Summary:

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated a Trump-era rule from 2021 that allowed insurers to exclude drug manufacturer co-pay support coupons and assistance from a patient’s annual cost-sharing caps.  This practice, commonly referred to as a copay accumulator program, is typically used by insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers to control drug spending, especially for high-cost specialty drugs, like those required by HIV patients.

Under typical prescription drug insurance programs, patients are obligated to pay a deductible and cost-sharing (i.e. a copay) throughout the plan year, up to an out-of-pocket spend cap.  Once the patient hits that spend cap, the insurance company is responsible for the patient’s prescription drug costs.

Under an accumulator program, on the other hand, an insurance company does not count a manufacturer’s copay support (for example, a copay card that a patient presents at a pharmacy to cover the cost of the copay) towards a patient’s annual deductible or out-of-pocket maximum.  By excluding manufacturer copay support and coupons from patients’ cost-sharing cap, this means that, even after a manufacturer’s copay support is exhausted for the year, patients remain on the hook for all cost sharing obligations up to the insurance plan’s out of pocket maximums.  Many states have implemented laws to ban copay accumulator programs, asserting that such programs actually increase the financial burden on patients, especially with respect to specialty or more expensive drugs.  As of June 2023, 19 states have implemented copay accumulator program bans.

HIV and Hepatitis Policy Institute et al v. HHS was brought by patient advocacy groups including the HIV and Hepatitis Policy Institute and the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition, among others, who challenged a May 2020 rule from HHS, the “Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021” (85 Fed. Reg. 29164, 29230-35, 29261 (May 14, 2020)) (the “2021 NBPP”) that permitted insurers to impose accumulator polices.  Plaintiffs opposed the accumulator program, asserting that manufacturer copay support should count towards calculating patients’ cost sharing obligations and should not be excluded from such calculations.

In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on their motion for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court set aside the 2021 NBPP, largely supporting plaintiffs’ challenges that the 2021 NBPP rule’s language is internally contradictory, that it runs counter to the statutory definition of “cost sharing” found in the Affordable Care Act, and that it runs counter to the agencies’ pre-existing regulatory definition of “cost sharing.”  HHS had previously defined “cost sharing” in a 2012 regulation as “any expenditure required by or on behalf of an enrollee with respect to essential health benefits,” which by its terms includes “deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or similar charges, but excludes premiums, balance billing amounts for non-network providers, and spending for non-covered services.”  See 45 C.F.R. 155.20.  In other words, the regulation treats cost sharing is an “expenditure” by or on behalf of a plan enrollee.  According to plaintiffs, and as affirmed by the court, this includes manufacturer copay assistance support.

The court disagreed with the government’s technical arguments regarding the language of the 2021 NBPP (i.e. that manufacturer copay support is actually a “reduction” in the amount the patient owes towards cost sharing or a reduction in the “actual economic impact” on the drug manufacturer and not an “expenditure”), concluding that the 2012 regulation was likely intended to define “cost sharing” as costs that are (1) required of an insurance plan enrollee and (2) paid by or on behalf of that enrollee – including manufacturer copay coupons and assistance.

It is unclear if the ruling will be appealed; however, as a result of the District Court’s ruling, the government will use an earlier 2020 version of the rule which allowed insurers to exclude from cost-sharing caps only copay support coupons for branded drugs that have available generic equivalents; if there is no generic equivalent, under the 2020 version of the rule, manufacturer copay support must be counted toward cost sharing.

Conclusions:  The U.S. District Court ruling is a significant development for drug manufacturers who offer copay support as a means of providing relief to patients with respect to cost-sharing requirements under their insurance coverage as opposed to offering significant rebates, discounts, or other contracting strategies.  However, manufacturers of branded drugs with a generic equivalent will still need to consider how copay accumulator programs could affect access in those states that have not yet banned the practice.  Notably, in the wake of this ruling, patient advocacy organizations have indicated that they will continue to advocate for a comprehensive state and federal level ban on copay accumulator programs (e.g. Immune Deficiency Foundation).

Goodwin will continue to monitor any further developments in this case and the impact of copay accumulator programs on the market.

