A New Chapter: Lanton Law is now Lanton, Lanton & Sosa Law

By: The Partners of Lanton, Lanton & Sosa

We are thrilled to share some major news with our clients, colleagues, and friends.

If you’ve visited our website today or seen our recent press release, you likely noticed a change. Lanton Law, PLLC has officially rebranded to Lanton, Lanton & Sosa Law, PLLC.

This isn’t just a name change—it’s a reflection of how we are evolving to meet your needs. Over the past few years, our clients have asked for more support in complex areas like real estate, technology, and corporate growth. We listened, and today we are expanding our team and our practice to deliver exactly that.

Meet Our New Managing Partner

The "Sosa" in our new name belongs to Maria Sosa, whom we are honored to welcome as our new Managing Partner.

Maria is not just joining the leadership team; she is bringing an entirely new capability to the firm: Commercial Real Estate. Whether you are navigating property development or complex transactions, Maria’s expertise adds a critical pillar to the services we offer. She will also be heavily involved with our healthcare and technology clients, as well as with Lanton Strategies International. There she will be driving advocacy for our clients across the Northeast.

Expanded Services for a Changing World

Alongside this rebrand, our existing leadership is taking on new strategic roles to broaden our scope:

• Ron Lanton is now Senior Partner and Global Strategist. While he remains the dedicated General Counsel for our healthcare and life sciences clients, he is formally expanding his practice to include Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A). If your company is looking to grow, acquire, or exit, Ron is ready to guide that strategy.

• Casandra Lanton has been appointed Chief Legal Officer. She is expanding her expertise beyond Human Resources and Employment Law to include Technology Law, ensuring your business is protected in an increasingly digital and regulated environment.

Bridging D.C. and New England

We know that policy decisions made in Washington often have ripple effects on business operations in the Northeast. That is why we are solidifying our footprint.

• Headquarters: We remain rooted in Washington, D.C., at the center of legislative and regulatory affairs.

• Principal Operations: We have established a major operational hub in Boston, Massachusetts, allowing us to serve our New England clients more directly.

What This Means for You

If you are a current client, the only thing changing is our letterhead. You will continue to receive the same personalized, high-level counsel you rely on—now with even more resources at your disposal.

Thank you for trusting us with your business. We are excited to step into this future with you.

— The Team at Lanton, Lanton & Sosa Law, PLLC

Read the full official press release here.

Lanton Law Speaks with Drug Topics on Its Over the Counter Podcast on MFN

Ron Lanton of Lanton Law speaks with Drug Topics on their podcast episode of Over the Counter. Ron discusses developing policy expected to enact significant change in the pharmacy industry and beyond titled “Most Favored Nation: Global Benchmarking to Reimagine US Drug Distribution.” Click here to access the podcast.

Lanton Law Returns to Moderate Most Favored Nation Panel for Pharmacy Times

Lanton Law retuned to moderate the third and final panel on MFN for Pharmacy Times titled “How Trump Is Disrupting Pharma: Exploring the Impacts of MFN, Tariffs and DTC on Drug Markets.” The panel discussion can be heard here.

Lanton Law Quoted in Bloomberg Law

We have been talking a lot lately about drug pricing; specifically Most Favored Nation (MFN) and other ancillary issues. We were recently quoted in Bloomberg Law News on the issue here. Thanks to Nyah Phengsitthy for reaching out.

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.

CMS Makes An Impactful Change Regarding Biosimilars

Within its final calendar year 2025 Medicare Advantage and Part D final rule seen here, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Servces (CMS) is allowing Part D sponsors the ability to make midyear substitutions of biosimilars for their reference products on their formularies. 

Specifically:

•  All biosimilars may be substituted as formulary maintenance changes: Part D sponsors may treat formulary substitutions of all biosimilars for their reference products as “maintenance changes” that would not require explicit prior approval by CMS.  This option has previously been available only for interchangeable biological products. Part D sponsors previously had to obtain explicit approval prior to substituting biosimilars other than interchangeable biological products, and these substitutions applied only to enrollees who began therapy after the effective date of the change — delaying enrollees’ access to cheaper options. Treating all biosimilar substitutions as maintenance changes means that midyear formulary substitutions of biosimilars for their reference products would apply to all enrollees (including those already taking the reference product prior to the effective date of the change) following a 30-day advance notice to affected enrollees. 

