The use of telehealth continues to grow rapidly across the U.S.  Given legislative proposals and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services efforts to expand access to telehealth, we can only anticipate that remotely engaging with healthcare providers is here to stay.   In fact, the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that between April and July 2021, 24.5% of adults in the U.S. had a virtual care appointment with a healthcare professional over video or phone.  Given the continued persistence of COVID-19 and the ease and convenience for both provider and patient, telehealth services will most likely remain popular even as the option of in-person appointments regains footing.

On a parallel front, artificial intelligence (AI) is also driving considerable advancements in patient care. Advances in AI offer a powerful way to create clinical and operational efficiency in today’s healthcare system. According to a study by MIT, 72% of healthcare professional respondents showed interest in implementing AI in healthcare delivery. In the field of radiology, as just one of many examples, AI can already be used to find patterns in CT scans, mammography, and other imaging modes that help radiologists more accurately diagnose cancer and a whole spectrum of  other sometimes hard-to-identify diseases.

Telehealth is one of the newest services to utilize AI widely, and there is great promise in its application.  Telehealth typically involves a synchronous, real-time electronic communication from person-to-person.  Subject to limitations in certain states, telehealth also can be furnished through asynchronous communication, whereby a physician reviews and makes medical assessments based on information that a patient has uploaded or stored in a database.  Even though it is asynchronous, this remains a person-to-person communication.  Recently, however, we see more and more opportunities for AI to augment the person-to-person nature of and enhance the capabilities of telehealth.  For example:

• Clinical Evaluation – leveraging AI to take patient histories and make collecting patient information more efficient. This could include a series of AI-developed questions during telehealth intake designed to ask the right questions in the proper sequence to better assist a physician in determining the cause of a patient’s symptoms.
• Telemonitoring – the potential for AI and telemonitoring extends beyond just collecting patient data and turning them into reports. Implementing AI into remote patient monitoring (RPM) devices can promote preventative care and equip the RPM with the ability to predict adverse events.
• Quality Improvement –further integration of AI technology in telehealth services can help with quality improvement processes by enhancing clinical decision-making and disease diagnosis, ultimately optimizing patient care and significantly improving healthcare outcomes.
• Virtual Health Assistants – AI-enabled interfaces allow patients to have more power and control over their healthcare paths. AI applications in virtual health assistants can provide the patient with precise information about their healthcare condition and assist with better healthcare management.

With the promising future of the continued convergence of AI and telehealth and the increased use of digital and consumer technologies to deliver virtual care, there are several legal and regulatory considerations for telehealth providers.  These include:

• Protecting Patient Health Information. One of the biggest issues related to data privacy and security with the application of AI in healthcare is the need to either use de-identified information or obtain patient authorization to use identifiable information. Absent patient authorization, it is difficult to use protected health information (PHI) for machine learning.  But sometimes de-identified information is insufficient for machine learning.  If the developer of the AI is using de-identified information, it must have the right to de-identify the PHI.  Typically, a business associate (BA) is developing the AI. BA’s must have the right to de-identify under the business associate agreement (BAA); otherwise, they can’t de-identify PHI.  Further, there is a separate risk that the AI can be used to re-identify de-identified information.  Studies have demonstrated the potential to re-identify de-identified patient records by combining it with other data sources that AI collects such as facial recognition or iris scans. Because only a few states, like California, have banned re-identification of de-identified data, a Covered Entity may want to include provisions in a BAA with an entity developing AI to protect against that.

Another significant consideration with AI implementation in digital health is patient health information protection and verification.  Healthcare providers are subject to state privacy and security regulations as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its implementing regulations, which protect the privacy and security of health information and give individuals certain rights concerning their health information.  According to a 2019 University of California Berkley study, due to the nature and functionality of AI, current laws and regulations appear inadequate to keep an individual’s health status private.  The findings demonstrate that using AI makes it possible to identify individuals by learning daily patterns collected by remote patient monitoring devices such as smartwatches and smartphones and correlating them to demographic data.  If bad actors gain access to such information, they can piece together patients’ identities.  According to a 2020 cybersecurity survey, 70% of the healthcare providers that responded stated that they experienced significant security incidents between 2019 and 2020.  Telehealth providers should be mindful of the potential gaps in data protections that could be created with the addition of AI.  This includes continued vigilance when it comes to HIPAA compliance and reexamining their internal risk assessments, policies, and practices considering the additional risks raised by AI.