On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its widely anticipated proposed rule on the regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The proposed rule and policy are the latest in an over decade-long discourse amongst interested stakeholders – laboratories, IVD manufacturers, regulatory agencies, Congress, providers, and patients – as FDA has sought to enhance oversight over LDTs.

In this Insight, we recap the underpinnings of the proposed rule and policy, including the two lengthy discussions contained in the proposed rule on (1) the rationale for the agency’s proposed phaseout policy and (2) FDA’s legal authority for issuing the rule.  Stay tuned next week for our additional analysis of the details of FDA’s proposed five-stage “phaseout” policy and the open questions that remain.

Contact the authors or a member of the Goodwin Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team for any questions. Read the full Insight here.

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted and scheduled for publication its long-awaited proposed rule concerning FDA regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs).  If enacted, the proposed rule would amend the Agency’s regulations to make explicit that in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs) are devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and this includes when the manufacturer of the IVD is a laboratory.

Upon finalization of the rule, FDA proposes to phase out its general “enforcement discretion” approach for LDTs so that tests manufactured by a laboratory would generally fall under the same enforcement approach as other IVDs.

Comments to the proposed rule are due 60 days after the date of publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will provide our full analysis of the proposed rule in the coming days. Contact the authors or a member of the Goodwin Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team for any questions.

Last week, FDA released a draft guidance, “Labeling for Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biosimilar Products” that—when finalized—will revise and replace its July 2018 final guidance, “Labeling for Biosimilar Products.”  FDA noted that this 2023 Draft Guidance reflects recommendations based on the “valuable experience about labeling considerations” that FDA has gained through its approval of 42 biosimilar products, including four interchangeable biosimilar products.

Notably, the 2023 Draft Guidance provides further recommendations regarding when to use a biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product name, and when to use the reference product name in labeling:

• The biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product’s proprietary name[1] (or if the product does not have a proprietary name, its proper name[2]) should be used when –
  • Information in the labeling is specific to the biosimilar (or interchangeable biosimilar) product, including such references to the product in the INDICATIONS AND USAGE, DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION, DESCRIPTION, and HOW SUPPLIED/STORAGE AND HANDLING sections, and/or
  • For “directive statements and recommendations for preventing, monitoring, managing, or mitigating risk,” including such references to the product in the BOXED WARNING, CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS, and DRUG INTERACTIONS sections.
• When referring to the drug substance in the labeling, the biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product’s proper name should be used.
• When information specific to the reference product is described in the biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product’s labeling (for example, data from clinical trials of the reference product in the ADVERSE REACTIONS and CLINICAL STUDIES sections), the reference product’s proper name should be used.
• In sections of the labeling containing information that applies to both the biosimilar (or interchangeable biosimilar) product and the reference product—such as BOXED WARNING, CONTRAINDICATIONS, WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS, ADVERSE REACTIONS—the labeling should use the core name of the reference product followed by the word “products.”[3]

FDA acknowledges that the application of these recommendations is highly context-dependent and may not always be clear, but recommends that biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar product sponsors evaluate all statements in product labeling carefully to determine the most appropriate product identification approach in each instance.

Another noteworthy aspect of the 2023 Draft Guidance is the Agency’s recommendation regarding the biosimilarity statement and footnote in the HIGHLIGHTS section of a biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product’s labeling.[4]  Previously, FDA recommended a biosimilarity statement for a biosimilar product and an interchangeability statement for an interchangeable biosimilar product.  The 2023 Draft Guidance now recommends a statement and footnote in the HIGHLIGHTS section that the product is biosimilar to the reference product, regardless of whether the product is a biosimilar or an interchangeable biosimilar to the reference product. In the Federal Register notice announcing the 2023 Draft Guidance, FDA acknowledges that this marks an “evolution in our thinking” and explains that “a labeling statement noting that certain products within a 351(k) [Biologics License Application] have been approved as interchangeable, and explaining the interchangeability standard, is not likely to be useful to prescribers, who can prescribe both biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products in place of the reference product with equal confidence that they are as safe and effective as their reference products.” FDA further states that “information about interchangeability is more appropriately located in the Purple Book rather than labeling.”