• New interchangeable biological products may be immediately substituted: We are finalizing additional flexibility for interchangeable biological products not on the market at the time that Part D sponsors submit their initial formulary for CMS approval. Part D sponsors meeting certain requirements have the additional option to immediately substitute a new interchangeable biological product for a reference product and provide notice of the change to affected enrollees after making such change. 

Biosimilar policy continues to evolve. It’s important to be in the know to plan accordingly. 

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.

Pharmaceutical Commerce Speaks with Lanton Law about New Drug Pricing Models

Pharmaceutical Commerce interviews Ron Lanton; Partner at Lanton Law on newly emerging pricing models such as the cost plus drug model. Ron gives his insight on what impacts these emerging models will have on the pharmaceutical industry. The interview can be seen here.

Tenth Circuit Deals Pharmacy a Set Back Regarding Oklahoma PBM Law

In 2020 the pharmacy industry witnessed much needed relief with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on behalf of pharmacy in the unanimous Rutledge v. PCMA case. That decision held that a federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), does not prevent states from enacting laws regulating the abusive payment practices of PBMs. 

However; this week The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision agreeing with the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) that Oklahoma's Patient's Right to Pharmacy Choice Act (the Act) is preempted by ERISA because it interferes with central matters of plan administration by restricting ERISA plans from structuring their pharmacy networks in a particular manner. The court also held that ERISA preempted the Act's provision that would bar pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from denying, limiting, or terminating a pharmacy's contract because one of its pharmacists is on probation with the state pharmacy board.

This is definitely an inconsistent decision from Rutledge and should be overturned due to recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. 

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.

Lanton Law Speaks at Summit & Reverse Expo

We were pleased to be invited to Orlando, Florida to speak with IDN with our presentation titled “Price, Innovation & Policy: What’s on the Horizon for the Industry.

Amazon to Acquire Primary Health Care Provider

Amazon has decided to take another step forward in healthcare by acquiring One Medical.

According to the press release “One Medical is a human-centered, technology-powered national primary care organization on a mission to make quality care more affordable, accessible, and enjoyable through a seamless combination of in-person, digital, and virtual care services that are convenient to where people work, shop, and live.”

Amazon will acquire One Medical for $18 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $3.9 billion, including One Medical’s net debt.

We have been monitoring Amazon’s healthcare moves for a while. In 2017 we forecasted our thoughts in a blog post with Victor Morrison on whether the company would wade into healthcare. We posted when Amazon Launched its U.S. Pharmacy Business and followed their moves into biometrics. This is definitely not the last move the company will make in healthcare. The only issue is whether there will be antitrust scrutiny.

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.

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 Interviews Famlee Founder & CEO Shelley Bailey

Ron Lanton of Lanton Law interviews Shelley Bailey of Famlee. They discuss fertility, entrepreneurship and the benefits of technology for the advancement of women's health. The interview can be heard here.

Lanton Law Podcast Episode 1

On Episode 1 Lanton Law speaks with STACK CEO Jonathan Ogurchak about privacy trends, healthcare efficiencies using SAAS and whether healthcare is ready for tech disruption. Click here to listen to the podcast.

Prescription Digital Therapeutics Presses Ahead for Behavioral Health

At Lanton Law we have been monitoring the both exciting and emerging field of prescription digital therapeutics. While the technologies we have been witnessing are promising, there does remain the challenge of reimbursement, since there has not yet been a statutory benefit category established for this new technology. However; behavioral health shows the most immediate promise. 

