Health Law Advisor

On June 1, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously settled a long-standing dispute over a subjective versus objective standard for scienter under the False Claims Act (FCA), holding that a defendant’s own subjective belief is relevant to scienter, rather than what an “objectively reasonable” person may have known or believed.

The case in question, U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., consolidated from two lower court decisions, involved allegations that the defendants, two retail pharmacy chains, overcharged the government for prescription drugs in violation of ...

Due diligence is a standard phase of any corporate transaction, whether structured as an asset or stock sale or joint venture, and sellers are often surprised, and even overwhelmed, by the comprehensiveness of the diligence investigation.  Preparing prior to soliciting bids or looking for a buyer can ease the burden of diligence and allow the seller to focus on other areas of the transaction, such as negotiating important terms and documents.

On August 3, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), the Department of Labor, and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) temporarily suspended the federal Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) process immediately following the issuance of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Court”) that vacated certain regulations and guidance the Departments issued to implement the No Surprises Act (“NSA”).

The Court’s ruling in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. HHS (“TMA IV”)—which addressed claim “batching” and the $350 administrative fee required to initiate the IDR process—represents the Department’s third significant loss in legal challenges against the Departments’ implementation of the NSA’s IDR process that providers, facilities, air ambulance providers, and plans may use to determine the correct payment amounts for certain out-of-network services. On August 11, 2023, the Departments issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” guidance document to detail their intended approach to address the administrative fee. The Departments plan to issue additional updates on the NSA IDR process after further analysis of the TMA IV decision.

When the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) ended on May 11, 2023, many physician groups furnishing certain medical equipment, devices, and/or supplies to their Medicare patients became in violation of the federal Physician Self-Referral Law (the “Stark Law”), which has draconian penalties, such as clawback of Medicare payments plus additional stiff monetary penalties and possible exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. 

During the COVID-19 PHE, CMS issued temporary waivers, including a waiver of the “location requirement” of the In-Office Ancillary Services (“IOAS”) exception. That waiver allowed physician groups that furnish certain durable medical equipment, orthotics, prosthetic devices – including intermittent urinary catheters (“IUCs”) – and other medical supplies (collectively referred to here as “DME”) to provide home delivery of such DME to their Medicare patients without facing sanctions for violating the Stark Law.[1] With the end of the PHE having occurred over three months ago, that temporary waiver of sanctions ended and can no longer be relied upon for legal compliance with the Stark Law.[2]     

Introduction

Hardly a day goes by when we don’t see some media report of health care providers experimenting with machine learning, and more recently with generative AI, in the context of patient care. The allure is obvious. But the question is, to what extent do health care providers need to worry about FDA requirements as they use AI?

In a previous blog, we discussed the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposed changes to its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Endorsement Guides”). The Endorsement Guides are intended to help businesses ensure that their endorsement and testimonial advertising conforms with Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” including false advertising. We specifically highlighted the FTC’s proposed changes related to social media platforms and their users, deceptive endorsements by online “influencers,” businesses’ use of consumer reviews, and the impact of advertising on children. Now, approximately one year later, and after receiving and considering public comments on its proposed changes, the FTC has issued its final rule adopting revisions to the Endorsement Guides. See Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 88 Fed. Reg. 48092 (July 26, 2023) (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 255). In issuing its final revised Endorsement Guides, the FTC stated that the changes are intended to “reflect the ways advertisers now reach consumers to promote products and services, including through social media and reviews.” We summarize below the FTC’s final revisions to the same sections of the Endorsement Guides covered in our earlier blog.

On August 4, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) announced plans to host two public listening sessions, scheduled to take place on September 12 and 13, 2023 at DEA’s headquarters in Arlington, VA, to collect additional input regarding the practice of telemedicine and specifically the remote prescribing of controlled substances without conducting an in-person evaluation of patients before prescribing.

The listening sessions will be open to the public, and those who anticipate attending must register through DEA’s Diversion Control website. The registration process opens today (August 7, 2023). DEA also plans to make the listening sessions available via livestream and copies of transcripts from the sessions also will be made available at a later date on the DEA Diversion Control Program website.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  In July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made significant headway in its implementation of the drug pricing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

How can stakeholders respond to, implement, and comply with all these new provisions? On this episode, hear from special guest Sylvia Yu, Vice President and Senior Counsel of Federal Programs at PhRMA.

Sylvia and Epstein Becker Green attorneys Connie Wilkinson and Alexis Boaz discuss the recent updates on the quickly moving implementation of the drug pricing provisions under the IRA and the industry’s response.

As discussed in our June Insight, earlier this year FDA publicly announced its development of a proposed rule that would expressly define laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”) as medical devices and subject them to the agency’s regulatory authority. Such a rule would be FDA’s first comprehensive attempt to impose its authority over LDTs since its 2014 draft guidance, which FDA ultimately chose not to finalize, and comes after several failed congressional legislative attempts to do the same.

Recently Colleen and Brad had a debate about whether Medical Device Reports (“MDRs”) tend to trail recalls, or whether MDRs tend to lead to recalls. Both Colleen and Brad have decades of experience in FDA regulation, but we have different impressions on that topic, so we decided to inform the debate with a systematic look at the data. While we can both claim some evidence in support of our respective theses based on the analysis, Brad must admit that Colleen’s thesis that MDRs tend to lag recalls has the stronger evidence. We are no longer friends. At the same time, the actual data didn’t really fit either of our predictions well, so we decided to invite James onto the team to help us figure out what was really going on. He has the unfair advantage of not having made any prior predictions, so he doesn’t have any position he needs to defend.