Other notable elements of the 2023 Draft Guidance include recommendations regarding how to describe pediatric use data in a range of scenarios and how to incorporate immunogenicity data. With respect to immunogenicity data, the 2023 Draft Guidance suggests that a contextual paragraph[5] generally be included in the relevant CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY subsection before describing the available immunogenicity data for the reference product and the biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product.  The 2023 Draft Guidance also outlines the Agency’s expectations for patient labeling—such as a Medication Guide, Patient Information, or Instructions for Use—for a biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar product, if the reference product has such patient labeling.

Information on how to submit comments on the 2023 Draft Guidance can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2016-D-0643.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] The proprietary name of a biosimilar product is a brand name determined by the sponsor.  The fictitious example provided in the 2023 Draft Guidance is “NEXSYMEO.”

[2] The proper name of a biosimilar product is the nonproprietary name designated by FDA that consists of a biological product’s core name plus a unique four-letter suffix.  The fictitious example provided in the 2023 Draft Guidance is “replicamab-cznm.”

[3] The fictitious example provided by FDA in the 2023 Draft Guidance is “replicamab products”.

[4] The fictitious example provided by FDA in the 2023 Draft Guidance is “NEXSYMEO (replicamab-cznm) is biosimilar* to JUNEXANT (replicamab-hjxf)” and the accompanying footnote is “Biosimilar means that the biological product is approved based on data demonstrating that it is highly similar to an FDA-approved biological product, known as a reference product, and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar product and the reference product. Biosimilarity of [BIOSIMILAR OR INTERCHANGEABLE BIOSIMILAR PRODUCT’S PROPRIETARY NAME] has been demonstrated for the condition(s) of use (e.g., indication(s), dosing regimen(s)), strength(s), dosage form(s), and route(s) of administration) described in its Full Prescribing Information.”

[5] The Agency’s suggested paragraph is, “The observed incidence of anti-drug antibodies is highly dependent on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay.  Differences in assay methods preclude meaningful comparisons of the incidence of anti-drug antibodies in the studies described below with the incidence of anti-drug antibodies in other studies, including those of [proper name of reference product] or of other [core name] products.”

On September 6, 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a trio of draft guidances in its efforts to “strengthen and modernize” the 510(k) Program and provide for more “predictability, consistency, and transparency” for the 510(k) premarket review process. In this post, we discuss the two new draft guidances with broad applicability to the 510(k) Program:

• “Best Practices for Selecting a Predicate Device to Support a Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submission”
• “Recommendations for the Use of Clinical Data in Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions”

The two draft guidances address a number of fundamental issues of concern with the 510(k) process.

Read the full client alert here.

Background

Earlier this year, the UK’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), announced that a new International Recognition Procedure (IRP) will be put in place for the approval of new medicines from 1 January 2024. On 4 September 2023, the MHRA announced the publication of detailed guidance on this new procedure, which will replace the European Commission Decision Reliance Procedure (ECDRP). The Decentralised and Mutual Recognition Reliance Procedure (MRDCRP), which allows the MHRA to have regard to approvals in the EU through the decentralised and mutual recognition procedures, will be incorporated under the umbrella of the IRP.

European Commission Decision Reliance Procedure

The ECDRP was introduced post-Brexit as a temporary measure to try and ensure continued access to new medicines from the EU for patients in Great Britain until 31 December 2023.

Under the ECDRP, the MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the grant of a new marketing approval in the EU through the centralized procedure, in order to grant a new marketing approval in Great Britain more quickly.

International Recognition Procedure

From 1 January 2024, the MHRA will have regard to decisions already made by medicines regulators in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States (Reference Regulators).

The IRP will be open to applicants that have already received a marketing approval for the same product from one of the MHRA’s specified Reference Regulators. The MHRA defines “same product” as “as having the same qualitative and quantitative composition (active substance(s) and excipients), and the same pharmaceutical form, from applicants belonging to the same company or group of companies or which are licensees.”