• Corporate Practice of Medicine Considerations. As telehealth platforms leverage AI to help physicians deliver care to patients, there is an increasing opportunity for providers to use AI, through machine learning, for example, to diagnose and/or identify the appropriate treatment regimen for patients.  Potential corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) concerns could ensue.  Generally, CPOM laws are designed to prohibit corporations from practicing medicine:  only individual practitioners can diagnose and treat patients, and CPOM prohibitions prevent corporate interference with a healthcare professional’s independent professional judgment.  Without the right level of physician supervision, it is conceivable that an advanced AI-enabled telehealth platform could potentially diagnose or recommend patient treatment options or otherwise blur the lines demarcating where the machine’s judgment ends, and the physician’s judgment begins.  A company offering AI-enabled telehealth services should be mindful of and create clear supervision requirements and boundaries to avoid running afoul of these longstanding laws.  These boundaries should identify important guardrails, including whether and how a physician can overrule AI-driven diagnoses, and when must a physician sign off on an AI-generated treatment regimen.  Since telehealth is often practiced in multiple states, and because CPOM laws vary from state-to-state, providers utilizing telehealth services must structure their operations to account for the variability of the CPOM prohibitions in various states.
• Health Disparities. The implementation of AI-enabled telehealth services also raises important ethical questions about the availability of innovative care.  There is a potential that adding AI to telehealth services might shrink the gap between those accessing advanced care technologies and those that are not.  For example, studies have shown that those with limited English language skills have lower rates of telehealth use.  Adding AI virtual assistants to telehealth technology could, for example, help to ensure that language barriers do not get in the way of appropriate care.  Rather than finding a provider that speaks a particular language, an AI-enabled telehealth platform could assist by providing translation services in real time in multiple languages.  This could allow an AI virtual assistant, for example, to collect more comprehensive medical history during a telehealth visit, thereby providing a greater opportunity for better care and treatment.  Incorporating AI into telehealth visits might also allow for better questions that account for how different cultures view disease and treatment, or for diseases that might only affect a narrow sub-population.

But, there is also the possibility that AI-enabled telehealth services might exacerbate the gap between those who have access to the latest innovative technology and those who do not.  The growing expansion of telehealth services could risk widening disparities among marginalized populations who may have limited access to necessary resources: for example, those who lack access to a computer or smartphone or lack reliable broadband access.  The deployment of AI by telehealth providers is likely to lower costs and should improve disparities in access to care.  However, in the short term, access to AI-aided telehealth services may be uneven and contribute to a greater disparity in access to care.  The addition of AI to telehealth will likely not solve the physical access or cost problems, and it could conceivably add more costs to telehealth technology.  Further, many state Medicaid programs do cover telehealth visits for their beneficiaries, but the infusion of AI may require state regulators to further examine telehealth coverage policies.

