Biosimilars Advocacy Group Outlines Congressional Wish List for 2021

The Association for Accessible Medicines sent letters to all members of Congress, which expressed what measures they would like them to take regarding access to biosimilars. 

Key legislation that they focused on was, 

1. Increasing Access to Biosimilars Act, incentivizes doctors to prescribe biosimilars through a Medicare demonstration project. 

2. BIOSIM Act, allows for an increase in biosimilar payments in Medicare for five years for biosimilars whose average sales price or wholesale price acquisitions cost is less than that of the reference product.

They also advised Congress on policies regarding brands suggesting that Congress provide a more certain date as to when generics and biosimilars enter the market and updating Medicare Part D. 

AAM stated that updating Part D should include these three key policies, 

1. Increasing the share that plans pay towards the catastrophic phase. 

2. Establishing an out-of-pocket cap.

3. Ensure that rebates and discounts do not disadvantage biosimilars and other lower-priced drugs. 

With a new Administration transitioning in, 2021 looks to be a major policy shaping year for healthcare and life sciences on the legislative and regulatory fronts. 

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 Quoted in Law360 Article Titled "High Court PBM Case Could Be Turning Point In 20-Year Fight"

Lanton Law was again quoted in Law360’s article titled “High Court PBM Case Could Be Turning Point in 20-Year Fight.” The article can be found here. For those having trouble finding the article written by Emily Brill we have provided it below:

Law360 (October 13, 2020, 8:47 PM EDT) -- Last week's U.S. Supreme Court arguments over Arkansas' attempt to regulate how much middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for drugs on insurers' behalf could mark a turning point in a broader legal fight that's been playing out for 20 years.

Here, Law360 brings you up to speed on what led to the pending high court showdown between the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association and the Natural State.

The Laws Come Down

Pharmacy benefit managers have assumed an increasingly large role in the health care landscape since the first PBM arose in 1968.

These companies started as third-party administrators, processing patients' prescription drug claims on behalf of health insurance plans. Over the years, though, PBMs have launched drug formularies, pharmacy networks and their own mail-order pharmacies as the industry has grown, and the largest PBMs have integrated with insurers in multibillion-dollar deals.

"They've always been a partner to the insurer, but now they're a crucial extension of the insurer," said Ron Lanton, an attorney and lobbyist who specializes in health care law. "The PBM has grown to this huge marketplace player — determining who's the provider in their networks, setting the prices for insurance reimbursement."

Today, PBMs have a hand in most aspects of prescription drug dispensing, from how much consumers pay and how much pharmacies are reimbursed to where patients get their drugs and whether they receive name-brand or generic versions.

PBMs have drawn praise for saving consumers and plan sponsors money, but they've also met criticism, particularly from pharmacists, who say PBMs routinely reimburse their own mail-order pharmacies at much higher rates and thus drive local pharmacies out of business.

"PBMs are not only managing benefits for their clients — they're actively competing in the networks they manage," said Linda Clark, a partner at Barclay Damon LLP. "That's the fundamental optical conflict of interest that's in play. And as a result, many states have attempted to even the playing field."

States have been attempting to regulate PBMs since at least 2003, passing laws that primarily target the industry's pricing and reimbursement practices. Today, all but three states have some legislation on the books impacting PBMs, according to the National Community Pharmacists Association.

Much of that legislation has arrived recently. An influential model bill released in December 2018 by the National Council of Insurance Legislators inspired the introduction of between 250 and 300 pieces of PBM reform legislation around the country in 2019, according to the NCPA.

Another model bill from a different insurance regulators group is in the works, with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners releasing a first draft in July after working on the policy for a year. The model bill proposes requiring PBMs to get licensed and banning practices such as self-dealing and retroactive payment reductions to pharmacies.

The Suits Flood In

PBMs have not sat idly by as states have tried to regulate them. They've met lawmakers' bills with aggressive lobbying and sued a half-dozen states that adopted PBM reform legislation.

