Pile of colorful pills in blister packs

The Age of Orphans

Join the author today for the 2021 CeBIL Symposium. Register here!

By Sarah Rickwood

The 2020s are the age of orphan medicines.

Orphan medicines are available for a larger number of diseases and patients than ever before, a testament to the success of legislation established decades ago encouraging the development of these medicines in both the U.S. and European Union.

Orphan medicines were the majority of European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals for the first time ever in 2016 (59%) and the majority of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the first time ever in 2018 (58%).

Read More

person cuts salami sausage on a wooden cutting board.

Tackling Salami Slicing and Indication Stacking in Orphan Drug Innovation Incentives

Join the author on Friday, September 17, 2021 for the 2021 CeBIL Symposium. Register here!

By Sven Bostyn

The development of orphan drugs, so named for the rare diseases they treat, has been incentivized through regulation in the European Union. The primary reward is 10 years’ market protection (or exclusivity).

But are these incentive mechanisms working as they should? To date, only 131 orphan drugs have been brought to market. Findings from the European Commission’s long-awaited evaluation of the orphan drug system in Europe, 20 years after its inception, suggest there may be cause for concern.

Read More

Blister pack of pills, but instead of bills dollar bills are rolled up in the packaging

Mortal Sins of Orphan Drug Development: How to Save the Lost Souls

Join the authors on Friday, September 17, 2021 for the 2021 CeBIL Symposium. Register here!

By Jakob Wested and John Liddicoat

In a working paper from November 2020, the EU Commission finds a significant inefficiency in the EU orphan drug regulation (a pan-EU piece of legislation): that it does not contain a provision to safeguard the affordability and accessibility of orphan medicines.

The working paper then entertains the idea of inserting such a provision into the regulation. But, is the orphan drug regulation the right place for this type of law?

Diagnosing the problem behind orphan drug pricing is the key issue to address before jumping to consider ways to address excessive pricing.

Read More

illustration of person tracking his health condition with smart bracelet, mobile application and cloud services.

Expanded Reimbursement Codes for Remote Therapeutic Monitoring: What This Means for Digital Health

By Adriana Krasniansky

New reimbursement codes for virtual patient monitoring may soon be incorporated into Medicare’s fee schedule, signaling the continued expansion and reach of digital health technologies catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In July 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed adding a new class of current procedural terminology (CPT) codes under the category of “remote therapeutic monitoring” in its Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2022 — with a window for public comments until September 13, 2021. While this announcement may seem like a niche piece of health care news, it signals a next-phase evolution for virtual care in the U.S. health system, increasing access possibilities for patients nationwide.

Read More

Los Angeles, California, United States. June 23, 2021: #FreeBritney rally at LA Downtown Grand Park during a conservatorship hearing for Britney Spears.

There’s More to Decision-Making Capacity than Cognitive Function

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. Though the Workshop is typically open to the public, it is not currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many of our presenters will contribute blog posts summarizing their work, which we are happy to share here on Bill of Health.

By James Toomey

The doctrine of capacity is a mess.

From Britney Spears’s high-profile struggles to establish her own capacity to the countless, quiet challenges of so many older adults, the doctrine of capacity, which requires people to have the cognitive functioning to understand the nature and consequences of a decision in order for it to be recognized in law, is vague, normatively and medically challenging, and inconsistently applied.

This is a big deal — at stake in every capacity case is whether, on the one hand, an individual may access the legal rights most of us take for granted, to enter into contracts, buy or transfer property, or get married or divorced; or, on the other, whether the legal system will ratify a decision the “real person” never would have made.

Read More

Scales of justice and gavel on table.

Symposium Introduction: Health Justice: Engaging Critical Perspectives in Health Law and Policy

By Ruqaiijah Yearby and Lindsay F. Wiley

Public health scholars, advocates, and officials have long recognized that factors outside an individual’s control act as barriers to individual and community health.

To strive for health equity, in which everyone “has the opportunity to attain . . . full health potential and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or any other socially defined circumstance,” many have adopted the social determinants of health (SDOH) model, which identifies social and economic factors that shape health. Yet, health equity has remained elusive in the United States, in part because the frameworks that most prominently guide health reform do not adequately address subordination as the root cause of health inequity, focus too much on individuals, and fail to center community voices and perspectives.

