FDA Law Alert – December 2020December 4, 2020
To close out 2020, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. is pleased to present the latest issue of our quarterly newsletter highlighting key postings from our nationally acclaimed FDA Law Blog. Please subscribe to the FDA Law Blog to receive contemporaneous posts on regulatory and enforcement activities affecting the broad cross-section of FDA-regulated industry. As the largest dedicated FDA law firm, we are happy to help you or your clients navigate the nuances of the applicable laws and regulations.
- Kurt Karst probes HHS’ announcement to withdraw FDA’s guidance/Compliance Policy Guide related to the marketing of unapproved drugs, effectively ending FDA’s “Unapproved Drugs Initiative.” Karst describes the regulatory background and framework for such products, scrutinizes the purported reason underlying this withdrawal, and contemplates the end result of this decision.
- In this post, Sara Koblitzand David Clissold highlight the approval of Veklury (remdesivir) which was awarded a material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) Priority Review Voucher (PRV) despite COVID-19 not being designated a material threat, at least publicly. Among other issues, the authors assess the effectiveness of the PRV program (i.e., encouraging development of MCMs) when the underlying information for obtaining such an incentive (i.e., a material threat determination) is not made public.
- Sara Koblitz analyzes the ramifications of a Federal Circuit decision holding that “skinny labeling” for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) can constitute induced infringement. This decision encapsulates the delicate balance of interests that Congress dealt with in passing the Hatch-Waxman Amendments—protecting intellectual property while also facilitating generic drug access—and has potentially massive implications for the generic industry.
Compliance and Enforcement
- Anne Walsh, John Fleder, and Robert Dormer provide a breakdown of Executive Order 13924 and a follow-on memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget, both of which purport to inject more fairness into administrative enforcement and adjudication actions.
- Jeffrey Shapiro reviews FDA’s proposed rule to amend the “intended use” regulation that governs the fundamental determination of whether a product is regulated by FDA, and if so, what regulatory requirements apply. The Agency proposes to remove language from the regulation that has proved problematic to regulated industry; however, Shapiro examines two other substantive, and arguably unnecessary, additions to the intended use regulation stemming from the proposed rule.
- Ricardo Carvajal and Anne Walsh discuss two firsts by the Department of Justice (DOJ): 1) the largest-ever criminal penalty following a conviction in a food safety case, and 2) the first ever consent decree of permanent injunction against a firm or grower for violating safety standards enacted under the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011.
- Karin Moore describes a Third Circuit decision overruling a lower court’s order requiring disgorgement and outright rejecting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) authority to seek disgorgement. The debate over the FTC’s authority to order disgorgement has been front and center in several recent cases and is pending before the Supreme Court, so look for our next update on this evolving jurisprudence.
- Faraz Siddiquiand Jeffrey Wasserstein examine a Special Fraud Alert from the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) targeting fraud and abuse risks associated with in-person speaker programs. On top of expressing an overall skepticism regarding such speaker programs, OIG expounds upon examples of common violative practices and suspect characteristics.
- Serra Schlanger, Faraz Siddiqui, Michelle Butler, and Alan Kirschenbaumdetail the final rule and FDA guidance creating two discrete pathways for importing certain prescription drugs. The authors detail the accompanying guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which discusses manufacturer obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for products described in the FDA guidance.
- In a series of posts (here, here), John Gilbertand Karla Palmer survey the long-awaited proposed rule from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) addressing the Agency’s interpretation of suspicious order requirements. The authors address DEA’s proposed new definitions, frameworks for identifying and reporting suspicious orders, due diligence requirements, and reporting requirements.
- Jeffrey Shapiro explains that the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) announcement that FDA will no longer conduct premarket review of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) is not actually much of a course change for the Agency but, regardless, may herald beneficial effects. The potential beneficial effects are two-fold: 1) there will no longer be the specter of possible FDA enforcement hovering over clinical laboratories, and 2) the Agency can more efficiently direct its resources to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Allyson Mullen discusses FDA’s guidance regarding patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical studies. Mullen describes how the guidance seeks to provide insight into the Agency’s understanding of PROs as well as the instruments for such measurements, but she also posits that the guidance could have gone further in clarifying the necessary level of evidence for a specific PRO in various regulatory decision-making situations.
Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. has its finger on the pulse of FDA law. Our technical expertise and industry knowledge are exceptional in scope and depth. Our professional team holds extensive experience with the myriad of issues faced by companies. Please contact us with any questions you may have related to the issues described here or any other FDA-related issue affecting your industry.