"A lot of times when there are regulations in states proposed to provide some kind of oversight, the PBM lobby tends to get very aggressive," Lanton said. "I've directly lobbied on a lot of these issues, so I've come face to face with what they've been saying to legislators."

The PBM industry's lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, began suing states over their PBM laws in the early 2000s. The first suit arose in Maine, a challenge to a law that required PBMs to disclose their payments from pharmaceutical companies and forbade them from switching patients to more expensive drugs.

That law survived the PCMA's challenge, with both a Maine federal judge and the First Circuit handing wins to the state and then the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up the case in 2006. But other jurisdictions have not fared as well in the years since.

Since Maine's win, Washington, D.C., Iowa and North Dakota have been forced to walk back PBM regulations after the PCMA convinced the D.C. Circuit and Eighth Circuit that the laws tread on territory that could only be regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Oklahoma could be next, with a court battle playing out in the Tenth Circuit to determine the viability of a PBM law there. An Oklahoma federal judge blocked part of the law in July, ruling some of its language was likely preempted by Medicare Part D.

High Court Joins the Fray

As the Tenth Circuit weighs the legitimacy of Oklahoma's law, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to strike down an Arkansas law in a case with huge implications for the legal fight between states and PBMs.

On Oct. 6, the high court heard oral arguments in the PCMA's challenge to a 2015 Arkansas law requiring PBMs to reimburse local pharmacies at the same rates as their affiliated pharmacies.

If the high court rules that the law flouts ERISA, other state laws could fall on similar grounds, attorneys say.

"There are implications for other state laws based on what happens in this case," said Ben Conley, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Many states have placed their PBM reform plans on hold while waiting on the outcome of the case, Barclay Damon's Clark said. Other states aren't enforcing their PBM laws but would likely start if the Supreme Court rules in Arkansas' favor, she said.

She said her pharmacist clients also have their eyes trained on the high court, waiting on a decision that could have a huge effect on them.

"The decision in this case is really going to define the scope of permissible state regulation of pharmacy benefit manager practices. It's going to define the contours of what states can and can't do," Clark said. "And there could be a lot of nuances in the decision that could affect the impact on state legislation. That's why everybody's watching it so carefully."

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

Administrative Judge Rules Against Washington State’s Pharmacy Reimbursement Plan Violates Medicaid Rules

Last week the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), the Washington State Pharmacy Association (WSPA) and the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) celebrated an administrative law judge’s ruling against Washington State that stated Washington’s pharmacy reimbursement plan violated Medicaid’s rules. 

The Washington State Pharmacy Association provided some insightful background into this issue.

“In 2016, CMS put in place a new rule changing how states must reimburse pharmacies. A key part of the rule indicates that states must reimburse pharmacies for their actual costs in dispensing drugs to Medicaid beneficiaries. Since that time, NACDS, WSPA and NCPA forced the issue that Washington State failed to comply with that rule, maintaining its below-cost dispensing fees. The pharmacy groups emphasized throughout the challenge that Washington State refused to adopt cost-based dispensing fees, and maintained below-cost dispensing fees—lower than any state in the country—which may impede patient access to care. The finding upholds CMS’ March 2019 decision to this effect, which was challenged by Washington State.” 

As a long-time advocate for retail pharmacy, we at Lanton Law applaud this decision. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the LTC, CBD/hemp, specialty and retail pharmacy space, as well as manufacturers and suppliers. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about strategy or simply need advice, contact us today.    

Amazon Launches U.S. Pharmacy Business

Many supply chain stakeholders have been fearing whether Amazon would ever open a retail pharmacy business. There have been traces of this occurring for years from its sporadic applications of pharmacy licenses in various states, to its June 2018 $753 million acquisition of PillPak. However; no coherent plan had come into focus until now. 