• Professional Liability & Malpractice.  As AI advances and its capabilities are better leveraged, how will the highly litigious American people respond?  Who will be responsible when AI-enabled telehealth results in an unfortunate misdiagnosis?  AI and machine learning are not immune to mistakes.  For example, the visual nature of a skin examination lends itself well to the use of machine learning as a potentially valuable tool in teledermatology and the diagnosis and management of dermatologic diseases, especially in areas where a dermatologist may not be available.  However, just like humans, AI might not always get it right.  AI algorithms have some shortcomings, including inapplicability outside of their training domain or bias. We know that blind spots in machine learning machines can sometimes imitate the worst societal biases, with a risk of unintended consequences that have particular effects on minority groups, which can open up providers to increased liability if they depend on these algorithms to assist in diagnosing patients.  Who can be held liable for malpractice if a patient undertakes a series of damaging treatments – or fails to seek treatment based on an AI-enabled diagnosis the patient receives through a telehealth platform?  The AI developer?  The telehealth platform?  The individual physician who signed off on the misdiagnosis?  And which law applies, especially if the patient is in one state, the telehealth provider in another state, and the AI data platform in yet another state?  Further, how much training must a telehealth platform provide its individual physicians regarding the use of AI-infused tools?  If a healthcare provider uses AI to treat or diagnose a patient, both the AI developer and the healthcare provider may be exposed to tort liability related to an adverse event.  The AI developer can be exposed to products liability claims and the provider may be exposed to malpractice claims.  However, without clear legislative direction, it is conceivable that litigants will use the courts to lay out these rules.
• FDA Implications. The regulatory framework governing AI is complex.  A threshold question for any AI developer is whether their AI-enabled product will be actively regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a question that hinges not only on the product’s functionalities, but also its proposed marketing claims.  Further, the FDA continues to develop its framework for regulation of AI-enabled products that the agency actively regulates.  On January 12, 2021, the FDA released the agency’s first Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Action Plan.  This action plan describes a multifaceted approach to advance the FDA’s oversight of AI/ML-SaMD, and offers stakeholders several opportunities to engage with the FDA to discuss the agency’s oversight approach.  For example, upcoming opportunities include the FDA’s planned virtual public workshop on October 14, 2021 on the role of transparency in enhancing the safety and effectiveness of AI/ML-based SaMD. Stakeholder feedback continues to inform the evolution of FDA’s regulatory framework for oversight of AI/ML-based SaMD, including FDA’s expectations for such products during premarket review.  A thorough understanding of such expectations early in development can inform more efficient development strategies.

Advances in the use of AI in telehealth will no doubt continue.  AI’s application in telehealth platforms is not just limited to potentially diagnosing a wide range of diseases (like analyzing data from tele-dermatological visits to more accurately diagnose skin cancer); but it can also improve the patient experience (by asking more pinpointed intake questions, for instance), make telehealth visits more efficient (by, for example, more rapidly analyzing a patient’s history for a physician in advance of a visit), and help ensure more effective treatment (with AI-generated follow-up adherence or refill calls).   AI can reduce differences in clinical practice, improve efficiency, and prevent avoidable medical errors that can help with healthcare costs and improve health outcomes and the patient experience.

But a fundamental component to achieving a safe and effective deployment of AI in telehealth services is ensuring that AI developers, telehealth platforms, and the physicians that leverage these tools have the necessary legal and regulatory guardrails in place. This includes addressing the application of current privacy and data security regimes, how telehealth providers supervise the use of AI technology to ensure compliance with CPOM laws, and how telehealth providers address growing disparities in access to care.

The No Surprises Act and Transparency in Coverage final rules go into effect January 1, 2022. Implemented as Titles I and II of Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, these rules are intended to protect patients from surprise medical bills and increase transparency by requiring certain health care facilities and insurers to disclose certain information. The U.S. Departments of Health & Human Services, Labor, and Treasury are jointly charged with implementing specific sections of the No Surprises Act and Transparency in Coverage final rules. On August 20, 2021, however, these agencies jointly announced through an FAQ published on HHS’s website that they are deferring enforcement of certain requirements from the final rules.

One of the No Surprises Act’s final rule’s requirements is that certain health care providers and facilities must provide a good faith estimate of an individual’s expected charges for health care items or services, if the individual is enrolled in a health plan and seeks to submit a claim to the plan.  The government, recognizing that providers and facilities must develop complex technical infrastructure to comply with this provision, has decided to defer enforcement of this portion of the final rules until it can issue further rules on implementing these requirements. For nearly identical reasons, the government also decided to defer enforcement of requirements that plans and health insurance issuers provide individuals an advanced explanation of benefits pending further rulemaking.

The government further stated its plan to streamline some of the overlapping requirements in the No Surprises Act and the Transparency in Coverage final rules.  For example, the Transparency in Coverage rule requires certain group health plans and health insurance providers to publicly disclose specified information about their in-network provider rates, out-of-network allowed amounts and billed charges for covered items and services, and negotiated rates and historical net prices for prescription drugs in separate, machine-readable files for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. (”Grandfathered” health plans and health insurance providers, however, are exempt from these rules if they were in place prior to the March 2010 enactment of the Affordable Care Act.)

