Physician Payment Sunshine Act Proposed Regulations Out

CMS has published proposed rules for its implementation of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (SUNSHINE ACT or Act), which was enacted by Congress as part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In short, the SUNSHINE ACT requires life science companies to report annually to CMS their conferral of anything of value, whether it be payment for services or a dinner, in connection with a particular product of the paying company.  By requiring CMS to post the information on its website, the Act seeks to ensure that interested patients become aware of physicians’ conflicts of interest that could affect their prescription of a branded drug or choice of a specific medical device.

The SUNSHINE ACT represents another example of the transparency movement, which has had varying degrees of success in either changing the behavior of the parties subject to disclosure, and/or enabling consumers to make better decisions based upon their access to the disclosed information.  It is likely that the SUNSHINE ACT will impact physicians and manufacturers’ behavior more than it will enlighten consumers about conflicts of interest.  Some physicians will simply conclude that accepting certain gifts or benefits from pharmaceutical or medical device companies isn’t worth having their names on the CMS website.  Some companies have already discovered that they haven’t necessarily reaped the value of the costs of gifting many physicians, or that the cost of recording certain activities simply isn’t worth the return on investment.  Unquestionably, certain transactions will continue to be valuable to both physician and company, and will continue.

It is unlikely that most patients will access the information either before or after a physician visit, or know what to do with the information even if they discover that their physician has an equity interest in the knee she plans to use in next week’s surgery - does such a close relationship with the knee manufacturer signal that the physician is great, or that something nefarious is going on?  The information is likely to be used by consumer watchdog groups, as well as hospital formulary committees and medical school deans interested in knowing the sources and amounts of outside income being earned by faculty.  Divorce attorneys are likely to find the information useful if their client’s soon-to-be ex-spouse hasn’t reported significant pharma consulting fees as income.

CMS rulemaking is behind schedule, thereby delaying the SUNSHINE ACT’s implementation.  It is likely, however, that the ultimate rules will still require that 2012 data be submitted, even if not by the deadline originally contemplated by Congress.

The statute requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological or medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (”applicable manufacturers”) to report annually to HHS payments or transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals (”covered recipients”).  Failure to comply will result in Civil Monetary Penalties.  HHS, in turn, must publish this information on a public web site which is searchable, downloadable and able to be aggregated.  Compliance with the SUNSHINE ACT’s reporting requirements does not exempt applicable manufacturers from application of fraud, waste and abuse laws.

Applicable Manufacturer

The proposed rule merges the SUNSHINE ACT definition of “manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply”[1] with the statutory section clarifying that the entity covered by the SUNSHINE ACT must be “operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States”[2] to define applicable manufacturer as one

(1)    Engaged in the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or conversion of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply for sale or distribution in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States; or

(2)    Under common ownership with an entity in paragraph (1) of this definition, which provides assistance or support to such entity with respect to the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, marketing, promotion, sale, or distribution of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply for the sale or distribution in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States.

The operative activity that invokes statutory coverage, then, is sale of a product in the United States, as opposed to where the product is produced, or where the entity is located or incorporated. Pursuant to the rationale that risks inhere in conflicts of interest irrespective of where the manufacturer is located if the product is sold in the United States, any entity under common ownership with the manufacturer that is involved in the production, distribution or sale of at least one covered product in the United States must report all payments and conferral of value upon covered recipients. Further, as proposed, the product sponsor (i.e., the entity that obtained FDA approval) is subject to the reporting requirement, even if the sponsor is not involved in the manufacture of the covered product.  CMS is considering alternative interpretations of the common ownership concept.

Covered Drug, Device, Biological, or Medical Supply (”covered product”)

The SUNSHINE ACT focuses upon those products for which Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP pay.  This is relatively straightforward in many contexts, but CMS seeks to ensure that it captures situations where such products are part of a composite rate payment, such as the inpatient or outpatient hospital reimbursement, or the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system.  As such, CMS proposes to define “covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply” as:

Any drug, device, biological, or medical supply for which payment is available under Title XVIII of the Act or under a State plan under title XIX or XXI (or a waiver of such plan), either separately, as part of a fee schedule payment, or as part of a composite payment rate (for example, the hospital inpatient prospective payment system or the hospital outpatient prospective payment system).  With respect to a drug or biological, this definition is limited to those drug and biological products that, by law, require a prescription to be dispensed.  With respect to a device or medical supply, this definition is limited to those devices (including medical supplies) that, by law, require premarket approval by or premarket notification to the Food and Drug Administration.