Today (November 17) Amazon has launched Amazon Pharmacy. According to the press release: 

“ Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) today announced two new pharmacy offerings to help customers conveniently purchase their prescription medications. Amazon Pharmacy, a new store on Amazon, allows customers to complete an entire pharmacy transaction on their desktop or mobile device through the Amazon App. Using a secure pharmacy profile, customers can add their insurance information, manage prescriptions, and choose payment options before checking out. Prime members receive unlimited, free two-day delivery on orders from Amazon Pharmacy included with their membership. 

Also new today, Prime members can access savings on medications at Amazon Pharmacy when paying without insurance, as well as at over 50,000 other participating pharmacies nationwide. The Amazon Prime prescription savings benefit saves members up to 80% off generic and 40% off brand name medications when paying without insurance. Prime members will have access to their prescription savings at checkout on Amazon Pharmacy, or can learn more at amazon.com/primerx.

Together the Amazon Prime prescription savings benefit and Amazon Pharmacymake it simple for customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home delivery, all in one place. Now, filling prescriptions is as convenient as any other purchase on Amazon’s online store:

• Research Medications and Order Confidently: The same browsing experience customers are familiar with from Amazon makes it easy to discover what medications – including branded and generic versions, and different forms or dosages – are available through Amazon Pharmacy. Before checking out customers can compare their insurance co-pay, the price without insurance, or the available savings with the new Prime prescription savings benefit to choose their lowest price option.

• Seamless Transactions: Customers can add insurance information and ask their prescriber to send new or existing prescriptions directly to Amazon Pharmacy for fulfilment. Purchase is as simple as confirming the request on the Amazon App or website.

• Access Fully Digital, Personalized Quality Care: Customers have online self-service help options combined with phone access to customer care at any time. Friendly and knowledgeable pharmacists are available 24/7 to answer questions about medications.”

Notwithstanding today’s market moving news, we fully expect that our healthcare supply chain will continue to evolve. New players are moving into the sector and are looking for ways to either disrupt the model or have significant influence on reimbursement. To succeed you need to be in the know and planning ahead. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the LTC, CBD/hemp, specialty and retail pharmacy space, as well as manufacturers and suppliers. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about strategy or simply need advice, contact us today.    

Psychedelic mushrooms take a policy step forward

In what has surprised many cannabis stakeholders it seems as though the November 2020 elections is bringing a new therapeutic item into the mainstream healthcare policy conversation: psychedelic mushrooms via ballot box initiatives. 

On November 3rd, Oregon voted to legalize psychedelic mushrooms for therapeutic usage with the passage of Measure 109. This is a first for the U.S.The ballot measure calls for a two year period to create a regulatory scheme to oversee this issue as well as what qualifications are required for overseeing therapists. The issue with psychedelic mushrooms turns on the use of psilocybin, who some therapists believe helps those battling depression, addiction and anxiety. Currently psilocybin is still classified as a Schedule I drug. 

Oregon also became the first in the nation via Measure 110 to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs including heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, LSD, psilocybin, methadone and oxycodone.     

Meanwhile in the District of Columbia, voters approved Ballot Initiative 81 that would decriminalize the use of magic mushrooms and other psychedelic substances.  The measure ensures that the prosecution of those who use and sell these substances would be “among the Metropolitan Police Department’s lowest law enforcement priorities.”   

There is definitely a policy change on the local and state levels. 

Lanton Law’s Cannabis practice is more than prepared to assist cannabis stakeholders. Whether you are a public or private cultivator, processor, distributor, dispensary, or an ancillary service related to the medical and/or adult-use cannabis business, we can help. 

Lanton Law assists our cannabis clients with the following services:  

• Offer strategic advice on the federal and state outlook

• Contract and lease drafting

• Corporate formation & governance

• Shareholder agreements

• Administrative representation

• Trademarks and copyrights

• FDA, USDA and FTC regulatory compliance 

• Banking and finance

• Licensing

• State and local permits

• Lobbying 

• Investor & early stage company issues

• Mergers and acquisitions

• Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure agreements

• Labor and employment

• General counsel services

To put your plans forward contact us today. 

November Election Yields Gains for Marijuana Legalization

The result of a few November 3, 2020 election ballot measures have yielded additional gains for marijuana. 