The government has decided to defer enforcement of the Transparency in Coverage rules that require plans and health insurance issuers to publish machine-readable files related to prescription drug pricing pending further rulemaking, given overlap with similar requirements in the No Surprises Act.  The government also indicated it will defer enforcement of all other machine-readable file publication requirements of the Transparency in Coverage final rule until July 1, 2022.

The requirements of the No Surprises and Transparency in Coverage final rules are complex and will require significant effort from health plans, healthcare facilities, and others to implement.  Despite the government’s decision to defer enforcement of certain requirements, health care facilities and health insurance providers should begin preparing to meet as many of these requirements as possible – and should do so as soon as possible.  This starts with understanding which of the myriad remaining No Surprises Act and Transparency in Coverage requirements still apply to which health plans or healthcare facilities.

Partnering with trusted legal counsel early on can help ensure health care providers and insurers are prepared when the full requirements of the No Surprises Act and Transparency in Coverage rules begin being enforced by the government.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reported that in 2020, the government prosecuted dozens of laboratory owners and operators for anti-kickback related offenses responsible for hundreds of millions in alleged federal health care program loses.  DOJ recouped a total of $1.8 billion dollars in connection with healthcare fraud allegations.

Since the public health emergency was announced in March 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), and other law enforcement agencies partnered to investigate and prosecute health care fraud from identified risk areas, including unnecessary laboratory testing related to the COVID-19, genetic sequencing, and cardiac panels.

Laboratories prosecuted in the last two years for health care fraud include: UTC Laboratories Inc. (RenC) ($41.6 million), Boston Heath Diagnostics Corporation ($26.7 million), Logan Laboratories Inc. ($41.0 million), Genova Diagnostics ($43.0 million).

According the to the report, “[t]hroughout FY 2020, HHS-OIG issued 178 audit reports and 44 evaluations, resulting in 689 new recommendations issued to HHS operating divisions. HHS operating divisions also implemented 286 recommendations during FY 2020.” Laboratory-related audit and evaluation findings are as follows:

• “Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data continue to lack National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) for providers who order and/or refer durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS); clinical laboratory services; imaging services; and home health services. However, almost all MA organizations have data systems that are able to receive and store these NPIs when providers submit them. In addition, a substantial portion of MA organizations reported that providers already are submitting the ordering provider NPIs on claims or encounter records for DMEPOS, laboratory services, and imaging services. Further, a majority of MA organizations require NPIs to be submitted for their other lines of business. Finally, almost half of MA organizations believe that using NPIs for ordering providers is critical for combating fraud.”
• “Total Medicare Part B spending for lab tests increased to $7.6 billion in 2018, despite lower payment rates for most laboratory (lab) tests. The $459.0 million spending increase was driven by: (1) increased spending on genetic tests; (2) ending the discount for certain chemistry tests; and (3) the move to a single national fee schedule. Congress mandated that the Office of Inspector General monitor Medicare payments for lab tests and the implementation and effect of the new payment system for those tests. This report also provides the fifth annual analysis of the top 25 lab tests by Medicare spending.”

Importantly, the report indicates that in 2021 and 2022, DOJ-OIG will have more resources, more complete data, and will therefore be able to provide even more oversight of health care fraud, resulting in “a steady increase in healthcare related audits, inspections, and investigations.”

Alere Inc. and Alere San Diego Inc. (collectively “Alere”) have come under fire recently by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and other government agencies, agreeing to settle several rounds of accusations of False Claims Act violations for a total of $198.75 million.

The first series of settlements was announced by DOJ on July 8, 2021 and cost the company approximately $38.75 million in fines and penalties. Here, the medical device manufacturer was alleged to have billed Medicare for rapid point-of-care testing devices that Alere knew were defective.  More specifically, the government alleged that the INRatio blood coagulation monitors (manufactured by Alere) were defective.  The monitors were used by Medicare beneficiaries taking anticoagulant drugs to monitor their blood coagulation. Anticoagulants drugs can cause major bleeding when used in access or blood clots and strokes can develop when not enough medication is taken. DOJ alleged that Alere concealed the fact that the device was producing inaccurate results for some patients, resulting in several deaths and hundreds of injured beneficiaries. This practice was ongoing for a total of eight years, according to DOJ.

