Tag: under


Jesse Witten

Second Circuit Rejects Government’s Off-Label Enforcement Approach

Posted on December 10th, by in Litigation. No Comments

Last week’s decision in the off-label promotion case, United States v. Caronia, No. 09-5006-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2012), is an important blow to the Government’s off-label promotion efforts.  In a 2–1 decision, the Court squarely rejected the simplistic theory that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) imposes a blanket prohibition against off-label promotion by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, but it does leave open the door to future prosecutions that rely in part on off-label promotion.

In Caronia, the Department of Justice obtained the conviction of Alfred Caronia, a pharmaceutical sales representative, for conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce.  The FDA prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of a misbranded drug (or device).  31 U.S.C. § 331(a).  A drug is misbranded if, among other ways, its labeling fails to contain “adequate directions for use,” 21 U.S.C. § 352(f), … Read More »


Robyn Shapiro

Massachusetts Refines Its Sunshine Law; Final Federal Sunshine Regulations Moving Ahead

The relationship between health care providers and drug and device manufacturers has been a focus of lawmakers at both the federal and state level.  While we continue to await final federal regulations implementing the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (federal Sunshine Act), which generally requires disclosure of financial arrangements among physicians, teaching hospitals, and drug and device manufacturers,[1] Massachusetts has refined its requirements governing relationships between physicians and drug and device manufacturers.  Amendments to the Massachusetts Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturer Code of Conduct regulations[2] (the Massachusetts Regulations) broaden the scope of permissible meals and refreshments that may be provided by manufacturers to health care practitioners and clarify issues related to preemption of the Massachusetts Regulations by the federal Sunshine Act.  The Massachusetts changes and impending release of final federal regulations underscore the continuing need for drug and device manufacturers to … Read More »


James Sawyer

Tougher Sanctions on Iran: What it Will Mean for Businesses

Posted on October 10th, by and in Customs & Trade. No Comments

Tougher sanctions went into effect on October 9, 2012, that broadly expand the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. Government with regard to conducting business with Iran.  Most significantly, with the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, any business owned or controlled by a U.S. parent may expose its parent to sanctions for its business activities with Iran.

Significantly, the new law allows for the imposition of civil penalties of up to $250,000, or twice the value of the transaction, for activities completed by any foreign entity owned or controlled by a U.S. parent, if such activities would violate U.S. sanctions laws if they were to be undertaken in the U.S. or completed by a US person.  Stated another way, if a U.S.–owned or U.S.–controlled foreign entity enters into a transaction with an Iranian party that the parent … Read More »


Jesse Witten

Pharmaceutical Industry Executives Face Enforcement Risks Under The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

Posted on August 28th, by in Litigation. No Comments

The recent decision of the D.C. Circuit in Friedman v. Sebelius, No. 11-5028 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2012), demonstrates the enforcement risk to pharmaceutical and medical device industry executives under the “responsible corporate officer” (RCO) doctrine. Under the RCO doctrine, officers, managers and in-house counsel employed by life sciences companies could face misdemeanor criminal liability and exclusion from Medicare and other federal health programs, even if they were not personally involved in wrongdoing. Indeed, an executive can be liable under the RCO doctrine even if they did not know that their organization had engaged in wrongdoing, so long as the executive should have known of the organization misconduct by virtue of the executive’s position within the organization.

The RCO doctrine originated in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943), in which the Supreme Court upheld the misdemeanor conviction of the president of a … Read More »


Robyn Shapiro

U.S. Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act Decision: Impacts on Life Sciences

Posted on June 28th, by in Life Sciences. 1 Comment

The June 28, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) impacts the life sciences industry in a number of ways, including impacts on innovation and compliance initiatives by medical device, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology companies.

Innovation

A number of provisions in the Act provide incentives and resources for product innovation.  First, it is expected that more than 30 million Americans will obtain health care coverage on account of the Act.  A bigger pool of Americans with health coverage to pay for treatment will yield growth in pharmaceutical sales and, perhaps, the ability to charge higher drug prices, which, in turn, could spur innovation.  In addition, the Act created the Therapeutic Discovery Project Program, through which $1 billion in new therapeutic discovery project grants and tax credits will be awarded.  In 2010, 2,923 companies specializing in biotechnology … Read More »


Jesse Witten

HHS-OIG Changes Boilerplate in its Advisory Opinions, But It’s Still Unfair

Posted on June 4th, by in Litigation. No Comments

I just noticed that in late 2011, the HHS-OIG modified some of the boilerplate in its advisory opinions.  The boilerplate is very objectionable, probably calls for a due process violation, and may well be disregarded by a court.

Since late 2011, HHS-OIG advisory opinions have contained the following sentence stating that advisory opinions may not be introduced in evidence to show that a person (other than the person requesting the advisory opinion) did not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute or Civil Monetary Penalties Law:

This advisory opinion may not be introduced into evidence by a person or entity other than [name redacted] to prove that the person or entity did not violate the provisions of sections 1128, 1128A, or 1128B of the Act or any other law.

Previously, the comparable boilerplate sentence stated:

This advisory opinion may not be introduced into … Read More »




From the Blog

Louisiana Supreme Court Strikes Down Expansive Interpretation of State Medicaid Fraud Statute

In a decision that has important ramifications for the life sciences industry, on January 28, 2013, in Caldwell ex rel State of Louisiana v....

FTC Amendments to Premerger Notification Rules: The Who, What & Why

On November 6, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission released final amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules to clarify when a transaction involving the transfer of...

The Debate Over Mobile Health Software Regulation

On November 19th, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine the federal regulation of mobile medical applications (mobile...