New Jersey: In New Jersey voters approved Question 1, which legalized recreational marijuana.

Arizona: Voters in Arizona approved Proposition 207 which legalizes possession and use of marijuana for adults, age 21 years or older, in Arizona and permits individuals to grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences.

South Dakota: The state has legalized marijuana possession and use for adults 21 and older. It also allows individuals to grow up to three plants if they live in a jurisdiction with no licensed marijuana retailers. It allows distribution and sales, with a 15 percent tax. Additionally, the state legislature would have to pass legislation legalizing medical marijuana and the sale of hemp by April 1, 2022.

Mississippi: Initiative 65A was passed, which restricts medical marijuana to terminally ill patients and would require pharmaceutical-grade marijuana products to have oversight by licensed physicians, nurses, and pharmacists.

Montana: Montana has passed two constitutional amendments regarding marijuana. CI-118 allows for the state legislature or a ballot initiative to set a legal age for marijuana use. Additionally, I-190 allows for marijuana possession use and growing for adults 21 or older. The measure allows for the creation of a regulatory scheme around growing and selling cannabis and imposes a sales tax on these goods.

Lanton Law’s Cannabis practice is more than prepared to assist cannabis stakeholders. Whether you are a public or private cultivator, processor, distributor, dispensary, or an ancillary service related to the medical and/or adult-use cannabis business, we can help. 

Lanton Law assists our cannabis clients with the following services:  

• Offer strategic advice on the federal and state outlook

• Contract and lease drafting

• Corporate formation & governance

• Shareholder agreements

• Administrative representation

• Trademarks and copyrights

• FDA, USDA and FTC regulatory compliance 

• Banking and finance

• Licensing

• State and local permits

• Lobbying 

• Investor & early stage company issues

• Mergers and acquisitions

• Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure agreements

• Labor and employment

• General counsel services

Lanton Law & Private Equity

With increasing mergers and acquisitions in both the technology and healthcare sectors, investment opportunities abound for funds and interested stakeholders. In order for these stakeholders to be successful it is essential to know the limits and opportunities within a complex regulatory landscape. 

At Lanton Law not only do we understand the issues, but we provide you with timely solutions to help you make informed decisions about either an acquisition target or ways to maximize value. 

We counsel clients by performing corporate due diligence, provide strategic advice for growth and business strategies as well as structuring and executing M&A transactions.

If you are a financial stakeholder including a private equity firm, hedge fund, bank, etc. we have a suite of strategic services that can help. Contact us today to learn more.

Lanton Law Opens Cannabis Practice

Lanton Law believes that the cannabis market will continue to evolve and expand. Notwithstanding this market potential is the fact that medical and adult-use cannabis operations are confronted with a complex patchwork of state and federal laws and regulations that we assist a variety of businesses with. 

Whether you are a public or private cultivator, processor, distributor, dispensary, or an ancillary service related to the medical and/or adult-use cannabis business, we can help. 

Lanton Law assists our cannabis clients with the following services:  

• Offer strategic advice on the federal and state outlook

• Contract and lease drafting

• Corporate formation & governance

• Shareholder agreements

• Administrative representation

• Trademarks and copyrights

• FDA, USDA and FTC regulatory compliance 

• Banking and finance

• Licensing

• State and local permits

• Lobbying 

• Investor & early stage company issues

• Mergers and acquisitions

• Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure agreements

• Labor and employment

• General counsel services

Lanton Law Follow Up Interview with Law360

Lanton Law had a follow up interview with Law360 regarding the Rutledge v. PCMA Supreme Court oral arguments on October 6, 2020. Below is a link to the story titled “Justices Eye Arkansas PBM Law’s Impact on Workers.” The story can be viewed here.

If you have trouble accessing the story we have included Emily Brill’s article below.

Justices Eye Arkansas PBM Law's Impact On Workers

By Emily Brill

Law360 (October 6, 2020, 1:50 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday focused on whether an Arkansas law's potential costliness to employee benefit plans is enough to place it in conflict with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, with two conservative justices questioning whether the statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers would end up hurting workers.

