Month: October 2016

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

Ameet Sarpatwari Leave a comment

By Ameet Sarpatwari and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues relevant to current or potential future work in the Division. Below are the abstracts/summaries for papers identified from the month of September.

  1. Bouvy JC, Huinink L, De Bruin ML. Benefit-risk reassessment of medicines: a retrospective analysis of all safety-related referral procedures in Europe during 2001-2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(9):1004-14.
  2. Gupta R, Kesselheim AS, Downing N, Greene J, Ross JS. Generic Drug Approvals Since the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1391-3.
  3. Kister I, Corboy JR.Reducing costs while enhancing quality of care in MS. Neurology. 2016 Sep 2. [Epub ahead of print]
  4. Kleijnen S, Lipska I, Leonardo Alves T, Meijboom K, Elsada A, Vervölgyi V, d’Andon A, Timoney A, Leufkens HG, De Boer A, Goettsch WG. Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(9):1768-75.
  5. Lin D, Lucas E, Murimi IB, Jackson K, Baier M, Frattaroli S, Gielen A, Moyo P, Simoni-Wastilla L, Alexander GC. Physician attitudes and experiences with Maryland’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP). Addiction. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]
  6. Oye KA, Eichler HG, Hoos A, Mori Y, Mullin TM, Pearson M. Pharmaceuticals Licensing and Reimbursement in the European Union, United States and Japan. Clin Pharamcol Ther. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]
  7. Mailankody S, Prasad V. Thinking Systematically About the Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs and Combinations for Patients Who Have Exhausted Proven Therapies. Oncologist. 2016;21(9):1031-2.
  8. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, Kuntz KM, Meltzer DO, Owens DK, Prosser LA, Salomon JA, Sculpher MJ, Trikalinos TA, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-103.
  9. Xu J, Gill R, Cruz M, Staffa J, Lurie P. Effect of US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Pediatric Labeling on Dispensing of Extended Release Oxycodone in the Outpatient Retail Setting. JAMA Pediatr. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]

Lisa Ikemoto on ‘The Week in Health Law’ Podcast

Nicolas P. Terry Leave a comment

By Nicolas Terry and Frank Pasquale

twihl 5x5

Subscribe to TWIHL here!

Our guest this week is Lisa C. Ikemoto, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis Law School. Lisa has written on specimen management, stem cell research, and many other topics in bioethics and health law and policy.

Our conversation included Lisa’s important insights on ways that race and gender mediate access to and impacts of biomedical technology use and health care.  Her recent work addresses reproductive tourism, the ways in which human gamete use links the fertility and biotechnology industries, and the privatizing effects of informed consent.  Lisa is a Bioethics Associate of the U.C. Davis Health System Bioethics Program, and a Faculty Associate of the U.C. Davis Center for Science and Innovation Studies.

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Frank Pasquale and Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in Health Law & Policy. Subscribe at iTunes, listen at Stitcher Radio, Tunein and Podbean, or search for The Week in Health Law in your favorite podcast app. Show notes and more are at TWIHL.com. If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find us on twitter @nicolasterry @FrankPasquale @WeekInHealthLaw

‘Concussion’ distorts the scope of traumatic brain injury

bradsegal Leave a comment

By Brad Segal 

I just watched the movie Concussion (2015) as an assignment for one of my bioethics courses. The movie is about a physician, Dr. Bennet Omalu, as he unravels the association between playing in NFL and an acquired neurodegenerative disease, a condition he calls, “chronic traumatic encephalopathy” (CTE). At one point Dr. Omalu tries to convince a prominent researcher that, despite suffering head traumas similar to those of football players, animals like the woodpecker have the means of avoiding CTE;

“The woodpecker’s tongue comes out the back of the mouth through the nostril and goes around the top of its head. Basically, it’s one big safety belt for the brain.” (source)

The tongue shoots out through the nostril? As a medical student, I found this trivial aside absolutely fascinating. But when I tried to learn more I quickly realized–to my dismay–that most experts would balk at this characterization. Woodpeckers don’t develop CTE for a variety of reasons, including; (1) smaller mass means less force from deceleration; (2) no head rotation during each peck as to decrease angular forces, and; (3) their skulls have a physiologic protective cushion. I won’t delve further into the weeds about where exactly the movie’s assertions depart from reality, but to put it generously, this crucial argument totally misrepresents the science.