A recent CMS meeting illustrates this point. CMS released a document titled “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Application Summaries and Coding Recommendations” for the Second Biannual, 2021 HCPCS Coding Cycle. The document can be viewed here. The document describes Pear Therapeutics’ reSET-O which is a “12-week interval prescription digital therapeutic for opioid use disorder (OUD).” CMS’ examination ended with its decision effective April 1, 2022 to establish a HCPCS Code to “facilitate options for non-Medicare payers to provide access to this therapy in the home setting,” so that CMS can continue its marketplace monitoring. This on top of the AMA’s CPT Editorial Panel’s actions (seen here) to establish a new CPT code for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Monitoring effective January 2023 shows that there will definitely be more certainty in this field in the next coming years. 

Lanton Law is a national healthcare and life science boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments for our clients. Our HealthIT practice can help stakeholders understand what’s at issue with topics like digital therapeutics, RTM and RPM so that we can help our valued clients reach their goals. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

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.

Data Protection Agency (DPA) Legislation Reintroduced

U.S. Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) issued a press release announcing the Data Protection Act of 2021, which would create the DPA, an independent federal agency whose goal is to protect Americans’ data, instill privacy safeguards and work to ensure that there is transparency in data sharing practices. 

There have been some changes to this proposed legislation since last year’s version of the bill. These changes include:

• Supervision of Data Aggregators: Grants the DPA authority to review Big Tech mergers involving a large data aggregator, or any merger that proposes the transfer of personal data of 50,000 or more individuals.

• Office of Civil Rights: Establishes the DPA Office of Civil Rights to advance data justice and protect individuals from discrimination. 

• Enforcement Powers: Improves DPA enforcement powers to oversee the use of high-risk data practices and to penalize, examine, and propose remedies to the social, ethical, and economic impacts of data collection.

• Penalties and Fines: Prohibits data aggregators from committing any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory data practices; and allows for penalties and fines to be levied if violated, including triple penalties for violations against children.

• Defines Key Terms for Transparency: Provides Key Definitions for Privacy Harm, Data Aggregators, and High-Risk Data Practice, among other key terms.

According to the release “The DPA would be an executive agency. The director would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serves a 5-year term, and must have knowledge of technology, protection of personal data, civil rights, and law. The agency may investigate, subpoena for testimony or documents, and issue civil investigative demands. It may prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance as is necessary to carry out federal privacy laws. The authority of state agencies and state attorneys general are preserved in the Act. The DPA would have three core missions:

1. Give Americans control and protection over their own data by authorizing the DPA to create and enforce data protection rules. 

2. Maintain the most innovative, successful tech sector in the world by ensuring fair competition within the digital marketplace. 

3. Prepare the American government for the digital age.”

Lanton Law’s technology practice has been monitoring privacy developments nationwide. If you are a banking/finance, technology or healthcare/life science 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.

Lina Khan Sworn in as FTC Chair

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a June 15th press release announcing Lina Khan as the Chair of the FTC, with her term expiring on September 25, 2024. Ms. Khan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 15, 2021. 

Lanton Law has been monitoring the FTC for our technology and healthcare clients. This move may signal that the Biden Administration and Congress may take on a more aggressive role in antitrust policy. Technology stakeholders should take note. 

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. 

How to Choose a Lobbyist

Now more than ever it is important to choose the right lobbyist. Since the early 2000s, there has been a steady increase in the amount of government activity that has directly affected stakeholders. 

Prior to this time-period, companies could afford to focus only on differentiating their products from their competitors. Now companies are finding that during their strategic planning meetings, they must account for how state and federal government activity may impact their bottom line. In addition to having a Government Affairs staff, these same companies are starting to realize the importance of having established a relationship with a lobbyist. The question is how to choose a lobbyist that is right for your organization?

First you want to make sure the lobbyist has experience. To be a good lobbyist there is no magic number of how many years you have worked within the political system. However; many lobbyists have worked an average of six months in the legislature as an aide to a legislator or on the other side of the spectrum, many legislators have left the legislature to work as a lobbyist. These individuals have an insider’s perspective into how the legislature works such as when a bill filing deadline date is and whether or not a bill can be introduced due to if a state is in an emergency session where the rules for introducing legislation is different from regular session.

