Act, seeks to increase the transparency of the financial relationships between medical device and drug manufacturers, physicians, and teaching hospitals. Launched on September 30, 2014 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Open Payments database collects information about these financial relationships and makes that information available to the public.

As of early February, the Open Payments database includes documentation of 4.45 million payments valued at nearly $3.7 billion made from medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to 546,000 doctors and 1,360 teaching hospitals between August 2013 and December 2013. This included 1.7 million records (totaling $2.2 billion) without the names of physicians or teaching hospitals who received the payments.

These records were intentionally de-identified by CMS because the records had not been available for review and dispute for 45 days, or because the records were not matched by CMS to a single physician or teaching hospital due to missing or inconsistent information within the submitted records. Future reports will be published annually and will include data collections from a full 12 month period. […]

Continue reading here.

The Medical Innovation Act: Addressing the Shrinking NIH Budget

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently introduced a new bill, the Medical Innovation Act, which would require pharmaceutical companies who settle with the government after committing certain illegal activities to reinvest additional money into the NIH.  Senator Warren views the bill as a “swear jar” for drug companies, seeking to target those who commit certain types of wrongdoing, including violating the anti-kickback statutes or defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, in order to increase government support for research at a time when the NIH’s budget has been falling.  Scholars and researchers who have lamented the shrinking of the NIH’s budget will find much to love in the bill, and they may even wish it had gone farther.

The Medical Innovation Act would be triggered under the following set of circumstances: drug companies (1) who sell at least one drug whose annual net sales exceed $1 billion, (2) where that drug can be traced at least in part to federally funded research (the Act refers to such products as “covered blockbuster drug[s]”), and (3) who enter into a settlement agreement of at least $1 million with the government after committing certain types of wrongdoing, would pay an additional penalty.  As a threshold matter, the Act will not affect companies unless they appear to have broken the law.  But even where companies have committed various forms of wrongdoing, the Act would not affect smaller drug companies, those who developed their drugs without the aid of the federal government, those who engaged in minor wrongdoing (and therefore only have small settlements), or those who take the government to trial rather than settling.

Affected companies would be required to pay an additional fine on top of the value of their settlement, paying 1% of the company’s profits multiplied by the number of covered blockbuster drugs sold by that company each year for five years.  Because the annual profits attributable to these companies are typically very high, even with the Act’s various carve-outs, Senator Warren estimates that if the Act had existed for the past five years, it would’ve provided an additional $6 billion every year to the NIH, a full 20% increase in its budget.  Going forward, this number might be smaller, if some companies respond to the Act’s incentives by committing less wrongdoing (a positive development in itself) or taking the government to trial (a relatively unlikely outcome, but possible in some cases), but the total amount is still likely to be substantial.

Continue reading