New Trans-Atlantic Drug Pricing Deal: What Supply Chain Stakeholders Must Know

In a major development for the global life-sciences landscape, the United States and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement in principle that reshapes how both countries approach pharmaceutical pricing and cross-border trade.

Under the agreement, the U.K. will raise the net price of new medicines by 25%, reversing years of downward pressure that had strained returns on innovative therapies. The government will also ease the financial burden of its VPAG rebate structure, capping repayment levels and committing to maintain rebate rates at or below approximately 15% starting in 2026. These changes reflect a broader acknowledgment that sustaining innovation requires restoring reasonable margins across the branded pharmaceutical marketplace.

In exchange, the United States will exempt U.K.-origin pharmaceuticals, active ingredients, and medical technologies from current and prospective Section 232 tariffs. This concession reduces supply-chain volatility and removes a major source of uncertainty for U.S. companies sourcing components or finished products from the U.K. It also signals a more cooperative posture between two major life-sciences hubs as they seek to reinforce global competitiveness.

For 2026, this agreement provides both opportunity and complexity. Companies should monitor how implementation unfolds and assess how pricing, market access, and supply-chain exposure may shift.

If you are a pharmaceutical supply-chain stakeholder seeking help assessing potential risks or developing a 2026 strategy, contact Lanton Strategies today. Our team can guide you through the policy, regulatory, and market implications of this evolving landscape.

Lanton Law Moderates Most Favored Nation Panel for MJH Life Sciences

Lanton Law was honored to be selected as a moderator for the MJH Life Sciences panel titled ““Most Favored Nation Order: Legal Battles, Market Shifts, and the Future of Drug Pricing Reform.”

The AJMC wrote a nice blog post on the panel. The panelists, included moderator Ron Lanton, JD, of Lanton Law; Mel Whittington, PhD, managing director and head of the Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics at MEDACorp, Inc.; Stephen Forster, JD, partner at the Health Care and Life Sciences Practice at Jones Day; and Peter Rubin, executive director of No Patient Left Behind. The panel discussed the voluntary Pfizer agreement, which aims to reduce prices by up to 85%, and the new TrumpRx platform, set to launch in 2026 to allow direct-to-consumer medication purchases.

The Pharmaceutical Executive story on the panel can be found here.

The AJMC article on the panel can be viewed here.

Lanton Law Interviewed by Pharmacy Times Over Prescription Drug Price Executive Order

Lanton Law was quoted in Pharmacy Times’ article titled “President Trump Signs Executive Order Aiming to Lower Prescription Drug Costs by Up to 90%.” The article can be accessed here.

Trump’s Pharmaceutical Tariffs: A New Operating Era for Healthcare

The Trump administration's recent trade and healthcare policies are poised to introduce significant uncertainty into the U.S. healthcare industry. Two pivotal executive actions—the initiation of a Section 232 national security investigation into pharmaceutical imports and the signing of the executive order titled “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First”—highlight the administration's approach.​

On April 1, 2025, the Department of Commerce commenced a Section 232 investigation to assess the national security implications of importing pharmaceuticals and their ingredients. This encompasses finished drug products, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and key starting materials. The investigation aims to determine whether reliance on foreign sources compromises national security, potentially leading to the imposition of tariffs ranging from 10% to 25% on these imports.

Simultaneously, President Trump signed the executive order “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First” on April 15, 2025. This order seeks to reduce prescription drug costs by enhancing Medicare drug price negotiations, reinstating discounted insulin programs, and increasing transparency in hospital drug acquisition costs.

While these measures aim to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce drug prices, they introduce several uncertainties:​

1. Supply Chain Disruptions: Tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals could disrupt existing supply chains, leading to potential shortages and increased costs for healthcare providers and patients.​

2. Regulatory Ambiguity: The executive order lacks detailed implementation plans, leaving stakeholders uncertain about how the policies will be enforced and their practical implications.

