The Latest in the Epipen Medicaid Drug Rebate Saga – Where Are We Now?

by Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters
Contact

The latest installment in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates came on May 31, 2017, when Senator Charles Grassley issued a press release stating that between 2006-2016 taxpayers may have overpaid for EpiPen by as much as $1.27 billion, “far more” than the announced-but-never-confirmed or finalized $465 million DOJ settlement with Mylan.

To understand what the latest news means in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates, it is important to understand how we got here.   And why at the end of the day, the information Senator Grassley included in the May 31, 2016 release may be less important than the information he hinted at but omitted from the release.

History of EpiPen Classification

We have followed, with admitted insalubrious interest, the public angst over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates since the late summer of 2016.  That is when the media began hammering on the significant price increases for EpiPen and the lack of alternative products.  Which led to questioning why EpiPen was considered a branded product for FDA purposes, but reported as a generic product for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes?

We previously blogged about Mylan’s October 2016 announcement that it had reached a $465 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) over Mylan’s alleged underpayment of Medicaid Drug Rebates for EpiPen.  Although Mylan stated that the settlement resolved “all” potential liability to government programs over EpiPen’s classification for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes, DOJ would not confirm the settlement.  We commented that the “settlement” was likely just a handshake deal that had yet to be agreed to by all potentially impacted federal and state entities, or to be reduced to writing.

And as we blogged in January 2016, while many federal and state officials had denounced the announced settlement as inadequate and insufficient, there were many questions about the legal underpinnings of any government case against Mylan.

Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers pay higher rebate percentages on branded drugs, as opposed to generic drugs. Branded drugs are also subject to an “inflation penalty” when price increases outpace inflation.  Generic drugs are exempt from the inflation penalty.  But when it comes to EpiPen, in 1997 CMS issued a letter that said while the “pen” was an innovator product, since the “epi” part was epinephrine, a generic drug, the manufacturer could classify the product as a generic, subject to lower Medicaid rebates and no inflation penalty.  To the best of our knowledge, that authorization has never been publicly or officially revoked.

The basis of the outrage is that for FDA purposes, EpiPen was in essence a brand drug, with limited competitor products, and “should” have been treated as a brand drug by CMS for purposes of Medicaid Drug Rebates.  Had EpiPen instead been classified as a brand drug for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes, it was theorized that its manufacturer would have been responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional Medicaid Drug Rebates.  Thus, it was argued that the classification and resulting rebate filings/payments could be used as the basis for a False Claims action against the manufacturer, for impliedly certifying the rebates it paid based on the product’s classification were accurate.

However, this legal theory was potentially undercut by the government’s own actions.  It was the government itself, in the form of HHS-OIG, which first raised the question of the EpiPen classification.  In a July 2009 Report on the Accuracy of Drug Categorizations for Medicaid Rebates, HHS-OIG stated that the classification of EpiPen and several other drugs as generic for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes but brand for FDA purposes, was costing the government millions of dollars in Medicaid rebates. Even before making the Report public, HHS-OIG provided CMS with detailed information on the situation with EpiPen.  But there was no public information available about what CMS did with this information.

And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, what CMS did, or did not do, with the information about the impact of the EpiPen classification, is significant.  In a landmark June 2016 False Claims ruling, now colloquially known as the Escobar case, the Supreme Court held that information a company impliedly certifies to the government must be material to the government if that information is to be the basis of a False Claims action.  In recent months, multiple courts have relied on that ruling in finding that materiality of information for False Claims purposes is not to be found in what the government says about that information, but in what the government does, or does not do, upon receiving the information.

Is Classification of EpiPen Material for False Claims Purposes?

Manufacturer price reports used for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes are filed quarterly with CMS.   It was CMS who first authorized the manufacturer to classify EpiPen as generic for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes in 1997.  And objectively, CMS had reason to question that classification and the attendant impact on Medicaid Drug Rebates in 2009, upon receipt of the 2009 HHS-OIG Report.

If CMS took no action after receiving the HHS-OIG findings in 2009, was the EpiPen classification as generic for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes material to CMS?  And if it was not material, than how can that classification be the basis for a False Claims Act case against Mylan?

 Where Are We Now?

Since last fall Senator Grassley has consistently pushed government officials on two questions:

  1. What did CMS do after it received the information from HHS-OIG in 2009 questioning the EpiPen classification as generic and the resulting costs in terms of Medicaid Drug Rebate?
  2. Just how much more would the manufacturer have paid in Medicaid Drug Rebates for EpiPen from 2006-2016, if the product had been classified as brand instead of generic.

Senator Grassley’s release, and his posting of a cover letter from HHS-OIG, provided a partial answer to the second question.  HHS-OIG estimated the total differential in the rebate Mylan paid for EpiPen, and what it might have paid had the product been classified as brand, 2006-2017, was $1.27 billion – with an asterisk.  HHS-OIG did not access or consider Medicaid Best Price reporting for EpiPen, which could impact Medicaid Drug Rebate calculations.  Moreover, in recent years many states have negotiated supplemental Medicaid rebates with manufacturers, especially for more costly drugs.  Those supplemental rebates should be credited to this calculation, but OIG did not access or include information on Medicaid supplemental rebates in its calculation.

Thus the $1.27 billion figure should be viewed as a ceiling not a floor, to the question of how much in Medicaid Rebates would be owed if EpiPen had been classified as brand between 2006-2016.  The actual figure may be much less.

But importantly, as part of his release Senator Grassley hinted at the answer to his first question.  The release acknowledges that Senator Grassley has for months “sought records of communications between CMS and Mylan about the misclassification” of EpiPen.  According to Senator Grassley’s May 31, 2017 press release:

“Recently, CMS provided records to the Committee that show CMS told Mylan on several occasions that the EpiPen was misclassified, yet Mylan failed to correct the classification.”

However, unlike the link to the HHS-OIG cover letter, Senator Grassley did not include in his release any specifics of the CMS communications, or a link to the documentation provided by CMS.  So we don’t know when this communication took place.  And Senator Grassley, while continuing to castigate the purported $465 million settlement from Mylan as inadequate, does criticize the federal government for “letting Mylan off the hook” and its failure “to use all available tools to hold Mylan accountable.”

To date, nothing has emanated publicly from CMS mandating that EpiPen, or other similarly-situated drugs classified as generic for Medicaid Drug Rebate purposes but brand for other purposes, be reclassified.    If CMS, the federal government entity charged with overseeing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, in fact has and continues through today to let Mylan “off the hook” for its classification of EpiPen as generic, based on CMS’ actions it is hard to see how Mylan’s classification of EpiPen as generic was or is “material” to CMS.

And if the classification of EpiPen as generic was not material to CMS, why should Mylan be responsible for settling any estimated underpayment of Medicaid Drug Rebates for EpiPen, let alone any false claims penalties?

We will be watching to see when, if at all, CMS acts on the classification of EpiPen and other similarly situated products.  We will also be watching to see whether any False Claims action against Mylan over the EpiPen classification ever comes to fruition.  Stay tuned.

[View source.]

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.

© Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters
Contact
more
less

Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters 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.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

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.

Security

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.