The problem with all of this is that it’s tempting to watch Concussion and feel better informed about the controversies surrounding professional football and CTE. To be honest, I was mesmerized watching familiar events brought to life on screen, and it all seemed credible as it used the actual names of people involved. Movie reviews by Rolling Stone even suggest that it should be mandatory for football fans, and The New York Times remarks on how it, “sells a complex issue.” Sure, everyone knows Concussion is “for entertainment purposes only,” but can’t stories that are true also be entertaining? However, the seemingly-trivial inaccuracy about woodpeckers was a potent reminder that this film is not a documentary. Concussion should be viewed as it is–a major Hollywood blockbuster starring Will Smith and Alec Baldwin.

Read More

When is a juror too biased?

Dov Fox Leave a comment

A new Op-Ed by Bill of Health Contributor Dov Fox on CNN:

The upcoming Supreme Court term promises to be a sleeper. Still down a justice, the court isn’t slated to hear its usual blockbusters on the likes of abortion, affirmative-action or same-sex marriage. But its first day back in session does feature at least one intriguing controversy in the case of Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado.

At the heart of the case are two incompatible visions of what a jury is supposed to be. The first ideal emphasizes objective decision-making. It demands that jurors arrive at verdicts free of any influence beyond the testimony and evidence that’s presented in court. The second ideal stresses jurors’ subjectivity. It insists on a jury of peers that can speak as the voice of the community. How can jurors remain unbiased, however, while relying on the very experiences and perspectives that bias them? […]

Read the full article here.

For more on the connection between jury bias and cognitive neuroscience, see his law review article, Neuro-Voir Dire and the Architecture of Bias.

CMS Prohibits Arbitration Clauses in Long-Term Care Facility Contracts

wendysalkin Leave a comment

By Wendy S. Salkin

On Wednesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)—an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—released a final rule that “will revise the requirements that Long-Term Care facilities [LTCs] must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs” (1). (Almost all LTCs receive funds from Medicare or Medicaid.) This is the first time that these requirements have been “comprehensively reviewed and updated since 1991” (6)—that is, in the past 25 years. One of the most striking changes to the regulation is found in §483.65, where CMS “require[es] that facilities must not enter into an agreement for binding arbitration with a resident or their representative until after a dispute arises between the parties” (12) which means that CMS is “prohibiting the use of pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements” (12). Among the reasons provided by CMS for this change is a recognition of the notable power differential between LTCs and their residents:

There is a significant differential in bargaining power between LTC facility residents and LTC facilities. LTC agreements are often made when the would-be resident is physically and possibly mentally impaired, and is encountering such a facility for the first time. In many cases, geographic and financial restrictions severely limit the choices available to a LTC resident and his/her family. LTC facilities are also, in many cases, the resident’s residence. These facilities not only provide skilled nursing care, but also everything else a resident needs. Many of these residents may reside there for a prolonged period of time, some for the rest of their lives. Because of the wide array of services provided and the length of time the resident and his/her family may have interactions with the LTC facility, disputes over medical treatment, personal safety, treatment of residents, and quality of services provided are likely to occur. Given the unique circumstances of LTC facilities, we have concluded that it is unconscionable for LTC facilities to demand, as a condition of admission, that residents or their representatives sign a pre-dispute agreement for binding arbitration that covers any type of disputes between the parties for the duration of the resident’s entire stay, which could be for many years. (402-403)

As The New York Times reported, when the rule was first proposed in July 2015, it was “aimed at improving disclosure.” But, this final version of the rule “went a step further than the draft, cutting off funding to facilities that require arbitration clauses as a condition of admission.”

Read More