3. Market Volatility: The potential for tariffs and changes in drug pricing regulations may lead to market instability, affecting investment decisions within the pharmaceutical industry.​

In this evolving landscape, healthcare entities must navigate the complexities of new trade policies and regulatory reforms. Lanton Law offers expertise in crafting targeted messaging and engaging with policymakers to advocate for client interests. Our team is equipped to assist clients in understanding and responding to these changes effectively. Contact us to learn more.​

Lanton Law Will Speak at New York Bar's Food Drug & Cosmetic Section's Annual Meeting

We are proud to announce that Lanton Law will be presenting at the NY State Bar Association's Spring Meeting. We are excited about our presentation titled Drug Pricing Wars: "Trends, Politics and Policies." To register and hear the other great presentations click the link below. To register click here

Biden Administration Announces First Ten Drugs Selected for Medicare Price Negotiation

The Biden Administration has announced today that Medicare will be able to negotiate drug prices for the first time due to provisions within the Inflation Reduction Act. 

The first ten selected drugs for negotiation are Eliquis, Jardiance, Xarelto, Januvia, Farxiga, Entresto, Enbrel, Imbruvica, Stelara and Fiasp. 

The Administration stated that these drugs “accounted for $50,5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs. The negotiations will occur in 2023 and 2024 and any negotiated prices will become effective beginning in 2026. 

According to HHS press release read here, “In future years, CMS will select for negotiation up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for 2027, up to 15 more drugs for 2028 (including drugs covered under Part B and Part D), and up to 20 more drugs for each year after that, as outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the healthcare and life science spaces. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

More Drugmakers Sue Biden Administration Over Medicare Negotiation

Johnson and Johnson has filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal district court, arguing that the new powers granted to Medicare to negotiate drug prices violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Medicare’s new power to negotiate comes from the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Earlier suits by Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA have made similar arguments.

As part of the new law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will publish a list of which drugs were selected for a first cycle of negotiations on Sept. 1, with prices taking effect in 2026. The companies that make those drugs face an October deadline to sign agreements to participate in those negotiations.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the healthcare and life science spaces. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Pharmacy Times Speaks with Lanton Law About "Vanity Drugs"

In an interview by Aislinn Antrim of Pharmacy Times called “Calling Them ‘Vanity Drugs,’ Some Insurers Refuse to Cover New Anti-Obesity Drugs,” Ron Lanton III, Esq., Partner at Lanton Law, discussed why insurers are refusing to cover new, highly effective anti-obesity drugs and how some prescribers are getting around the issue. Lanton said that this is a common issue across many different disease spaces and drug types, but some policy changes may be able to help.

The interview can be seen here.

We have taken the text that appears on Pharmacy Times.com from the interview and placed it below in case you have trouble accessing the video.

Aislinn Antrim: Hi, I'm Aislinn Antrim with Pharmacy Times, and I'm here with Ron Lanton, principal at Lanton Law, to discuss how and why some insurers are considering new weight loss and anti-diabetes drugs to be “vanity drugs.” So, there are several new drugs on the market, and they've shown significant weight loss in clinical trials. But some insurers are calling these “vanity drugs” and are not covering them. Do you have a sense of what this term, vanity drugs, means?

Ron Lanton III, Esq.: No, I don't. I think whenever somebody askd me, like, “What does that mean?” I’m always like, okay, let's go to the legal definition. And I don't think there really is a legal definition of vanity drugs, which is something that we say. But to me, whenever I hear something like that characterized as vanity drugs, it's just another excuse. We're not going to pay for it. Right? So, I got a couple of ideas about what I think is going on behind that terminology, but I just wanted to talk a little bit about what this drug is and kind of the history about why it got here and where we are.

So, the brand name drug is Wegovy, because it's just too complex for me to say the generic form of the name of it, but it was approved last year in June by the FDA. And apparently, this is a new generation of highly effective hormone-based obesity medications. And specifically, what it does is that it targets a hormone, GLP-1, which is secreted in the gut, and then targets receptors throughout the body. And it makes it so that there is some kind of positive response, where you do lose the weight. And for this drug, it was prescribed for patients that are obese, who have a BMI or body mass index of greater than 30, or a BMI greater than 27 accompanied by weight-related medical problems, such as high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes and cholesterol, things like that. It’s definitely something that I believe would be beneficial to the patient because if you do take it, if it works as it says, we're not going to jump to those other more expensive disease states that cost a lot of money to treat.