CMS seeks comments on its plan to exclude from the scope of regulation those manufacturers who produce and sell only over the counter (OTC) products.  More specifically, this exemption would not extend to a manufacturer who sells even one prescription product who is otherwise subject to the reporting requirements of the SUNSHINE ACT.  Similarly, CMS seeks to interpret the SUNSHINE ACT to cover only those medical devices that require premarket approval, on the theory that this is the segment of the market most likely to have extensive provider relationships.  If a device manufacturer produces a single product that requires pre-market approval, it would have to report all payments and conferrals of value to covered recipients.

Covered Recipients

The SUNSHINE ACT defines “covered recipients” as (1) a physician, other than a physician who is an employee of an applicable manufacturer; or (2) a teaching hospital.   The term physician includes both doctors of medicine and osteopathy as well as podiatrists, optometrists and licensed chiropractors. CMS interprets the statute to include within its scope those who act on behalf of covered recipients.  Teaching hospital is not defined by the statute; CMS seeks comments on its proposal to identify such entities by virtue of their receipt of Medicare graduate medical education funds. CMS will publish this list annually on its website for manufacturers’ reference.

CMS plans to utilize the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System, which it maintains on its website, to collect the data regarding covered recipients required by the SUNSHINE ACT: covered recipient’s name and business address, and, for physicians, the National Provider Identifier and specialty.

Payments or Other Transfers of Value

The report must also include the date, form (i.e., cash, stock, ownership interest), nature (i.e., education, research, consulting fees, food) and amount of payment, and the market name of the product associated with the payment.  CMS continues to consider how to handle payments made to a single covered recipient related to multiple products.  CMS seeks to generate data in a form most easily understood by consumers.

The statutory definition requires such conferrals to be reported irrespective of whether they were requested by the physician or hospital and includes those made by third parties as long as the applicable manufacturer knows the identity of the covered recipient. CMS proposes that payments made through a group practice be reported under the specific recipient physician’s name.  If a physician requests the conferral to be directed to another physician or entity, the manufacturer should report the conferral under the requesting physician’s name as well as the name of the actual recipient.

Charitable contributions by an applicable manufacturer to, at the request of, or on behalf of a covered recipient are reportable.

The SUNSHINE ACT excludes from its reporting requirement the following payments:

• Transfers of value less than $10, unless the aggregated amount exceeds $100 in a calendar year
• Product samples not intended to be sold that are intended for patient use
• Educational materials that directly benefit patients or are intended for patient use
• The loan of a covered device for a period not to exceed 90 days, to permit evaluation
• Items or services provided under a contractual warranty
• A transfer of value or payment to a covered recipient when that person is receiving the conferral in his/her capacity as a patient
• Discounts, including rebates
• In-kind items used for the provision of charity care
• A dividend or profit distribution from ownership or investment interest in a publicly traded security or mutual fund
• Self-insurance payments to covered employees by an applicable manufacturer
• Non-medical services
• Transfers of value made by third parties where the applicable manufacturer is unaware of the identity of the covered individual

CMS will be moving rapidly to respond to comments and finalize these rules, which will likely involve changes from the discussion here.  State laws that pre-date the Act are pre-empted to the extent that they require reporting of the same information, which leaves them the discretion to retain those reporting requirements that are not redundant.  States seeking to impose as much of a burden on manufacturers as possible are likely to retain their individualized reporting requirements, others may find the costs not worth the benefits now that the feds have finally stepped in.

[2] Subsection (e)(2) further clarifies that the entity covered by the SUNSHINE ACT must be “operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States.”

Defining Essential Health Benefits

As many of us just finished scurrying to fulfill our children’s increasingly unrealistic holiday wish lists (my six year-old wanted a laptop and a phone — hah!), it’s a fitting time to step back and think about what is essential.

Section 2707 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires all non-grandfathered health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group markets beginning in 2014 to include essential health benefits (EHB).  Section 1302 then largely leaves the task of defining this term to the Secretary of HHS, as long as EHB include these ten statutorily itemized general categories:

(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

The statute also directed that the scope of EHB must be “equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical employer plan.”  (For more background on EHB, see Timothy Jost’s recent blog post on Health Affairs.)

Given the complexity of establishing a national floor for coverage, it is not surprising that the statute was short on specifics, and stakeholders have been waiting for HHS to provide detailed guidance as 2014 gets closer and closer.

