California Enacts Genetic Privacy Legislation

On October 6th, California Governor Newsom (D-CA) signed SB 41 titled Privacy: genetic testing companies. The bill can be viewed here. Below are the highlights of the bill:

This bill would establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act, which would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company’s policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer’s express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer’s genetic data, as specified.

This bill would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to honor a consumer’s revocation of consent in accordance with certain procedures, and to destroy a consumer’s biological sample within 30 days of revocation of consent. The bill would further require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a consumer’s genetic data against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and develop procedures and practices to enable a consumer to access their genetic data, and to delete their account and genetic data, as specified. The bill would exclude from its provisions the California Newborn Screening Program, specific tests, and certain information, providers, entities, and activities subject to specified state and federal laws.

This bill would provide that the act does not reduce a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company’s duties, obligations, requirements, or standards under any applicable state and federal law for the protection of privacy and security and would further provide, if a conflict exists between the act and any other law, that the provisions of the law that afford the greatest protection for the right of privacy for consumers shall control.

This bill would impose civil penalties for a violation of those provisions, as specified. The bill would require actions for relief pursuant to these provisions to be prosecuted exclusively by the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association or upon a complaint by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the violation of the act. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

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.