But, going back to like the whole vanity drug classification of it, yes, this isn't a proven curative drug, I think they were saying like up to 13% of individuals don't lose any weight that take this drug. But, you know, insurance companies have for a while used thing called step therapy, where they're like, try drug A first before you go to drug B, and a lot of time is wasted. And a lot of dollars can be wasted too, because that's that kind of one-size-fits-all approach to everything. Whereas, you know, if we're doing more curative, something that just kind of goes right to your specific biological makeup, that could have a lot better of an outcome for a patient and at a lower cost. So, I think they're coming at it from a step therapy mindset.

And, too, there is a policy that's been weakened a little bit ago by the court, but the copay accumulator, where they're stopping you from having the rebates from a manufacturer go to the deductible and the patient's maximum allowable cost. So, it's like you have those mindsets of let's try not to pay it. But I think, you know, with our medicine and science getting a lot better, we're going to have to think past that old traditional reimbursement system.

Aislinn Antrim: Yeah, absolutely. This seems to be kind of a widespread issue—you talked about Wegovy, and it's been applied to a couple of these other similar new drugs. What are pharmaceutical lobbyists really doing to kind of get insurers to pay for these?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: That's an interesting question. So, I can't speak for pharma, I don't know what they're doing. I talked to pharma interests, I did look at their website, and one of their policy issues is called “Build a better patient-centered agenda.” And I like where they're going with that, because essentially, what it's saying is we want insurance to work like insurance is supposed to work. Which is, if we have something that's wrong with us, we go see the doctor, the doctor prescribes. And the doctor says, “This is what we think is good for that patient to have a good outcome.” And the insurance is supposed to just pay for it. Now, you know, there's all kinds of things, and I know why there's rules about it and there's all kinds of special circumstances. But you know, more times than not, we're fighting the insurance company to pay for things that seem to be common sense. So, I think there is a bill, which I'll talk about in a little bit, on the obesity issue that we're talking about here. But instead of it being what I call a hard lobbying issue, which is I'm going to go directly to my congressman, or my senator and we'll go lobby about how we need this particular drug. It seems to be more of a soft lobbying issue to me, where the pharmaceutical industry would have to reach out to the payers to have that conversation about why the manufacturers think this is a good thing with the patients today. They have to talk to the patient themselves and educate the patient. So, if the patient feels comfortable enough, what you're dealing with is years of stigma and everything about this. Again, this is getting out of traditional health care and going to the root of the problem. And instead of just treating a symptom, you know, we're really trying to figure out what's going on here. So that's the other thing. And then really, the last thing that I see as kind of the soft lobbying by pharma is educating the doctors about this drug and why this is here, and why they should start to utilize this in their weapons system of fighting whatever it is that they're dealing with patients. So that's what I call more of a soft lobbying issue.

Aislinn Antrim: Interesting. Are there policy changes that could address this issue?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: The court system is weakening the copay accumulators, which I mentioned earlier, and there have been several state and state efforts. And, definitely, there's a federal bill right now on step therapy, where they're trying to get rid of that, because again, it's like, why are we doing all these things that may not work, and it's wasting time and it's causing a lot of money. And we could just get right to the heart of the problem, especially when the doctors are saying, you really shouldn't get in between my relationship with my patient, because I know the patient. And, you know, I'm the closest that's here. So, this is what I think.

There is an interesting bill that I want to bring up about policy changes that you had asked about. So, there is a bill, HR 1577, and there's also a senate version of this—SB 596 is a companion bill. So it’s basically the same bill that's in the house is also in the Senate, same language, and everything. It’s called the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act and let me tell you just really quick what this is. The bill would allow for coverage for therapy that is provided by a physician who's not a primary care physician, or other health care providers and approved counseling programs, if you have a referral from your PCP. Currently, the therapy is covered only if provided by a PCP. The bill would also allow coverage under Medicare's prescription drug benefit, so under Part D, for the treatment of obesity, or weight loss management for individuals who are overweight. So, this really targets what we're talking about right now. And if we actually have this bill go through, I think this conversation will be a lot easier, because we already have the regulatory scheme for it, instead of having to build it from scratch and just kind of convince people that this is a good thing for patients to take. Again, when we're coming at it from the traditional mindset of “Let's try not to pay for things and if we do, let's try the cheaper stuff first, before we get to something that might actually help,” I think that's just backwards.