On December 16, 2011, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight in HHS released a bulletin outlining HHS’s intended regulatory approach to defining EHB.  After balancing “comprehensiveness, affordability, and State flexibility” along with input from various camps, HHS’s “intended regulatory approach utilizes a reference plan based on employer-sponsored coverage in the marketplace today, supplemented as necessary to ensure that plans cover each of the 10 statutory categories of EHB.”  Specifically, HHS

intends to propose that EHB be defined by a benchmark plan selected by each State.  The selected benchmark plan would serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and any limits offered by a “typical employer plan” in that State . . . .

The bulletin identifies four benchmark plan types for 2014 and 2015 (HHS will assess the benchmark process for later years based on experience and feedback): (1) “the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the State’s small group market; (2) any of the largest three State employee health benefit plans by enrollment; (3) any of the largest three national FEHBP plan options by enrollment; or (4) the largest insured commercial non-Medicaid Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) operating in the State.”  It also indicated HHS’ intent to propose a default benchmark plan if a State does not exercise its discretion to select its benchmark.

Under HHS’s intended regulatory framework, insurance providers could adopt the balance achieved by the State benchmark, but it must supplement the benchmark it if it does not include all ten ACA-required categories.  HHS solicited comments regarding “options for supplementing missing categories.”  HHS also intends to require plans to offer “benefits that are ’substantially equal’ to the benefits of the benchmark plan selected by the State and modified as necessary to reflect the 10 coverage categories.”  It wants to provide flexibility to adjust benefits as long as there is coverage in all ten categories, and the flexibility will be “subject to a baseline set of relevant benefits.”

This bulletin raises more questions than it answers.  HHS itself seeks comment on a variety of issues, including the definition of habilitative services, what to require when a benchmark plan does not cover one of the ten statutory categories, or whether to permit substitutions between (and not only within) categories, subject to “a higher level of scrutiny.”   What do terms like “substantially equal” or “higher level of scrutiny” mean in practice?

On a more macro level, the bulletin raises the classic tension between centralized, prescriptive programs and those that permit states flexibility.  On the one hand, permitting state flexibility may ease states’ objections to federal interference with insurance regulation, and permit experimentation to reflect  local circumstances.  As the bulletin recognizes, all states have their own benefit mandates, so the less prescriptive the federal EHB definition, the lower the risk it will conflict with state-specific mandate requirements.

Yet with devolution comes the possibility that state decisions will frustrate the achievement of the ACA’s policy goals.  It remains to be seen how HHS effectively will police the various state and local decision makers who will exercise this discretion to protect consumers from discriminatory behavior.   How powerful will HHS’s oversight be?  For example, HHS’s review of the scope of existing coverage of mental health and substance use disorder services revealed great variations in coverage.  How much variation is acceptable?  What is the substance of the “baseline set of relevant benefits” that is supposed to limit state  discretion?  What role will politics have in this state-by-state process?

These questions just scratch the surface and remind us how critical it is to engage in this debate.  Jason Millman, writing for Politico, noted that consumer groups have not yet taken “the sky-is-falling position” in protest of HHS’s intended regulatory approach even though they have advocated for specific, federal requirements.  The sky may not be falling, but there are important policy issues in play that will benefit from careful and deliberate airing.  Comments on the bulletin must be submitted by January 31, 2012 to EssentialHealthBenefits@cms.hhs.gov.

Here’s to a new year in which more of us realize the essentials we all  shouldn’t have to live without.  Happy and safe holidays!

Controlling the Controllers of Controlled Substances

Despite their name and extensive government regulation, controlled dangerous substances (”CDS”) are far from controlled.  Licensed  health care providers are essential cogs in the prescription drug control machine.  Many faithfully execute their responsibility to prescribe CDS only where necessary and appropriate to relieve patient pain.  But sadly, some professionals are aggravating the situation.  Significant percentages of the professional licensing cases that I prosecuted in my previous position as a deputy attorney general in New Jersey involved abuse of prescribed CDS by patients and licensed professionals.

Some professionals are completely complicit, brazenly selling prescriptions (and their professional integrity) from their offices or cars.

Others aid and abet misuse by writing prescriptions too freely, for varying reasons and to varying degrees of culpability.  Some wear rose-colored glasses and miss tell-tale warning signs or just like to make people happy and have trouble confronting their patients.   Still others lack the training to know what types of questions to ask to identify drug-seeking behavior or how to effectively and safely combine different drugs to treat patients’ particular problems. Patients can be very skilled at keeping their providers in the dark, so some providers simply do not know that they are feeding a habit.   Others rationalize that it is better to keep their patients coming back for treatment than to send them to the streets for illegal drugs.

And, of course, others conscientiously wrestle with how to balance the need to relieve the very real pain they or their patients are experiencing with the reality that they or their patients are developing addictions.  It’s a thorny thicket, for sure.