Counsel for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM lobby that challenged Arkansas' Act 900, argued that increased plan costs could cause employers to squeeze benefits. Therefore, laws like Act 900 — which could increase plans' costs by increasing PBMs' costs in the form of compliance burdens — pose enough of a threat to workers' benefits that they should be preempted by ERISA, argued Seth Waxman, a partner at WilmerHale.

"Those additional costs, both in terms of reimbursement obligations and plan administration, would manifestly affect how munificent the pharmacy benefits a plan could offer would be," Waxman said.

Arkansas' solicitor general bucked this argument, claiming PCMA's approach to ERISA preemption would spell the end for far more laws than Congress intended to strike down when it stated that ERISA should be the only law regulating employee benefit plans.

"If you accept their position that anytime a regulation imposes cost, that can lead to preemption because it might affect the benefits calculation, that really has no limiting principle," Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni said. "It would, frankly, preempt things like state minimum wage laws that have exactly that same effect."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why increased costs shouldn't be considered an ERISA preemption issue.

"Why shouldn't ERISA care about costs that are going to be increased and then passed on in the form of worse benefits to Arkansas workers?" Justice Kavanaugh asked the assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, Frederick Liu, who argued in support of Arkansas' position.

Liu responded that "increased costs actually don't affect the basic bargain between the plan and its beneficiaries," which was what Justice Kavanaugh had stated that ERISA was designed to protect.

"I totally agree that ERISA was enacted to protect that relationship, but increased costs don't affect the terms of that relationship," Liu argued.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. questioned whether Act 900, which regulates how PBMs reimburse local pharmacies, would indeed increase costs for employee benefit plans and workers.

"You said that these laws affect the benefits that employees get, but do we know whether that is in fact true?" Justice Alito said. "Assuming they increase the costs for the PBMs, do we know how much of that increase in cost is passed on to plans and beneficiaries, and how much is absorbed by the PBMs?"

Waxman said he didn't "have specific data on this" but knew that "one way or another, in the very short term or the long term, this is going to cost plans more to administer," which would affect "the munificence of the pharmacy benefits that plans feel they can afford."

Arkansas Takes on PBMs

The case the justices heard Tuesday asks them to decide whether Arkansas was allowed to pass a law regulating the rates at which PBMs reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs.

Critics of PBMs, which manage health insurance plans' relationships with pharmacies, say they're pushing local pharmacies out of business by regularly shortchanging them on prescription reimbursements, while paying PBM-owned pharmacies higher rates for the same drugs.

Those critics — which include pharmacy groups and a coalition of 46 attorneys general — say Arkansas was within its rights in 2015 to pass a law that purported to protect local pharmacies from unfair treatment by PBMs. Act 900, among other things, required PBMs to reimburse at rates at least equal to what pharmacies pay for drugs.

But supporters of PBMs, which include business and insurance trade groups, say Act 900 violated ERISA. They say Congress intended ERISA to be the only law that regulates matters impacting employee benefit plans, so Arkansas' law cannot stand.

In 2017, an Arkansas federal judge agreed with the law's challengers and struck down Act 900. The Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision in June 2018, and Arkansas petitioned the Supreme Court for review in October 2018. The high court picked up the case in January.

Mulling Travelers

Much of Tuesday's debate on whether a law's costliness to benefit plans could trigger ERISA preemption centered on interpretation of the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co .

In the Travelers case, the high court upheld a New York law that required hospitals to impose a surcharge on patients with certain types of insurance, including employer-provided health insurance.

The justices ruled unanimously that the law wasn't preempted by ERISA because "it simply bears on the cost of benefits" without "bind[ing] plan administrators to any particular choice," as now-retired Justice David Souter wrote in the opinion.

Bronni argued Tuesday that the justices' logic in Travelers neatly applies to this case, saying that "for the same reason that New York's rate regulation wasn't preempted in Travelers, Arkansas' is not preempted here."