Aislinn Antrim: Yeah, absolutely. Do you see similar issues in other drug classes or treatment areas?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: A long while ago—well, it's about 2013, so seems like a long while ago, with everything that's happened between then—[we had] Sovaldi with hepatitis C, you know, at $4,000. For the treatment, I think it was 12 course treatment, and people were like, “Oh, my God.” I know there's still an issue but, you know, if 9 out of 10 times a patient takes this, they get better, those are pretty decent odds. So why not try it for a little bit? So, that would be my kind of form of step therapy, which is let's just try, and if it's not working, then okay, we can get off of it. But this kind of seems to be what I call a best-in-breed prescription out there. So, like, if this is the best thing, let's take it and see what happens. And I think, again, with drugs that are curative and more expensive, because the upfront cost has to be there, because you're not going to have the repeat customer because they're getting cured. But at the same time, I think somebody has to do a cost analysis at the payer by saying, if we put patient on drug A and it costs this, but if we put them on drug B, it's going to cost all this other stuff and the patient's going to get sicker. It's just that's just not really what we should be doing. I do know that there's this balance of, you know, we have to have something that's affordable for patients to take. So it's $84,000. And I hate to bring up old wounds, but it's at $4,000, something that is reasonable or not. And I think that's, you know, something that the pharma and the insurance just still haven't quite worked out yet, especially since we keep seeing this thing about drug price from congress, and why is this stuff so high? But I think now there's a lot more scrutiny starting to come into the picture with the Federal Trade Commission, and how they're now saying, okay, well, high drug prices and what are these PBMs doing and let's find out a little bit more about this. So, that's something we should continue to watch. But those are the policies. You know, if we get bills like this, we have an FTC that is really scrutinizing both pharma and the PBM industry, I think we'll start to slowly but surely get to an answer that's tolerable for everybody.

Aislinn Antrim: Well, that's good to hear. Some companies have found kind of an interesting workaround by marketing these drugs as diabetes treatments, rather than weight loss drugs. And in some cases that seems to have worked. Does this seem like an effective solution? Or what are your thoughts on this?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: I think it obviously depends on what the doctor is seeing from the patient. I mean, if you're pre-diabetic, then you know, if you don't do anything, you're going to get over into type 2 diabetes, potentially. So, I can understand the rationale behind it. But I don't think it's really that different than off labeling. I mean, you know, if you have a drug and it's supposed to be used for cancer A but also works for cancer B, it’s not approved for cancer B, but, you know, there may be times as a patient where your condition doesn't have something that is FDA approved, but the doctor is looking at these studies and trying to see what can help you. Again, that's that patient-doctor relationship that you just have to trust. And that's what the patient is looking for. So, I think it's really no different than off labeling and if that really goes to the result that we're getting to, I'm all for it.

Aislinn Antrim: Absolutely. Why do list prices vary for the same drug with different indications? So, with diabetes versus for obesity?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: Yeah, that's the million-dollar question. Literally, if you live with these high-priced drugs, right? I don't know if I can give you an answer. I think the best people to ask this question to would be the pharmacy benefit managers, because the more and more they've gotten involved, the more and more prices have gone up. And that is because the manufacturer has to hire the higher price because they have to compensate for the rebate that they're giving to the pharmacy benefit manager. So why is that? And I think that, you know, like I was telling you earlier, the scrutiny with the Federal Trade Commission going in and just seeing exactly what PBMs are doing with these drug prices, and then, you know, either getting some federal standards around it, and what they can and can't do or be giving the PBM a federal regulator. They don't have one, you know, and it's just this piecemeal stuff that they're doing by state. I think those days are numbered, as far as just having a PDMP and unregulated entity. But I think the more layers that start to get peeled back, the more attention that's coming. Again, this stuff doesn't happen overnight. None of this happened overnight at all. I mean, PBMs really didn't grow until the ‘90s. So, we're talking from the ‘90s until now, there's been some changes, gradual changes, but there's been a shift. And I think we're starting to start to shift that backwards to where we can get an answer. We'll find out these things.

Aislinn Antrim: Wonderful. Is there anything else you wanted to add on this topic?

Ron Lanton III, Esq: No. I think this is definitely not the last thing that we're going to see. I just think it's, I hate to say it, I know it's a different disease state, but it's just Sovaldi in a different form. I mean, we have these drugs that are promising to do things, and if 13%—and I know that's one study, but I mean, if somebody tells me “Okay, 13% of people this may not do anything for them.” I'm at least willing to give it a shot, because it's better than what we have now. And it's definitely better than some of the step therapy protocols that patients are going to have to go through.