No matter the reason, the problem of prescription drug abuse is intensifying, and we need to try something new.  This Spring, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) unveiled “Epidemic: Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis,” which is “a multi-agency plan aimed at reducing the ‘epidemic’ of prescription drug abuse in the U.S. — including the FDA-backed education program that zeros-in on reducing the misuse and misprescribing of opioids.”  This plan has four main components: improving education of patients and health care providers; expanding state-based prescription drug monitoring programs; improving means for proper disposal of unused CDS from homes; and stepping up enforcement to reduce “pill mills” and doctor-shopping.

As part the education part of the plan, the FDA is working to implement a “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)” for extended-release and long-acting opioid products, such as OxyContin and Duragesic (full list of drugs available here).  As FDA’s consumer update regarding this initiative summarizes, “[t]he new REMS plan focuses primarily on: educating doctors about proper pain management, patient selection, and other requirements and improving patient awareness about how to use these drugs safely.”  On May 16, 2011, FDA met with an Industry Working Group to discuss these ideas, including how to assess the effectiveness of the REMS plan.

Although generally I applaud any effort to better educate practitioners about the dangers of CDS, I worry how valuable this plan will be once implemented.  For one, it requires drug companies to prepare the educational materials.    Each has an interest in presenting its drug in the best light so that doctors are not afraid to prescribe it.  Would not government-funded, unbiased academic detailers, expert in pain and addiction medicine, be more effective?

In addition, the REMS plan does not require doctor training.  If we don’t even lead the horse to water, how can we ever quench its thirst?   How can we hope to affect the prescribing practices of health care providers who do not receive critical training?  It seems indisputably reasonable to require training in CDS prescribing before a practitioner is entrusted with the phenomenal responsibility to write prescriptions for CDS.   (According to a November 18, 2010 article by Susan Okie, M.D. in the New England Journal of Medicine, two FDA advisory committees agree with this requirement.)   This is especially crucial in states like New Jersey, where a medical license is plenary, and thus any licensed physician, regardless how little training in pain management s/he has had, may prescribe pain medicine.

Reportedly, other federal agencies are lobbying Congress to require mandatory physician training as a condition to receiving the Drug Enforcement Administration registration number that doctors must have to prescribe controlled substances.  But generally, the federal DEA registration process looks to state law.  If state law permits a physician to prescribe CDS, there normally is not a separate federal requirement.  This policy respects that licensing is among the states’ traditional police powers.  I expect that Congress is well aware that individual state licensing boards would bristle at Washington dictating the rules governing the practice of professions within their borders.

Not surprisingly, then, some states are not waiting for Congress to act.  According to Dr. Okie, the licensing boards in California, Rhode Island, and West Virginia require some degree of pain-management training.  We need to know what their experiences have been.  Is the training making a difference?  Is there any evidence that requiring training is discouraging doctors from prescribing CDS to patients in pain?

Dr. Okie’s article also details a law that is scheduled to go into effect in Washington state in mid-2011 that will require doctors who prescribe opioids to enter their patients’ clinical responses to treatment in a statewide database and to consult with a pain specialist if the prescribed dose exceeds a threshold.  The hope is that physicians who have thus far not changed their prescribing in response to voluntary educational programs and treatment guidelines may respond if their treatment success is being measured.  But some fear there are too few pain specialists to satisfy the demands imposed by this law.  Some practitioners and patients fear this will just drive patients to street drugs like heroin.

Florida, too, which reportedly is the source of eighty-five percent of the nation’s oxycodone and is known as the nation’s “Pill Mill Capital,” is taking bold steps to address prescription drug abuse.  In addition to increasing oversight of clinics, pharmacies, and wholesale distributors of CDS, its new statute signed into law on June 3, 2011 subjects physicians to administrative and criminal penalties for violating prescriptive regulations governing CDS prescribing.  For example, doctors will face a minimum of a six month suspension and $10,000 fine if they overprescribe CDS.  The law also requires certain doctors to register with the State and restricts their ability to prescribe certain controlled substances.  Doctors also must meet more exacting requirements for record keeping, prescription writing, and treatment plans for those receiving CDS.

The Florida law also authorizes the state to create a prescription-drug monitoring database that will help law enforcement track which providers may be indiscriminately prescribing CDS.  Upon request, treating physicians will have access to this data to inform their treatment decisions.  Approximately 34 other states are operating similar databases, although each has its own rules regarding what entities may access the data, what drugs must be reported, etc.

