Supreme Court to Determine if Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers are Legal

7 Indest-2008-4By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Supreme Court is currently looking into whether brand name drug manufacturers may pay generic drug manufacturers to keep the generic drugs off the market. These payments, often called pay-for-delay, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision may be worth billions to pharmaceutical companies and consumers.

In January 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) teamed up with the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and other organizations seeking to eliminate pay-for-delay agreements. The groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.

Click here to read the friend-of-the-court brief.

History of Pay-For-Delay Agreements.

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

The Impact of Pay-For-Delay Agreements.

It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs.

According to an article on National Public Radio (NPR), the number of pay-for-delay agreements is increasing. Click here to read the entire NPR article.

Legalized Extortion Causes Patients to Pay High Drug Prices.

This type of legalized extortion does nothing more than drive up drug prices for all patients by keeping generic drugs off the market. On the other hand, it vastly increases the profits made by big name pharmacy companies who are able to derive even more money from expired patents.

AMA Fights to Get Rid of Pay-for-Delay Agreements.

According to a press release, AMA, AARP, the National Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups all signed onto the friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Supreme Court.

The AMA is concerned that pay-for-delay agreements extend patent monopolies, increase health care costs and restrict doctors’ ability to treat patients. To read the entire press release from the AMA, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

As a health care professional, how do you feel about pay-for-delay agreements? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Mills, Robert. “AMA Joins Other Groups Seeking to Overturn Pay-for-Delay Drug Agreement.” American Medical Association. (January 30, 2013). From: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2013-01-30-amicus-brief-ftc-vs-watson-pharmaceuticals.page

Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case Number 12-416. Brief for AARP, American Medical Association, National Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices and U.S. Public Interest Research Groups as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner. January 29, 2013. From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/2013-01-29-amicus-brief-ftc-vs-watson-pharmaceuticals.pdf

Purvis, Leigh. “Pay-for-Delay Agreements and Prescription Drug Costs.” AARP. (May 13, 2013.) From: http://blog.aarp.org/2013/05/13/pay-for-delay-agreements-and-prescription-drug-costs/

Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court Hears ‘Pay to Delay’ Pharmaceutical Case.” National Public Radio. (March 25, 2013). From: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175043758/supreme-court-hears-pay-to-delay-pharmaceutical-case

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Two Orlando-Area Pharmacists Arrested on Charges of Allegedly Trafficking Drugs

6 Indest-2008-3By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Two Orlando-area pharmacists were arrested on June 4, 2013, allegedly in connection to trafficking oxycodone, according to a number of local media sources. An Orlando Sentinel article states that the pharmacists are also co-owners of an Orlando pharmacy that was raided by the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation (MBI).

This is the fourth pharmacy in the Orlando area in which a pharmacist has been arrested as a result of an MBI investigation into alleged forgery and drug trafficking operations, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

I want to point out that these are just allegations made against the pharmacists at this point in time and nothing has been proven by the state.

Pharmacists Allegedly Filling Fake Prescriptions for Drug Traffickers.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, MBI agents said the pharmacists had been under investigation since 2011. They are accused of accepting fraudulent forged prescriptions from drug-trafficking ringleaders. The drug traffickers would allegedly print off hundreds of fake prescriptions for pain medications, which were then taken to be filled at pharmacies around Central Florida.

To read the entire Orlando Sentinel article, click here.

Prescriptions Allegedly Full of Red Flags.

According to a WESH-TV report, the arrests were based on evidence of illegally selling pain medications to a local drug trafficking organization under circumstances in which there could be no reasonable good faith belief of a medical necessity. After reviewing the case, a Florida Department of Health (DOH) expert pharmacist said there were nine red flags that should have indicated that the prescriptions filled by the two arrested pharmacists were forged.

Click here to watch a report on the arrests from WESH-TV.

The Result of Crackdowns on Florida Pill Mills.

According to the director of Orange County’s Office for a Drug Free Community, the number of pill mills in Orange County, Florida, has dropped from 60 in 2010, to 23 clinics in June 2013. The number of oxycodone-related deaths are down in Florida as well. Click here to read a blog on that. However, with prescription pills harder to come by and more expensive, addicts are finding their replacement fix in heroin. To read a blog on the fight against heroin in Florida, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of these pharmacy raids around Central Florida? As a pharmacist, what safeguards do you have in place so you do not fall under investigation? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Pavuk, Amy. “Agents Raid South Orange Pharmacy, Arrest Pair.” Orlando Sentinel. (June 4, 2013). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-jr-pharmacy-raid-arrests-20130604,0,2706542.story

McDaniel, Dave. “Pharmacists Arrested on Trafficking Charges.” WESH TV. (June 4, 2013). From: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/orange-county/pharmacists-arrested-on-trafficking-charges/-/12978032/20414548/-/13bxurx/-/index.html

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Florida Board of Pharmacy Updates Record Retention Rules for Pharmacies

Lance Leider headshotBy Lance O. Leider, J.D., The Health Law Firm

At its meeting held on February 12, 2014, the Florida Board of Pharmacy voted to approve language changes to a number of rules. Specifically, those changes were put into effect to establish a uniform four-year retention policy for pharmacy records.

Previously the Board’s rules were not consistent with respect to how long pharmacies were required to retain different types of records.

When approving new rules or changes to existing rules, administrative bodies are required to evaluate the regulatory costs of the changes. In examining these costs the Board found that any financial costs imposed upon small businesses would be balanced by the efficiencies created by a uniform retention period.

Board of Pharmacy Voted to Change the Wording in These Rules.