Aislinn Antrim: Definitely, thank you for talking to me about this.

Ron Lanton III, Esq: Definitely. Thank you for asking.

Lanton Law Podcast speaks with the Vermont Office of the Health Care Advocate

For this episode of the Lanton Law Podcast we interview Sam Peisch of the Vermont Office of the Health Care Advocate. We discuss the new Office of the Health Care Advocate within Vermont Legal Aid, healthcare challenges in the state as well as efforts to address healthcare inequity within at risk communities in Vermont.

Listen to the podcast here

FTC Takes Aggressive Policy Stance Against Drug Manufacturers and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has come out aggressively against both pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The agency has released its policy statement seen here, announcing that the agency “will ramp up enforcement against any illegal bribes and rebate schemes that block patients’ access to competing lower-cost drugs.”  

Here is what the FTC is specifically targeting in its policy statement: 

• Exclusionary rebates that foreclose competition from lower-cost medicines may constitute unreasonable agreements in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act; unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act; or exclusive dealing under Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

• Inducing prescription drug middlemen to place higher-priced drugs on formularies instead of lower-cost alternatives in a manner that shifts costs to payers and patients may violate the prohibition against unfair methods of competition or unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. 

• Paying or accepting rebates or fees in exchange for excluding lower cost drugs may constitute commercial bribery under Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits compensating an intermediary to act against the interests of the party it represents in the transaction.

This follows the recently revealed PBM study by the FTC will officially examine the impact of vertically integrated PBMs on the access and affordability of prescription drugs. As part of this inquiry, the FTC will send compulsory orders to CVS Caremark; Express Scripts, Inc.; OptumRx, Inc.; Humana Inc.; Prime Therapeutics LLC; and MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique regulatory law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

The Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2022 Introduced in Congress

The Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2022 was introduced by Senate Commerce Science, and Transportation Committee Chair Maria Cantwell and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley. 

The bill which can be viewed here, seeks to prevent unfair and deceptive acts or practices and the dissemination of false information related to pharmacy benefit management services for prescription drugs, and for other purposes. 

According to the Senate Commerce Committee’s announcement the proposed bill seeks to specifically do the following: 

PROHIBITS UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE PRICING PRACTICES

The legislation would make it illegal for PBMs to engage in “spread pricing” in which they charge health plans and payers more for a prescription drug than what they reimburse to the pharmacy, and then pocket the difference – the “spread” – as profit.

The bill would also prohibit PBMs from arbitrarily, unfairly, or deceptively clawing back payments made to pharmacies, or arbitrarily, unfairly, or deceptively increasing fees or lowering reimbursements to offset reimbursement changes in federally-funded health plans.

INCENTIVIZES FAIR AND TRANSPARENT PBM PRACTICES

The bill would encourage fair and transparent PBM practices that benefit local pharmacies and consumers by making clear that a PBM would not be in violation of the Act if it:

Passes along 100 percent of any rebate to the health plan or payer; and

Provide full and complete disclosure of:

• The cost, price, and reimbursement of prescription drugs to the health plans and pharmacies;

• All fees,markups, and discounts the PBM charges or imposes on health plans and pharmacies; or

• The aggregate remuneration fees it receives from drugmakers to health plans, payers, and any federal agency.

MANDATES TRANSPARENCY

The bill would require PBMs to file an annual report with the FTC, shining a brighter light on how they charge health plans and pharmacies for prescription drugs. Specifically, it would require PBMs to disclose:

• The aggregate amount of the difference between how much each health plan paid the PBM for prescription drugs, and how much the PBM paid each pharmacy on behalf of health plans for such drugs;

• The aggregate total amount of fees the PBM charged to pharmacies and the total amount of reimbursements the PBM clawed back from pharmacies;

• Why the cost, copay, coinsurance, or deductible for a consumer increased, or why the reimbursement rate to a pharmacy decreased for a prescription drug; and

• For PBMs that control or are affiliated with a pharmacy, a description of any differences between what they reimburse or charge affiliated and nonaffiliated pharmacies.

ENFORCEMENT

The bill would authorize the FTC and state attorneys general to enforce its mandates, including by seeking civil penalties from PBM companies for each violation, plus an additional penalty of up to $1 million.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. Our pharmacy practice has been helping pharmacies nationwide with operational issues, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory inquiries, audits, licensure, employment issues and contracting. Our lobbying efforts help pharmacies nationwide achieve improved business climates through carefully crafted legislation.  