There are two procedures that can be used for initial applications for a new marketing approval using the IRP:

• Recognition A – applications under this procedure will be approved within 60 days (excluding clock stops), unless there are any major objections which cannot be resolved within 60 days. If this occurs, the timetable may revert to Recognition B. To qualify for this procedure, the Reference Regulator must have given approval for the product within the last two years, the manufacturing process must be unchanged and the product must not meet any of the 24 listed conditions of Recognition B.

• Recognition B – applications under this procedure will be approved within 110 days (excluding clock stops), unless there are any major objections at day 110. If this occurs, the timetable will then revert to 210 days and formal advice from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use will be sought on approvability. To qualify for this procedure, the Reference Regulator must have given approval for the product within the last ten years, and at least one of 24 listed conditions must apply. The conditions include if the product is: (i) designated as an orphan medicinal product in Great Britain, (ii) an advanced therapy medicinal product, (iii) a cutting-edge technology, or (iv) a first-in-class active substance.

Practical Implications

The IRP will allow the MHRA to take into account the expertise and decision-making of trusted medicines regulators when approving a new medicine from 1 January 2024.

It is unclear if there are any specific requirements for choosing the Reference Regulator if the product is approved by more than one eligible medicines regulator.

As a final note, the IRP will sit alongside the MHRA’s current national procedures. Any ECDRP and MRDCRP applications for marketing approval received by the MHRA after 1 January 2024 will be assessed under the new IRP. Any ECDRP and MRDCRP applications for marketing approval received by the MHRA before 31 December 2023 will be assessed under the current ECDRP and MRDCRP respectively.

Throughout August 2023, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President (“OIRA”) has held stakeholder meetings regarding a proposed rule which, if enacted, would amend the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s  (“FDA’s”) regulations to make explicit that laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”) are devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The next stakeholder meeting on the proposed rule is scheduled for September 6, 2023.

Per its website, OIRA received the proposed rule from FDA on July 26, 2023. The proposed rule was initially published this past spring on the Biden Administration’s Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions with a target publication date of August 2023. The forthcoming stakeholder meeting on September 6th suggests that OIRA may continue its review process well into September, if not later.

The publication of the proposed rule would mark the first significant FDA action on LDTs since its two 2014 draft guidances (available here and here) and 2017 discussion paper. The proposed rule is also expected to be controversial after prior U.S. Department of Health & Human Services statements concerning regulation of LDTs and legislative attempts to further define the LDT regulatory framework. Once cleared by OIRA, the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register and subject to public comment.

We will continue to monitor for updates on the LDT proposed rule. Contact Goodwin Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team members for any questions.

The Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) Program, operated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), conducts on-site inspections and data audits in order to effectively monitor the compliance of all FDA-regulated research.

As a follow up to our June 2022 post, we highlight the most common violations identified in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, in addition to those observed thus far in FY 2023.  BIMO conducted 766 inspections in FY 2022.  The majority of these inspections (approximately 79%) were of drug, biologic, or medical device study clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), sponsors, clinical research organizations (CROs), and sponsor-investigators.  Some of the most common inspection outcomes are highlighted below. Our methodology included a search of FDA’s Warning Letter database for FY 2022 and 2023, to date, for letters issued by BIMO and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health to IRBs, CROs, clinical investigators, sponsors, and sponsor-investigators.

FY 2022:

BIMO conducted 504 inspections of clinical investigators (468 of which were assigned to FDA’s drug, biologic, and device Centers), making up over half of BIMO’s inspections conducted in FY 2022.  Inspections of IRBs, sponsors, CROs, and sponsor-investigators assigned to FDA’s drug, biologic, and device Centers comprised another 138 inspections in FY 2022. Of the 504 clinical investigator inspections, only 9 resulted in a classification of “Official Action Indicated” (OAI) and 87 resulted in a classification of “Voluntary Action Indicated” (VAI). The most common inspection observations included: (1) failure to comply with Form FDA 1572 requirements and protocol compliance; (2) failure to follow the investigational plan and protocol deviations; (3) inadequate and/or inaccurate case history records and inadequate study records; (4) inadequate accountability and/or control of the investigational product; (5) safety reporting and failure to report and/or record adverse events; and (6) inadequate subject protection and informed consent issues.