Below is a list of the administrative rules that were changed:

– Standards for the Approval of Registered Pharmacy Technician Training Programs
Rule 64B16-26.351, Florida Administrative Code

– Standards for Approval of Courses and Providers
Rule 64B16-26.601, Florida Administrative Code

– Continuing Education Records Requirements
Rule 64B16-26.603, Florida Administrative Code

– General Terms and Conditions to be Followed by a Pharmacist When Ordering and Dispensing Approved Medicinal Drug Products
Rule 64B16-27.210, Florida Administrative Code

– Standards of Practice – Continuous Quality Improvement Program
Rule 64B16-27.300, Florida Administrative Code

– Requirement for Patient Records
Rule 64B16-27.800, Florida Administrative Code

– Change of Ownership
Rule 64B16-28.2021, Florida Administrative Code

– Centralized Prescription Filling, Delivering and Returning
Rule 64B16-28.450, Florida Administrative Code

– Transmission of Starter Dose Prescriptions for Patients in Class I Institutional or Modified II B Facilities
Rule 64B16-28.503, Florida Administrative Code

– Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.605, Florida Administrative Code

– Remote Medication Order Processing for Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.606, Florida Administrative Code

– Automated Pharmacy System – Long-Term Care, hospice, and Prison
Rule 64B16-28.607, Florida Administrative Code

– Modified Class II Institutional Pharmacies
Rule 64B16-28.702, Florida Administrative Code

– Record Maintenance for Animal Shelter Permits
Rule 64B16-29.0041, Florida Administrative Code

Make Sure Your Facility is Prepared.

While these rule changes are not final, it is important to recognize if they will be affecting your facility. You should also be making arrangements in your facility to ensure that there is enough computer disk space or physical space to retain these records. Keep in mind that these records retention rules are in addition to any others imposed by other Florida or federal statutes or rules relating to controlled substances or other pharmacy practices.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

How do you feel about the requirement of pharmacy records to be retained for four years? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

About the Author: Lance O. Leider is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

OIG Issues Advisory Opinion to Specialty Pharmacy for Support Service Payments

LLA Headshot smBy Lenis L. Archer, J.D., M.P.H., The Health Law Firm

There is an inherent risk in entering into financial arrangements where payments to a service provider are only made when a referral is generated. On August 15, 2014, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) made this perfectly clear in an unfavorable advisory opinion issued to a specialty pharmacy that wanted to pay local retail pharmacies for providing support services to it.

Background of Request for OIG Advisory Opinion.

According to the OIG, the requestor, a specialty pharmacy, dispenses specialty pharmaceuticals used to treat a variety of chronic and life-threatening illnesses. The specialty pharmacy stated that the drugs offered at its establishment are frequently unavailable to retail pharmacies. In light of this, the specialty pharmacy asked whether it would be permissible to enter into agreements with various local pharmacies in which the specialty pharmacy would provide its specialty drug prescriptions to local pharmacies’ patients. Under the proposed contractual arrangement, the local pharmacies would be required to provide various support services, including:

1. Accepting the prescription from the patient or prescriber;
2. Gathering patient and prescriber demographic information;
3. Recording patient-specific history and use, including drug names, strength and directions;
4. Patient counseling;
5. Informing the patients about access to specialty drugs, including the availability from pharmacies other than the specialty pharmacy;
6. Obtaining patient consent to forward the prescription to the specialty pharmacy;
7. Transferring prescription information to the specialty pharmacy; and
8. Providing ongoing patient assessments for subsequent refills.

The retail pharmacies would be paid a “per-fill fee” by the specialty pharmacy at the time that the initial prescription was transmitted and upon each subsequent refill.

OIG Issued Negative Opinion Due to Anti-Kickback Statute.

The OIG issued an unfavorable opinion for this proposed agreement, concluding that the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was implicated because the specialty pharmacy would pay a per-fill fee for support services each time a local pharmacy referred a specialty drug prescription. After evaluating the arrangement, the OIG concluded that the per-fill fees were inherently subject to abuse because they were paid only when the support services provided by the retail pharmacy resulted in a referral to the specialty pharmacy. Thus, the OIG found that such a per-fill fee is directly linked to business generated by the local pharmacy for the specialty pharmacy, and could influence the local pharmacy’s referral decisions. OIG noted that the Anti-Kickback Statute is implicated if one purpose of the remuneration is to generate referrals.

Click here to read OIG Advisory Opinion No. 14-06.

Exceptions to Anti-Kickback Laws.

Like many other regulatory frameworks, the Anti-Kickback Statute has exceptions. The law provides a number of safe harbors to the rule which allow otherwise impermissible referral arrangements to pass muster.

Because the exceptions are numerous and often subject to change, it is highly recommended that any new business arrangement, or substantial change to an existing one, is reviewed by a health law attorney experienced in the area of Anti-Referral and Anti-Kickback Laws.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.

We can review business referral arrangements and provide legal counsel on whether they are not in violation of federal and state anti-referral laws.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings. Call now or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. “OIG Advisory Opinion No. 14-06” (August 15, 2014). From: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/advisoryopinions/2014/AdvOpn14-06.pdf

Ciesla, Frank, Christian, Beth, and Burd, Ari. “Office of Inspector General (OIG) Issues Unfavorable Advisory Opinion to Specialty Pharmacy for Support Service Payments.” The National Law Review. (August 18, 2014). From: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/office-inspector-general-oig-issues-unfavorable-advisory-opinion-to-specialty-pharma

About the Author: Lenis L. Archer is as attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Go to Top