Second the lobbyist should have a minimum number of contacts in the legislature. Whether it is in Congress or on the state level, the lobbyist should be able to have a go to legislator that can get a bill introduced quickly. However; the most successful lobbyist will not be limited to one party. Having contacts on both sides of the aisle will allow the lobbyist the opportunity to bring any bill at any time regardless of what political party has the majority.

Third the best lobbyist should be strategic. He or she should be able to know when a good time to introduce legislation is. The lobbyist should know what legislator to target as the bill sponsor. This is important because the bill sponsor will be the champion for your particular bill from start to finish. 

The lobbyist will need to educate the bill sponsor on the nuances of the bill so that the sponsor will be educated enough to be able to respond to technical questions during a hearing or when the sponsor is in caucus meetings; explaining to their respective party about why your bill should be voted on. The lobbyists should be able to pick and choose what committee will be best for your bill to go into, who to use as strategic allies for your legislation and be intuitive enough on when to negotiate and when not to.

Next it is important for your lobbyist to know the industry and to have foresight. You need to be comfortable knowing that your lobbyist understands your industry because if not, how can you be sure that your lobbyist is communicating the correct outcome for you? 

The lobbyist should be skilled enough to draft a bill that solves your problem without having to continuously ask you how something works. Additionally, while many lobbyists only focus on the legislature, the best lobbyists will think long-term to determine if a regulatory body will be involved once your bill passes. If so a lobbyist should be able to guide you through the regulatory process without leaving you to fend for yourself after a bill has passed.

Finally, as with any other professional, you need to be aware of the reputation your lobbyist has. Do they take the time to make sure their clients understand everything that is happening? Does the lobbyist prepare the client and relevant legislators ahead of time for crucial hearings? Does the lobbyist make everything easy to understand? Does the lobbyist dress appropriately for meetings and do they have the needed respect from the legislature? Does the lobbyist closely follow the bill from start to finish or are they overloaded with too many clients? These are important issues to talk with your prospective lobbyist about before entering into a contractual relationship.

While there are other nuances to the lobbying relationship, these should be enough for you to think about as your organization considers whether to engage a lobbyist. A lobbyist should no longer be considered a luxury item. The best lobbyist are quickly becoming essential parts of today’s corporate environment for the value they bring to their clients in either advancing their interests through legislation, or being available to respond to legislative targeting that has been on the rise. You know you have picked the right lobbyist when you can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they have your back. 

Contact us today for more information regarding lobbying.

Lanton Law Quoted in Law360 Article titled "High Court Gives Green Light to Regulate PBMs"

Lanton Law was quoted in law 360’s article titled "High Court Gives Green Light to Regulate PBMs". The article was written by Emily Brill.

For those that have trouble with the link we have provided the story below.

Law360 (December 10, 2020, 10:08 AM EST) -- The U.S. Supreme Court backed an Arkansas law Thursday that bans insurers' affiliates from shortchanging pharmacies, clearing the way for other states to regulate pharmacy benefit managers and throwing a lifeline to small pharmacies that said PBMs' business practices were bankrupting them.

Pharmacies' advocates celebrated Arkansas' 8-0 win as "a historic moment for pharmacies, patients and state's rights," saying the ruling allows states such as New York to move forward with long-discussed plans to regulate the industry that manages insurers' drug components.

The ruling clarifies that PBMs can't use their ties with employee benefit plans to argue that only the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act can regulate their business dealings. ERISA only preempts states' ability to regulate employee benefit plans, leaving states free to oversee PBMs and other members of the health care supply chain, the justices said.

In an opinion authored by Justice Sonya Sotomayor and joined by all the justices except newcomer Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sat out from considering the case, the court clarified that ERISA won't preempt a regulation simply because it could increase a benefit plan's operating costs. The regulation actually has to affect the way the plan works to trigger ERISA's preemption provision, the court wrote.

