a pill in place of a model globe

Issuing the Most Favored Nation Interim Final Rule Was a Mistake

By Abe Sutton

While the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Interim Final Rule (IFR) advances a well-calibrated policy to standardize pharmaceutical prices across developed nations, procedurally, its issuance was a mistake.

The Trump administration would have been wiser to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for two reasons: first, an NPRM would have circumvented some of the procedural vulnerabilities of the IFR. And second, had the Trump administration issued an NPRM, President-Elect Biden’s team would have faced significant pressure to finalize the policy.

In this post, I touch on what MFN is, examine why the interim final rule is legally vulnerable, explore why the Biden team likely would have adopted the policy had an NPRM been issued, and explain how industry should think about this situation.

Read More

Doctor and patient.

Previvorship and the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent: Video with Valerie G. Koch

The Health Law Policy, Bioethics, and Biotechnology Workshop provides a forum for discussion of new scholarship in these fields from the world’s leading experts.

The workshop is led by Professor I. Glenn Cohen, and presenters come from a wide range of disciplines and departments.

In this video, Valerie Gutmann Koch gives a preview of her paper, “Previvorship and the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent,” which she will present at the Health Law Policy workshop on November 23, 2020. Watch the full video below:

image of the US Supreme Court

What the Supreme Court’s ACA Ruling Might Mean for Nonprofit Hospitals

By Jacob Madden

California v. Texas, a pending Supreme Court case that concerns the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s individual mandate, could have profound implications for the standards to which nonprofit hospitals are held.

The ACA’s individual mandate requires people to have health insurance or otherwise pay a penalty. While the Court previously upheld the individual mandate as being constitutional under Congress’ taxation power in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, it may not do so again. For one, the 2017 Trump tax cuts effectively eliminated the individual mandate’s penalty, raising the question of whether the individual mandate is still a valid exercise of Congress’ taxation power. And conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, filling the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, has significantly changed the composition of the court.

If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, the rest of the ACA could be in jeopardy, depending on the specifics of the ruling. The Court has several options: sever the individual mandate from the ACA and keep the ACA alive, strike down the ACA in part, or strike down the ACA entirely.

The immediate concern, should the Court strike down the ACA entirely, is that tens of millions of Americans likely would lose their health insurance and other protections afforded by the law. Another, albeit lesser known concern, is that we would lose § 501(r).

Read More

books

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

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Neeraj Patel, 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.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of October. The selections feature topics ranging from a commentary calling for reconsideration of the FDA’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program for mifepristone, to an analysis of clinical development times for biosimilars seeking FDA approval, to an editorial describing the challenges of using the Defense Production Act to address drug shortages. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

pills

Cuts to 340B Drug Reimbursement May be Harmful During COVID-19

By Sravya Chary

On October 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided not to revisit two rulings that upheld Medicare reimbursement cuts for hospitals that participate in the 340B program.

The 340B program provides drugs at discounted prices to hospitals that primarily help under-served populations. Slashing Medicare reimbursement for safety-net hospitals that participate in the program may have devastating effects on the individuals who rely on these hospitals for discounted drugs and care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read More

Adult and child holding kidney shaped paper on textured blue background.

Nudging Organ Donation in the United States

Cross-posted from Harvard Law Today, where it originally appeared on November 13, 2020. 

By Chloe Reichel

Nationally and globally, demand for organ transplants outstrips supply. In the United States last year, 19,267 donors made a record-setting 39,718 transplants possible, but nearly 109,000 Americans still remain on the organ transplant waiting list.

Cass Sunstein ’78, Robert Walmsley University Professor and former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, believes “Nudge theory” might help bridge this gap between supply and demand.

Sunstein joined scholars and leaders in transplant services on Friday, Nov. 6 to discuss strategies to boost rates of organ donation at “Nudging Organ Donation: Tools to Encourage Organ Availability,” an event hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.

Read More

lady justice.

Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions: Video with Seema Mohapatra

The Health Law Policy, Bioethics, and Biotechnology Workshop provides a forum for discussion of new scholarship in these fields from the world’s leading experts.

The workshop is led by Professor I. Glenn Cohen, and presenters come from a wide range of disciplines and departments.

In this video, Seema Mohapatra discusses the volume she is co-editing with Lindsay Wiley, “Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions,” which she presented at the Health Law Policy workshop on November 16, 2020. Watch the full video below:

Vaccine.

How are COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturers Building Trust in the FDA’s Approval Process?

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on October 2, 2020. 

By Rachel SachsJacob S. SherkowLisa Larrimore Ouellette, and Nicholson Price

In recent weeks, a number of articles have reported great concern around the politicization of the approval process for future COVID-19 vaccines. Public trust in public health agencies is arguably at an all-time low. After several missteps, the FDA has been working publicly to shore up public confidence in an approved vaccine once it comes out. But pharmaceutical companies themselves are now also engaging the public themselves in an attempt to build trust in their products. This is an unusual step for, of course, unusual times. What are vaccine developers doing, how should policymakers think about these efforts, and how can we encourage these lines of communication in the future?

Read More

Pill pack.

Fortifying the US Pharmaceutical Supply Chain

By Laura Karas

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered supply chain disruption across the globe. The United States, in particular, is susceptible to interruptions in the supply chain for pharmaceutical drugs because many of the raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and manufacturing processes needed to produce domestically marketed prescription drugs have been outsourced beyond U.S. borders.

Is it time to bring some of these processes back to our shores? This post will demystify the pharmaceutical supply chain and explore some key considerations as we head toward 2021.

Read More

Empty hospital bed.

The Inevitability of Error in Health Care

By John Tingle

A recent publication by the World Health Organization (WHO), a first draft of a global patient safety action plan 2021-2030, seems to have rekindled conversations about the “inevitability of error” in the field of patient safety.

The “inevitability of error” argument indicates that mistakes in health care do inevitably happen; that they are the consequences of the complex nature of health care treatment. Nursing and medicine depend on people, and nobody is infallible — we all make mistakes.

Read More