But Travelers left the door open for a law's costliness to trigger ERISA preemption if that statute produced "such acute, albeit indirect, economic effects as to force an ERISA plan to adopt a certain scheme of coverage," as Justice Souter put it in a footnote.

That's what PCMA is arguing could happen here, said Mark Casciari, a benefits attorney at Seyfarth Shaw LLP who watched Tuesday's oral arguments.

"A plan sponsor has to decide what they're going to cover, and this law could have the effect of forcing its hand on those decisions because of onerous administrative burdens," Casciari said. "By regulating costs, the state law is rearticulating the plan terms."

But PCMA's argument could be weakened by the fact it's choosing to pass on those costs to benefit plans, when it could just absorb those costs, said Ron Lanton, an attorney and lobbyist with 15 years of experience in health care law.

When Waxman referenced the footnote in the Travelers decision, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that increasing costs for PBMs doesn't necessarily increase costs for benefit plans; that only happens because PBMs set things up that way.

"If the state law produced economic effects as to force the ERISA plan to adopt a certain scheme of coverage, it would, indeed, be preempted," Waxman said.

"Well, it's not the state or the pharmacy's fault that the PBMs have such Byzantine procedures that affect drug prices," Justice Roberts said.

Lanton said he thinks Justice Roberts was "undermining PCMA's argument" with his comment.

"Where they're saying this affects the plan, I think Justice Roberts is saying, 'Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but we're only here because of the way you guys structured this business.'"

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge is represented at oral arguments by Arkansas Solicitor General Nicholas Bronni.

The federal government is represented by Frederick Liu of the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General.

PCMA is represented by Seth Waxman 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 Orlando Lorenzo.

Update: This article has been updated with more details from the hearing and further comment.

Lanton Law Quoted in Law360 Article on Rutledge v. PCMA

Lanton Law was quoted in Law360’s article titled “High Court to Weight States’ Ability to Rein in Drug Middlemen,” which was written in response to current developments around the Rutledge v. PCMA case. This case was heard this morning in the U.S. Supreme Court. The article can be accessed here.

We have included Emily Brill’s article from Law360 below in case you have trouble accessing it.

Analysis High Court To Weigh States' Ability To Rein In Drug Middlemen

By Emily Brill

Law360 (October 5, 2020, 7:45 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday over whether states can control the rates at which local pharmacies get reimbursed for drugs by health insurance plans, a case that could determine whether states can regulate pharmacy benefit managers without getting waylaid by federal benefits law.

Local pharmacists call the case the most significant health care suit the high court will hear this term aside from the one that threatens the Affordable Care Act. The pharmacists say a loss for their side would give pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen who reimburse pharmacies for drugs on insurers' behalf — a green light to put pharmacies that lack PBM ties out of business.

"The outcome of the Rutledge case will be the tipping point of whether Americans will continue to have access to their local pharmacist or whether that access will go away," said Michael Hogue, the president of the American Pharmacists Association.

The outcome could also affect how far companies can stretch the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's preemption provision, which is often used in court to strike down state and local laws regulating employee benefit plans and related entities.

Here, Law360 breaks down what's at stake and what's being argued in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association .

What Are the Arguments?

The Rutledge case concerns the viability of a 2015 Arkansas law that attempted to regulate PBMs. The law arrived after lobbying from local pharmacies, which said they would be forced to close if PBMs' allegedly predatory business practices weren't reined in.

Chief among those practices was PBMs' refusal to pay local pharmacies for drugs at the same rates that they paid their affiliated pharmacies, local pharmacists said. This practice led to local pharmacies consistently getting shortchanged on prescription reimbursements, making it difficult to stay in business, the pharmacists said.

In response to these concerns, Arkansas passed Act 900, which required PBMs to reimburse local pharmacies at the same rates as their affiliated pharmacies. But shortly after the bill became law, the PBM industry slapped the state with a lawsuit alleging that Act 900 was preempted by ERISA.