It is beyond the scope of this post to address the policy pros and cons of all of the provisions in Florida’s new law.  With respect to the prescription drug monitoring database, however, I long have thought it would be valuable to provide prescribing providers access to integrated pharmacy records.  I investigated many physicians who had their patients sign agreements promising only to receive CDS from that doctor.   Investigative pharmacy sweeps helped me learn that this doctor was one of many the patients were using to feed their habit.  But doctors in New Jersey have not had any access to this information unless their patients granted it to them.

But that is about to change.  Although it took years to enact, N.J.S.A. 45:1-45 - 1-52 authorizes New Jersey’s prescription monitoring program.  Section 1-46 specifically permits New Jersey physicians to access the program’s data concerning their patients (although physicians are not required to do so).  The same section also permits New Jersey to enter interoperability agreements with other states so that each state may access the other’s data.  The database is not up and running yet, but on April 7, 2011, New Jersey awarded a four-year contract to a company in Ohio to develop the database.

Once this database is operating, it will offer NJ doctors an opportunity to identify which patients are doctor-shopping and tailor their treatment accordingly.  Undoubtedly, there are risks with this system.  Patients may resent that their doctor did not trust them, for example.  In addition, doctors who primarily treat patients in chronic pain could trigger greater scrutiny from regulators because their prescribing of CDS will outpace other providers.  Regulators will need to carefully exercise their investigative powers so as not to discourage physicians from prescribing appropriate CDS.  These risks, however, seem worth the benefit of identifying patients in need of addiction counseling and treatment and reducing diversion.

But we should not rest on assumptions and hopes.  Rather, we should keenly watch what happens in places like California, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Washington, and Florida to evaluate what works and doesn’t.  Professors Diane Hoffmann (see, e.g., here and here [subscription required]) and Anita J. Tarjian (see, e.g., here) at the University of Maryland and Interim Dean Sandra Johnson at Saint Louis University School of Law (see, e.g., here), among others, raise significant concerns that aggressive enforcement of CDS restrictions can discourage physicians from prescribing CDS, which leaves un- and under-treated patients in pain.  This is unacceptable.  We should regulate with an appreciation for the strides achieved by efforts like the Mayday Pain Project to provide better care to patients suffering in pain.  By taking measured steps and being willing to tinker with our enforcement regimes as we learn, we may ensure we do not deprive patients of needed medications or scare ethical, competent pain physicians from serving their patients’ needs.

Perhaps the Federation of State Medical Boards will help lead this effort to learn from these varied efforts at the state and federal level.   According to its 2011 Annual Report, over 40 state boards have adopted the Federation’s Model Policy for the Use of Controlled Substances for the Treatment of Pain.  Clearly, state boards, without ceding their independence, look to the Federation for guidance, akin to how states view the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  Its policy paints in relatively broad strokes and has not been updated in more than seven years.  It would be helpful if the Federation would update its policy to reflect the current state of law and research in this area, including the impact of various reform efforts, to help state boards find balance between reining in indiscriminate CDS prescribing and the need to provide medically appropriate palliative care to patients in need.

Seton Hall Law Announces Frank Pasquale as the Schering-Plough Professor in Health Care Regulation and Enforcement

Seton Hall University School of Law has announced the appointment of Frank Pasquale as the Schering-Plough Professor in health care regulation and enforcement. Professor Pasquale has been a member of the Seton Hall Law Faculty since 2004 and is the Associate Director of the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy. He has distinguished himself as an internationally recognized scholar in health, intellectual property, and information law. He has made numerous academic presentations at universities across North America and at the National Academy of Sciences. A prolific writer, Professor Pasquale’s work has been featured in top law reviews, books, peer-reviewed journals, and online blogs, including Health Reform Watch, of which he is Editor-in-Chief. A frequent media presence, he has appeared in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Financial Times, and on CNN, WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, and National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation.

Professor Pasquale has testified before Congress and before the New York City Broadband Advisory Commission. He has presented before the Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws of the House Committee on the Judiciary, appearing with the General Counsels of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.

At Seton Hall Law, Professor Pasquale has taught courses in health care finance and regulation, intellectual property law, and administrative law. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, his M.Phil. from Oxford University, and his B.A. summa cum laude from Harvard University.

As the Schering-Plough Professor in Health Care Regulation and Enforcement, Professor Pasquale will contribute scholarship which will include public policy analysis of issues related to administrative law, the regulatory and enforcement concerns of providers and patients, FDA law, and drug and device innovation.

This Professorship was made possible by a $2.5 million endowment from the former Schering-Plough Corporation and the Schering-Plough Foundation. The Schering-Plough Foundation supported the advancement of health, education, public policy, and community initiatives.