Of the Warning Letters that were issued in FY 2022 to clinical investigators, the most common observations were:

• Failure to ensure that a clinical investigation was conducted according to its investigational plan. This finding in various Warning Letters included failure to properly consent participants, failure to properly randomize participants, and/or failure to properly screen potential participants to ensure they met a protocol’s inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to enrollment in an investigational plan. For example, in one Warning Letter, an investigator did not ensure that subjects randomized to a specific intervention group received the assigned investigational drug for that intervention group and did not adhere to the blinding protocol.
• Failure to submit an IND application for the conduct of a clinical investigation with an investigational new drug. For example (and similar to trends observed in FY 2021), the FDA noted that one clinical investigator failed to submit an IND for the use of a product that was determined by the FDA to be a drug. The study design demonstrated that the investigational product was intended to cure, mitigate, and/or treat a disease or condition and therefore, an IND application should have been submitted to the FDA prior to commencing any research activities. Another Warning Letter included a finding that a protocol comprised of a combination product (a drug and device component) required an IND application.

BIMO conducted 81 inspections of sponsors and CROs in FY 2022 (all but one were assigned to FDA’s drug, biologic, and device Centers). Of these, 0 resulted in a finding of OAI, though 15 were classified as VAI. The most common inspection observations included: (1) failure to ensure proper monitoring of the study and ensure the study is conducted in accordance with the protocol and/or investigational plan; (2) failure to meet the abbreviated requirements for investigational device exemptions (IDEs); (3) failure to maintain and/or retain adequate records in accordance with 21 CFR 312.57; (4) accountability for the investigational product; (5) failure to comply with Form FDA 1572 requirements; (6) financial disclosures; (7) failure to submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) application and IND safety reports; and (8) failure to submit current list of all participating investigators to FDA at the six-month interval after FDA approval of the study.

FY 2023 Trends (to date): 

In 2023, we have already observed six Form FDA 483 Warning Letters issued to clinical investigators and IRBs, three involving the failure to submit an IND for the conduct of a clinical investigation with an investigational new drug, two involving failure to follow the clinical investigation according to its investigational plan, and one involving overall lack of IRB oversight and IRB compliance. For example, in a 2023 Warning Letter issued to an IRB, the FDA noted that the IRB: (a) failed to review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of IRB members were present; (b) failed to maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including keeping an active list of active IRB members; and (c) failed to ensure that information provided to study subjects as part of the informed consent process was done in accordance with applicable FDA regulations. Although sponsors may often make the decision to utilize a central IRB to oversee the conduct of a clinical investigation, some participating sites may be required to utilize their own local IRB, and it is important to remember that any IRB which does not adhere to FDA’s requirements can introduce a compliance risk for studies it is engaged to oversee.

Sponsors, clinical investigators, CROs, and IRBs should review the FDA’s BIMO Compliance Program Guidance Manuals regularly to ensure that they understand their responsibilities when carrying out clinical research involving human subjects. Sponsors, clinical investigators, CROs, and IRBs should ensure inspection readiness at all times while bioresearch is ongoing and following completion of bioresearch that may support marketing applications submitted to the FDA. Ensuring diligence in the research site selection process, careful monitoring during clinical trials, and corrective actions when deviations occur can help manage the risk of inspection findings of noncompliance or Warning Letters issued by the FDA. The Goodwin Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team provides regulatory counseling on FDA’s Good Clinical Practice requirements and the resolution of BIMO inspection findings and Warning Letters when they occur.

Contact our team to learn more.

As the life sciences industry continues to expand and grow increasingly complex, so does its legal, regulatory, and compliance landscape. To help companies and investors navigate the many evolving and emerging laws and regulations across pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, diagnostics, and laboratory testing, our Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team regularly tracks and stays closely connect to a comprehensive list of ongoing legal and regulatory developments in the industry. We update and publish a quarterly tracker detailing these developments. You can read about the Q3 2023 updates here.