One month after this first massive settlement was announced, the DOJ announced an even more sizable settlement with Alere Inc.’s subsidiary, Arriva Medical (“Arriva”), a diabetes testing equipment supplier, totaling an additional $160 million to settle false claims related to an alleged kickback scheme. The DOJ purported that, from April 2010 through December 2016 – immediately prior to Abbott’s $5.3 billion acquisition of Alere in 2017 – Arriva (1) regularly waived and failed to collect Medicare beneficiaries’ cost-sharing amounts (i.e. copays); (2) sent glucose meters at no cost to patients; and (3) sent diabetic testing equipment to deceased patients.

Medical device makers, durable medical equipment suppliers, and Medicare providers of all sorts should take heed of these recent settlements and implement regular third party compliance and billing audits as part of their Compliance Program to help ensure that practices are aligned with government expectations and rules. In addition, companies acquiring, merging with, or investing in healthcare entities should incorporate complete third party billing and compliance testing as part of their due diligence in connection with these types of transactions to identify billing-related risks.

If you have any questions, please contact Anne Brendel (abrendel@goodwinlaw.com; 415-733-6047) or Matt Wetzel (mwetzel@goodwinlaw.com; 202-346-4208).

In recent months, the Kaiser Health Network (part of the Kaiser Family Foundation) has issued three reports scrutinizing the orthopedic industry and its practices.  Each report articulates the stakeholder group’s concerns over relationships among orthopedic and spinal surgeons, orthopedic implant manufacturers, and their sales representatives.  Medical device manufacturers, especially those in the orthopedic space, should pay careful attention.

• The first report (June 2021) dives deeply into payments made by medical device makers to orthopedic surgeons who use their products. Kaiser highlights government allegations against orthopedic medical device makers (focusing specifically on the recent SpineFrontier matter) that they pay “sham consulting fees” to spinal surgeons for “doing little or not work.”  Kaiser identifies what it considers to be troublesome payments from medical device makers to surgeons that implant their products, including royalty payments (for “helping to design implants”), speakers’ fees (“for promoting devices at medical meetings”), to stock ownership provided in exchange for consulting.  Kaiser notes that, from 2013 through 2019, the orthopedic industry has paid $3.1 billion to its surgeon consultants, highlighting the potential to “corrupt medical judgment and tempt surgeons to perform unnecessary and wasteful operations.”  The patient stakeholder group also spotlights what it considers to be a “startling array of schemes to influence surgeons,” including compensation for joining a medical society created by a medical device company; purchasing billboard space to advertise medical practitioners; providing employment to surgeon’s relatives, and entertainment/sporting activities.  The patient stakeholder group also emphasizes that “more than 600,000 American doctors lap up industry largesse . . . [mostly] through small payments that cover the cost of food, drinks, and travel to industry-sponsored events.”
• A second report (August 2021) highlights the relationships between orthopedic makers and their sales reps, who are often called upon to provide technical support to surgeons in the operating room during surgeries. Device makers assert that having sales representatives must be present for certain procedures to ensure the proper functioning of highly complicated surgical equipment and to make sure that the right scope of surgical tools and equipment are available.  Critics, however, argue that the practice demonstrates the coziness between sales reps and physicians.  The Kaiser report states that it is like “the relationship of a caddy and an avid golfer” and that “[d]uties can include lugging 20-pound sets of surgical hardware to the operating room, assuring it is sterile and knowing its specifications,” even though – according to Kaiser – reps are not required to be trained medically.  Critics further assert that companies are spending excessively for top sales talent, and the amount of money creates bad incentives, including failures to track injuries and pushing for unneeded surgeries.  The result, according to Kaiser, is an increase in patient injuries and harm, which the stakeholder group asserts often go unreported.
• A third report (August 2021) places a spotlight on the issue of orthopedic surgeons taking ownership interests in private medical device companies, often referred to as PODs, including highly lucrative payments for selling and using products and as a result of larger medtech companies purchasing privately held medical device makers. Kaiser highlights the potential for incentivizing unnecessary surgeries and the negative consequences on patients.  CMS has, in fact, recently proposed updates to its Open Payments (Sunshine Act) program to clarify requirements for physician-owned distributors to help ensure all of these payments are appropriately captured, reported, and publicly disclosed.

