FCA Issues to Watch: Pharmaceutical and Device Developments | INSIDE THE FCA

by Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

The government’s FCA enforcement efforts have continued to focus on key areas concerning the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.  In fact, drug and device manufacturers accounted for nearly half of the enforcement recoveries from the healthcare industry last year.  Manufacturers also saw enforcement agencies focus on product promotion and speaker program practices, as well as alleged violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP).

Speaker Programs Closely Scrutinized

Speaker Programs are an industry norm because prescribers prefer to be educated about a product by their peers rather than a sales representative.  These programs have received significant attention from enforcement agencies and relators because companies typically provide their speakers, who are also prescribers of the companies’ products, with honoraria for their involvement.  If the programs are not carefully implemented and executed, companies may open themselves up to AKS and FCA liability.  Last year, there were mixed outcomes for pharmaceutical and medical device companies that had to defend their speaker program practices.

In U.S. ex rel. Booker v. Pfizer, Inc., 2016 WL 3017381 (D. Mass. May 23, 2016), after six years and five amended complaints, Pfizer was awarded summary judgment in connection with allegations that it paid kickbacks to physicians through a sham speaker series in order to induce additional prescriptions.  The relators, two former sales representatives, suggested, in part, that the series was a sham because the company did not use “nationally known opinion leaders,” the programs were conducted with one-on-two lunches instead of large groups and the company tracked the return on investment from its series. The district court concluded that Pfizer’s series was organized under written contracts that met the requirement the AKS Personal Services safe harbor and that none of the evidence provided by the relators was sufficient to take it out of the safe harbor.  The district court explained that having speakers present to small groups may not be the “best, most cost efficient” way to run a speaker series, but it does not “suggest that the program necessarily had a ‘universal and improper purpose’ of inducing the speaker to prescribe Gedeon.”  Likewise, the district court found it “unremarkable” that Pfizer tracked its return on investment from a series because as a for-profit company that is to be expected and only the attendees – not the speakers – were tracked.  An appeal is pending for this matter in the First Circuit.

In U.S. ex rel. Kroening v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d 882 (E.D. Wisc. 2016), the district court found that allegations that Forest used speaking fees to pay kickbacks to physicians to induce them to prescribe Forest products did not meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). The relator, a former sales representative, claimed that, during 2007 and 2012, Forest provided physicians with lavish meals and money for sham presentations, and, in return, those physicians prescribed Forest products.  The district court first held that PPACA’s amendment of the AKS, although not retroactive, restated existing law, such that the alleged AKS violations that occurred prior to 2010 still could be the basis for FCA liability.  Nonetheless, the district court held that the complaint was insufficient because it failed to identify “representative examples of fraud,” and that the relator, as a sales representative, should have been able “to identify specific physicians who received kickbacks, who, in turn, wrote a lot of prescriptions for Forest drugs.”  Despite Forest’s momentary victory, the district court permitted the relator to amend his complaint, and Forest agreed to pay $38 million to settle the case late last year.

Narrowing the Grounds for Off-Label Promotion-based FCA Liability

Off-label promotion remained a target of enforcement activity.  Once again, however, the Second Circuit whittled away the types of conduct that may be considered off-label promotion and added to the growing body of case law limiting FCA liability based on this theory.

In U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer, 822 F.3d 613 (2nd Cir. 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the relator’s FCA allegations, which asserted that Pfizer improperly marketed Lipitor as appropriate for patients whose risk factors and cholesterol levels fell outside of the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines (NCEP).  The relator alleged that the Guidelines were mandatory because they were incorporated into Lipitor’s FDA label, Pfizer induced physicians to prescribe to patients outside the Guidelines, and those patients ultimately sought reimbursement from government healthcare programs in violation of the FCA.

The Second Circuit rejected the relator’s claim and concluded that the Guidelines “expressly disclaimed perspective force” and were meant only to provide advice.  In accord with the district court, the Second Circuit found that the NCEP clearly did not intend for their advisory Guidelines to be transformed into a “legal restriction” because the FDA placed them on the drug label.  In effect, Pfizer’s promotion of Lipitor to patients outside the Guidelines was not off-label promotion.

The Second Circuit expressed skepticism about the relator’s overall theory.  The Second Circuit described “that there is an important distinction between marketing a drug for a purpose obviously not contemplated by the label (such as, with respect to Lipitor, ‘to promote hair growth or cure cancer’) and marketing a drug for its FDA-approved purpose to a patient population that is neither specified nor excluded in the label.”  This suggests that the Second Circuit believes that FCA liability for off-label promotion should be limited to only the most grievous occurrences.

cGMP Violations Continue to Plague Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Companies

In years past, we have addressed the various ways that enforcement agencies and relators have used violations of cGMP to pursue FCA liability, but a recent case may have opened the door to a new basis of liability for failure to adhere to cGMPs.

On November 9, 2016, the district court denied GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) motion to dismiss RICO claims brought by 41 private insurance companies claiming that wide-scale cGMP violations at GSK’s now-defunct Cidra, Puerto Rico, plant led them to purchase adulterated, worthless drugs.  Blue Cross Blue Shield Assoc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2016 WL 66112804 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2016).  From 1997 to 2006, the Cidra plant consistently failed to manufacture drugs in accordance with cGMPs and sold adulterated drugs in the U.S. market.  In 2013, the insurers filed a complaint alleging that GSK fraudulently induced them to pay for billions of dollars of adulterated drugs in violation of RICO, as well as several Pennsylvania laws.

GSK asserted that the claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable injury.  The district court disagreed.  Relying on the Third Circuit’s decision in In Re Avendia, the court concluded that the insurers “adequately connected GSK’s non-disclosure of cGMP violations, and the effect of those violations, on the quality and packaging of certain at-issue drugs, to the [insurers’] payment for drugs they allege had no value.”  The insurers’ successful defeat of GSK’s motion to dismiss signals to manufacturers that cGMP violations can create liability that extends well beyond FDA warning letters and FCA suits.

Usual and Customary Pricing

Historically, the government has been reticent to intervene in “usual and customary” (U&C) pricing suits, but that trend may change after the Seventh Circuit’s decision in U.S. ex rel. Garbe v. Kmart Corp., 824 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 2016).  There, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that participants in a pharmacy’s “discount program” constitute members of the “general public” for purposes of determining U&C prices.  The relator, an experienced pharmacist, alleged that Kmart artificially inflated its U&C prices of generic drugs for purposes of Medicare Part D reimbursement by ignoring “discount program” sales.  Despite Kmart’s argument to the contrary, the Seventh Circuit found that the discount program participants were members of the “general public” because, in part, there were virtually no barriers to becoming a member of the program and Kmart permitted anyone to join.  The Seventh Circuit explained that “allowing Kmart to insulate high usual and customary prices by artificially dividing its customer base would undermine a central purpose of the statutory and regulatory structure” around U&C pricing.  Therefore, the Seventh Circuit concluded that prices provided to discount program members represented Kmart’s U&C prices.

Other courts already have relied upon Garbe to expand the scope of what should be considered when determining U&C prices.  See U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu, 2016 WL 6139913 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2016) (finding that defendant’s price-match discount offer was open to the general public, and, therefore, under Garbe, represented the U&C prices for impacted drugs). As the case law continues to emerge, pharmacies would be wise to evaluate whether any of their pricing programs are structured in a way that may affect their U&C pricing and open them up to FCA liability.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Bass, Berry & Sims PLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.