The health justice movement seeks to fill these gaps. Based in part on principles from the reproductive justice, environmental justice, food justice, and civil rights movements, the health justice movement rejects the notion that health inequity is an individual phenomenon best explained and addressed by focusing on health-related behaviors and access to health care. Instead it focuses on health inequity as a social phenomenon demanding wide-ranging structural interventions.

This digital symposium, part of the Health Justice: Engaging Critical Perspectives in Health Law & Policy Initiative launched in 2020, seeks to further define the contours of and debates within the health justice movement and explore how scholars, activists, communities, and public health officials can use health justice frameworks to achieve health equity.

Read More

Picture of Ivermectin tablets.

Legal and Ethical Analysis of Court-Ordered Ivermectin Treatment for COVID-19

By Jennifer S. Bard

A judge in Ohio ruled on Monday that a hospital in the region must administer ivermectin to a patient very sick with COVID-19 in their ICU, despite the decision by the medical staff, in agreement with recent statements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that ivermectin is not an appropriate treatment, as it has been shown not to work against COVID.

The patient’s prescription came from a doctor who has no authority to treat patients at this particular hospital, although he is licensed to prescribe medicine in Ohio.

This case tracks a swelling interest, which some ascribe to the efforts of a group called America’s Front Line Doctors, among people for the anti-parasitic medication as both a treatment and prophylactic for COVID-19 — despite warnings from the medical establishment that it doesn’t work, and, if taken in the form normally given to farm animals or at the dosages being suggested, can be harmful.

The Ohio ruling is just the latest of several successful law suits (see similar cases in New York and Illinois) to order hospitals to administer ivermectin to hospitalized COVID-19 patients, despite the objections of the treating physicians.

There is also evidence of a global trend, as evidenced by the order of a court in South Africa to allow the prescription of ivermectin for COVID-19, something that was previously not permitted by the country’s drug regulatory agency.

This trend of courts ordering that treatments requested by hospitalized patients be made available by that hospital — so long as they are prescribed by a physician — opens the door to substantial administrative, legal, and ethical chaos. This post analyzes some of the most pressing legal, regulatory, and ethical concerns.

Read More

Abortion rights protest following the Supreme Court decision for Whole Women's Health in 2016

How Social Movements Have Facilitated Access to Abortion During the Pandemic

By Rachel Rebouché

Before the end of 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will reconsider its restrictions on medication abortion. The FDA’s decision could make a critical difference to the availability of medication abortion, especially if the Supreme Court abandons or continues to erode constitutional abortion rights.

Under that scenario of hostile judicial precedents, a broad movement for abortion access — including providers, researchers, advocates, and lawyers — will be immensely important to securing the availability of remote, early abortion care.

Read More

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM- 1 APRIL 2015: A newspaper rack holding several international newspapers, such as The International New York Times, USA Today, Irish Times, Londra Sera and Corriere Della Sera.

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

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Alexander EgilmanAviva Wang, 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 July. The selections feature topics ranging from a discussion of issues related to FDA’s approval of aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, to an analysis of the communication of survival data in cancer drug labels, to an evaluation of public-sector contributions to novel biologic drugs. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

Map of remote execution requirements for advance directives.

Advance Care Planning in an Online World: State Law Activity and Challenges Since COVID-19

By Nikol Nesterenko, Jonathan Chernoguz, and Sarah Hooper

Advance care planning — the process by which an individual documents their wishes for health care in the event that they become incapacitated — has become particularly urgent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, individuals that wish to engage in advance care planning, and specifically to document their plans in a written form (i.e., advance directives), have faced significant hurdles due to legal execution requirements. State advance directive law often requires or presumes live, in-person witnessing or notarization, actions which were prohibited by social distancing orders or simply unsafe during the pandemic.

In this piece, we summarize the state of remote execution requirements for advance directives before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Broadly speaking, while many states took some action in this regard, most did not enact comprehensive changes, and therefore failed to meaningfully facilitate remote execution of advance directives.

Read More