Should medical device makers pay attention to the Kaiser reports?  Yes, especially makers of orthopedic devices.  Increased interest from key patient stakeholder groups like Kaiser can only mean that others are also watching.  We have not seen any let-up in the continued enforcement of the federal fraud and abuse laws against medical device companies.  And as the government keeps the heat on the orthopedic industry, companies should consider undertaking an independent, third-party compliance assessment that addresses the following: 

• Policies and practices on engaging health care providers to serve as consultants, including selection criteria, evaluation of payments, controls to limit influence, and documentation of services provided, focusing on royalties, speaker fees (see OIG’s November 2020 Special Fraud Alert on Speaker Programs), and payments for technical training, among others.
• Policies and practices on physician ownership, including whether there are appropriate controls and measures for assessing when it is appropriate to provide ownership interests to physicians, especially given CMS’s recent ramp-up of interest in physician-owned distributorships.
• Policies and practices relating to sales representatives in the operating room to support procedures, including identifying the extent to which videoconferencing and other virtual technologies might be used instead of permitting a rep’s in-person presence in the operating room.
• Policies and practices on disclosure of payments and transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare practitioners (as required under the Sunshine Act) and conflicts of interest, as these concerns are central to the criticisms lobbed by Kaiser and by the government in its enforcement actions.

A periodic, independent review of compliance practices helps ensure better alignment not only with federal healthcare fraud and abuse laws but also with compliance best practices and ethical principles that prioritize and protect patients.  If you have any questions, please contact Matt Wetzel (mwetzel@goodwinlaw.com) or (202-346-4208).

PhRMA, the pharmaceutical manufacturer trade association, announced on Fri. August 6 that it has revised its longstanding Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals.  The revisions, which relate to the Code’s treatment of speaker programs, track concerns in a Special Fraud Alert released late last year by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.  This alert criticized the drug and medical device industry practice of engaging healthcare providers to deliver educational content to potential customers or users of products through so-called “speaker programs.”  The OIG found in its report that speakers were selected based on past or anticipated business; that attendees of these programs were offered remuneration in the form of lavish meals and alcohol; that programs were often held in high-end locations, often without an agenda, and often without any educational content delivered at all.  The OIG also noted its findings that attendees of speaker programs regularly attend the same program more than once, calling into question their educational value.  The alert expressly notes OIG’s “skepticism” about such programs.

PhRMA appears to be the first of the major medical products trade associations to update its code of ethics based on the OIG’s November 2020 alert.  The PhRMA Code revisions from August 6 appear to address the criticisms raised by OIG.  PhRMA expands its section 7 discussion of Speaker Programs, emphasizing the importance of speaker programs as a real and legitimate avenue of educating customers and product users about the benefits, risks, and science of particular products.  Among the revisions:

• The PhRMA Code reiterates that incidental meals of modest value may still be offered to attendees but that they should be subordinate in focus to the educational presentation.  The revisions also make it clear that companies should not pay for or provide alcohol at a speaker program, one of the OIG’s chief complaints in the November 2020 alert.
• The revisions make clear that the purpose of any speaker program must be to present substantive educational information designed to help address a bona fide educational need among attendees, and that only those with a bona fide educational need should be invited.  The revisions also highlight that repeat attendance at a program on the same or substantially same topic is generally not appropriate unless there is a bona fide educational need for the additional information.
• PhRMA emphasizes that the venue should be conducive to informational communication – no extravagant venues, luxury resorts, high-end restaurants, or entertainment/sporting venues.
• Further, the PhRMA Code also spotlights the fact that speakers should be engaged following the guidelines for engaging consultants as described in the PhRMA Code – including selection based on expertise and professional qualifications rather than past or anticipated business.

Revisions to the new PhRMA Code become effective January 1, 2022.  This gives companies just a few months to evaluate their compliance policies and to update messaging to their employees regarding the appropriate set-up and operation of speaker programs, if any revisions to current practices are required.