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Lanton Law Speaks with Pharmacy Times About the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company

Lanton Law spoke with Pharmacy Times about the possible market implications of the new Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.

“In an interview with Pharmacy Times, Ron Lanton III, Esq, principal at Lanton Law, said entrepreneur Mark Cuban's new venture into the pharmacy field is very interesting, although it maybe just another player in the mail-order pharmacy market.

In the interview, Lanton discussed the company's steep discounts on drugs in a myriad of disease states, as well as the company's pharmacy benefits manager, which is expected to be operational in 2023. Ultimately, Lanton said the company's broader impacts on the pharmacy field and drug pricing remain to be seen, although several other legislative efforts to lower drug prices have been discussed in recent years.”

The interview can be seen by clicking here.

New Congressional Pharmacy Benefit Manager Bill Aimed at Spread Pricing Reintroduced

According to a December 1, 2021 press release, Representatives Carter (R-GA) and Gonzalez (D-TX) have reintroduced the Drug Price Transparency in Medicaid Act. The legislation “would limit the power of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to artificially spike Medicaid drug prices. The Drug Price Transparency in Medicaid Act bans the use of spread pricing by middlemen (PBMs) in Medicaid managed care. PBMs drive up prescription drug costs without adding any value to the consumer.” 

This legislation would help stop the under reimbursement that pharmacies are experiencing, while also helping to create much needed drug price transparency where Medicaid programs nationwide are concerned. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. Our pharmacy practice has been helping pharmacies nationwide with operational issues, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory inquiries, audits, licensure, employment issues and contracting. Our lobbying efforts help pharmacies nationwide achieve improved business climates through carefully crafted legislation.  

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

CMS Proposes Rescinding Most Favored Nation Interim Final Rule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released a proposed rule that seeks to rescind the Most Favored Nation Model interim final rule with comment period that appeared in the November 27, 2020 Federal Register.  CMS is seeking public comment by October 12, 2021. 

This rule has already had some interesting history. According to the proposal, “In December 2020, while the comment period was open, four lawsuits were filed related to CMS's waivers of proposed rulemaking and delay in effective date as well as other aspects of the MFN Model and the November 2020 interim final rule.

On January 8, 2021, the Solicitor General determined not to appeal the preliminary injunction issued in California Life Sciences. On January 19, 2021, at the parties' request, the U.S. Northern District of California stayed the case until at least April 23, 2021. Subsequently, on April 26, 2021, another stay was granted until July 26, 2021. On July 29, 2021, another stay was granted until September 27, 2021.

In Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, on February 2, 2021, the plaintiff filed a letter seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment, and HHS filed a letter seeking leave to file a motion for a stay. On February 10, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted HHS's request and stayed the case for 90 days (that is, through May 11, 2021). On May 10, 2021, the stay in this case was extended for an additional 90 days, until August 9, 2021, to give HHS time to consider how to proceed with the rule in light of the “unanimous” court decisions to date. In its order, the court noted that HHS should “not assume that another stay will be granted,” as the stays gave HHS “a half-year to reach a conclusion regarding how to proceed[.]”

As a result of the nationwide preliminary injunction, the MFN Model was not implemented on January 1, 2021, as contemplated in the November 2020 interim final rule. While the nationwide preliminary injunction has been in place, CMS considered how to proceed given stakeholders' concerns about potential impacts of the MFN Model.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. 

If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

New Louisiana Law Bans White Bagging

The Governor has enacted Act No. 50 effective June 1, which seeks to ban “white bagging” in the state. White bagging is when a drug is delivered from an insurer’s preferred pharmacy to a physician’s office. This new law which is the first of its kind in the country provides that insurers cannot refuse to pay for physician-administered drugs to covered patients. Similar legislation has been seen in Massachusetts, New York and Texas.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Biden Administration Files Motion Supporting Canadian Drug Imports

The Biden Administration has filed a motion in federal district court for the District of Columbia. The motion seeks to dismiss a lawsuit that aims to prevent prescription drug imports from Canada. This motion is aimed at prior enacted state legislation from both Florida and New Mexico, as both states have commenced the process of applying for Canadian imports. The Administration argues in its brief that the party opponent’s (Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America PhRMA) claim is not prudentially ripe.