"ERISA does not preempt state rate regulations that merely increase costs or alter incentives for ERISA plans without forcing plans to adopt any particular scheme of substantive coverage," Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, saying he favors more of a textualist approach to applying ERISA's preemption provision — Section 1144 of the sprawling law — than his colleagues have applied in the past.

"I write separately because I continue to doubt our ERISA preemption jurisprudence. The plain text of ERISA suggests a two-part preemption test … but our precedents have veered from the text, transforming §1144 into a vague and potentially boundless … preemption clause," Justice Thomas wrote. "That approach … offers little guidance or predictability. We should instead apply the law as written."

The ruling overturns a 2018 decision by the Eighth Circuit, which had held that ERISA preempted Arkansas' Act 900. That law, passed in 2015, forbade PBMs from reimbursing pharmacies for drugs at rates below the drugs' acquisition costs. Arkansas passed it in response to community pharmacies' complaints that PBMs were reimbursing them less than they were shelling out to purchase drugs, while reimbursing PBM-affiliated pharmacies at significantly higher rates.

The win is significant for states, which had banded together in a bipartisan coalition to back Arkansas' position in the case. Forty-seven attorneys general told the high court in the spring that preserving states' ability to regulate PBMs was essential for curbing harmful business practices in health care and protecting consumers' access to medication. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge called the ruling "a win for all Arkansans and Americans."

The ruling also hands a victory to local pharmacists, who say PBMs' practice of shortchanging them on drug reimbursements while overpaying PBM-affiliated pharmacies has threatened to put them out of business. The National Community Pharmacists Association cheered the high court's decision Thursday, saying it was thrilled that the Supreme Court had greenlit states to clamp down on that practice.

"This is a historic victory for independent pharmacies and their patients. And it confirms the rights of states to enact reasonable regulations in the name of fair competition and public health," said National Community Pharmacists Association CEO B. Douglas Hoey, who is a pharmacist himself.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM industry lobbying group that sued over Act 900, said Thursday that it was disappointed in a decision that it claimed would "result in the unraveling of federal protections under ERISA."

"As states across the country consider this outcome, we would encourage they proceed with caution and avoid any regulations around prescription drug benefits that will result in higher health care costs for consumers and employers," the group said in a statement.

Attorneys said the decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of ERISA's preemption provision. The ruling preserves Section 1144's broad reach in the context of benefit plan legislation but establishes that preemption can't be wielded as a weapon to knock out regulation of "middlemen somewhere in the [health care] supply chain," as James Gelfand, senior vice president of health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, put it.

"For far too long, the PBM industry has confused both legislators and regulators with overly broad interpretations of ERISA in order to dodge oversight," said health care attorney Ron Lanton. "We have been arguing for years that ERISA should not be interpreted to where it would be virtually impossible to regulate PBMs."

Linda Clark, a health care attorney and partner at Barclay Damon LLP, seconded that notion. "The fact you have a tangential relationship with entities that are regulated by ERISA doesn't make you completely immune from state regulation of anything you do," she said, adding that PBMs need to be regulated to prevent them from "employ[ing] even more draconian practices in management of their pharmacy networks."

Michael Klenov, a benefits attorney and partner at Korein Tillery, said Thursday that the ruling will likely discourage challenges to other states' attempts to regulate PBMs. But "it may also embolden states to push the boundaries of health care-related legislation further, thus leading to new challenges that will test where the courts draw the preemption boundaries," he said.

The federal government, which weighed in as an amicus in support of Arkansas, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Arkansas is represented by Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, Nicholas Jacob Bronni and Shawn J. Johnson of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

The federal government is represented by Kate O'Scannlain, G. William Scott, Thomas Tso, Wayne Berry and Stephanie Bitto of the U.S. Department of Labor and by Edwin Kneedler and Frederick Liu of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association is represented by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Matthew Waring of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and by Seth P. Waxman, Catherine M.A. Carroll, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Justin Baxenberg, Claire H. Chung and Hillary S. Smith of WilmerHale.

The case is Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, case number 18-540, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by John Oudens and Haylee Pearl.

Update: This article has been updated with additional comments and more information about the case.