If you have questions about this update, please contact Matt Wetzel (mwetzel@goodwinlaw.com, (202) 346-4208).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Office of Bioresearch Monitoring Operations (OBIMO) oversees domestic and foreign agency field inspections for clinical and non-clinical research. In particular, OBIMO manages the Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) Program which conducts onsite field inspections and data monitoring to ensure institution and industry compliance with FDA’s regulations relating to Good Clinical Practices (GCPs). These inspections can occur as a result of a marketing application submission, for general surveillance during an ongoing clinical trial, or as a result of a “for cause” reason. After an inspection, FDA investigators may issue a Form 483 to communicate any onsite findings of noncompliance with FDA’s regulations. BIMO also has authority to issue Warning Letters when the noncompliance FDA identifies is serious.

In the past 5 years, following are the three most common violations found in OBIMO Warning Letters:

1. Failure to ensure that the clinical trial was conducted according to the investigational plan. For example, in one Warning Letter, the FDA noted that a clinical investigator failed to adhere to the investigational plan because subjects took less than the required dosing of the study drug, and some subjects may have taken placebo rather than the required study drug, calling into question the validity of the study data.
2. Failure to maintain adequate and accurate study records, including the case histories of individual subjects, the disposition of the drug, or signed informed consent forms. For example, in one Warning Letter, the FDA found that a clinical investigator failed to complete diagnosis summary score sheets for multiple subjects, and the same clinical investigator also failed to accurately report the amount of drug dispensed versus the amount of drug taken by the subject.
3. Failure to ensure that proper informed consent was obtained. In several Warning Letters, the FDA determined that the investigators had failed to obtain proper informed consent from participants, including instances where exculpatory language was used waiving the participants’ legal rights, other necessary elements of informed consent were missing, and the form was not specific to the study or approved by the institutional review board.

Sponsors and sites should review FDA’s BIMO Compliance Program Guidance Manuals to better understand their responsibilities during clinical trials to ensure GCP compliance and to ensure readiness for future FDA BIMO inspections, should they occur. Anyone who has run a clinical trial will tell you that no trial is perfectly executed; deviations can and will occur, so preparedness is necessary. An effective monitoring program is critical to sponsors ultimately ensuring the integrity of their clinical trial records and data set. The Goodwin FDA Regulatory team works closely with sponsors on managing GCP issues when they arise during clinical trials.

Connect with our Goodwin FDA team to learn more.

*Madeline Fuller, a 2021 summer associate in Goodwin’s Washington, D.C. office, contributed to this post.

On July 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced a broad executive order (the “Order”). The Order is intended to boost what it characterizes as stagnant competition across the U.S. economy. The Order encourages federal antitrust agencies to “fairly and vigorously” enforce antitrust laws, encourages antitrust and other agencies to focus on perceived competition problems in key industries, and “reaffirms” the authority of the U.S. antitrust agencies to challenge previously consummated transactions. This sweeping Order is likely to launch a series of policy reevaluations and new rulemakings across a multitude of federal agencies.

Read the client alert.

Private equity investment in health care companies has garnered increasingly critical attention from the federal government, including recent scrutiny by Congress in March 2021, when the Oversight Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on “Examining Private Equity’s Expanded Role in the U.S. Health Care System.”

The tenor of the hearing is encapsulated in the opening remarks of the Oversight Subcommittee’s Chairman, U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), who kicked off the discussion by cautioning that: “It’s past time for a bright light to be shined on how private equity ownership and our health care system affects patient safety, cost, and jobs.” Noting that 2020 saw $66 billion in private equity investment across the health care industry — a 21% increase from 2019 — Chairman Pascrell expressed concern that “private equity’s main focus — profit — is often at odds with what is best for patient care.”

Read the full New York Law Journal article.

On July 9, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order (the “Order”) designed to promote competition in the American economy. The Order describes the administration’s concerns with competition in several markets, including healthcare, noting that industry consolidation has exacerbated racial, income and wealth inequality and emphasizing that robust competition is critical to the United States economy.

In this Order, to combat these concerns, the Biden administration affirms (i) its policy to support legislative reforms that would lower prescription drug prices, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and by imposing inflation caps; and (ii) its policy to support the enactment of a public health insurance option.

Read the client alert.