Importation is an issue that Lanton Law has been monitoring for several years. As the drug pricing debate continues across Congress and state legislatures, we fully anticipate importation to continue to be a front and center policy issue.

Lanton Law is a national boutique regulatory law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Two Biosimilar Bills Head to President Biden for Signature

 S. 164  titled the “Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021” sponsored by Senator Hassan (D-NH) has passed both the House and Senate and is on its way to the President. This bill requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to advance education and awareness among health care providers about biological products as appropriate, including by developing or improving continuing education programs that address the prescribing of biological products and biosimilars. The FDA may also maintain and operate a website to provide educational materials about biological products.

Additionally, the Ensuring Innovation Act has passed both the House and Senate and is on its way to President for his signature. According to Senator Cassidy’s press release, the bill “would close loopholes to prevent awarding market exclusivity to products that do not represent true innovation and unduly delay cheaper generics from entering the market.”  

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Oregon Proposes New Policy to Control Drug Prices

Drug prices have been fiercely debated in Congress and in various state capitols before COVID-19 brought everything to a halt. Vermont was the first state in the country to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to explain drug price increases. That initiative was followed by Maryland in 2019 as the state created its five member Prescription Drug Affordability Board to monitor prices. It seems now the attention is focused on Oregon. 

SB 844 proposes to establish a Prescription Drug Affordability Board in the Department of Consumer and Business Services to review prices for prescription drug products meeting specified cost criteria. Business Services will review prices for prescription drug products meeting specified cost criteria. The bill also requires the board to establish an upper payment limit for drugs that are or are expected to create affordability challenges for health systems and patients in Oregon or health inequities for communities of color.

An insurer, pharmacy benefit manager or other person that pays for or reimburses the cost of prescription drugs in this state may elect to opt out of the upper payment limit for specific drugs to allow the payer to negotiate with a manufacturer for the cost of the drug. 

Additionally, the Prescription Drug Affordability Board shall annually assess fees to be paid by manufacturers that sell prescription drug products in this state. The fees shall be established in amounts necessary to meet the costs of the board. The fees shall be imposed based on a manufacturer’s share of gross revenue from sales of prescription drug products in this state.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current telemedicine landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

HHS Delays Rebate Rule to 2023 Due to a Court Order

Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that the Trump administration’s directive that would have implemented the drug rebate rule against pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). 

According to the final rule:

“As required by an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this action provides notice of the delay of the effective date of certain amendments to the safe harbors to the Federal anti-kickback statute that were promulgated in a final rule (“Fraud And Abuse; Removal of Safe Harbor Protection for Rebates Involving Prescription Pharmaceuticals And Creation of New Safe Harbor Protection for Certain Point-of-Sale Reductions in Price on Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager Service Fees”) published on November 30, 2020. The new effective date for these certain amendments is January 1, 2023.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) Files Lawsuit Against HHS Seeking to Eliminate Pharmacy DIR Fees

NCPA has sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over DIR fees. The lawsuit can be viewed here.  Specifically the crux of the case is found below:

This is an action for judicial review of a policy of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that undermines Medicare beneficiaries’ access to negotiated prices for prescription drugs and otherwise alters Medicare payment for those drugs in a way that reduces their availability. 

Despite having been reopened time and time again over the last several years, the agency’s current definition of “negotiated prices” continues to enable Medicare Part D plans under the Medicare program (and the pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) with which they contract) to downward-adjust reimbursement to pharmacies for prescription drugs months after a patient has paid cost-sharing for the prescription drugs based on an artificially inflated price. This dynamic results from an exception to the definition of “negotiated prices” for pharmacy price concessions that cannot “reasonably be determined” at the time of sale, an exception that HHS said would be narrow but never was. In reality, this exception swallows the rule and hereby threatens the solvency of independent community pharmacies and drives up the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare patients nationwide. Plaintiff asks this Court to set aside that invalid exception and the agency’s guidance on it.

Lanton Law applauds NCPA’s leadership in filing this much needed lawsuit. Lanton Law has been assisting pharmacies on the state level with issues such as DIR via lobbying. If you are a pharmacy that would like to discuss your advocacy options, contact Lanton Law to discuss your lobbying and legal strategies.