The suit, filed by the PBM industry lobbying group the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, argued that Act 900 regulated business dealings that were central to administering benefit plans and that only ERISA is allowed to do that.

An Arkansas federal judge agreed, striking down the law in 2017. The Eighth Circuit upheld the ruling the following year, at which point Arkansas asked the Supreme Court to step in. The justices agreed to take the case in January.

Arkansas has argued that ERISA doesn't stretch as far as PCMA is claiming it does and that the courts are stepping into dangerous territory by accepting the PBM lobby's argument.

"Its approach would ... exempt ERISA plans from any number of generally applicable health-and-safety regulations. And that cannot be the case," Arkansas' attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, wrote in the state's opening brief to the high court.

What's at Stake?

Rutledge v. PCMA has attracted significant attention, drawing amicus briefs from 46 attorneys general and the U.S. solicitor general in support of Arkansas and from a number of employer interest groups in support of PCMA.

The state and federal governments argue that ERISA only preempts health care regulations that have an impermissible reference to employee benefit plans, which the Arkansas law does not.

Allowing PCMA to succeed in its argument could endanger states' ability to regulate health care, which could have dire consequences, the officials argued.

A ruling in favor of PCMA would also allow PBMs to operate essentially free of oversight, continuing business practices that have already bankrupted far too many local pharmacies, the pharmacists' groups argued.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Eighth Circuit ruling, "there's really nothing stopping a PBM from doing whatever it wants," said Ron Lanton, an attorney and lobbyist who specializes in health care law.

"It would be great if the Supreme Court ruled for Rutledge because then we won't have chaos," Lanton said.

But PCMA argues that a ruling in Rutledge's favor would create chaos for the PBM industry, subjecting it to a patchwork of state laws that would complicate the process of working with employee benefit plans that operate across state lines.

This argument gained PCMA the support of groups that represent employers and their benefit plans, such as America's Health Insurance Plans, the Society for Human Resource Management and the American Benefits Council.

"It was delicate for us to weigh in on because oftentimes there's no love lost between employers and PBMs," said Ben Conley, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP who helped author SHRM's amicus brief. "But at the end of the day, employers want to pay less. They want the flexibility to design their plans in a manner that allows them to do so."

A win for Rutledge "could be seen as chipping away at ERISA preemption, which large, multistate employers view as of the utmost importance because it impacts their ability to design a uniform, nationwide plan," Conley said.

PCMA also argued that it has been unfairly vilified by local pharmacists, saying they have overstated the damage PBMs have done.

"The fact is the current state of independent pharmacies in the U.S. is secure," PCMA spokesperson Greg Lopes said in an emailed statement to Law360. He added that by attacking PBMs, local pharmacies are going after "the only entity in the prescription drug supply chain that is fighting to reduce drug costs for patients."

Counsel

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

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association is represented by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Matthew Waring of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and 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.

--Additional reporting by Danielle Nichole Smith. Editing by Jill Coffey.

Where Do Biden & Trump Stand On The Issues?

With election season underway many are wondering where the two Presidential candidates stand on the issues of importance to voters.

Reuters did a great summary found here that explains the major differences from the economy, trade, healthcare, etc.

The winner of this election will certainly have policies affecting your interests. Whether you are in technology, healthcare/lifesciences or finance, it is important to know what your organization’s priorities are and to have a plan for either candidate should they win.

Lanton Strategies; a division of Lanton Law is a is a full service federal and state lobbying and government affairs firm that has a menu of services to help you achieve your goals.

Contact us today to get started in understanding your range of options as the new legislative session approaches.

FDA Cannabis Draft Guidance Comment Period Closes

On September 21st the FDA closed its comment period related to cannabis. Back in July the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Compounds: Quality Considerations for Clinical Research.” 

This draft guidance outlined FDA's current thinking on several topics relevant to the development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products: The source of cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds for clinical research; general quality considerations for developing drugs that contain cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds; and calculation of percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in botanical raw materials, extracts, and finished products. This draft guidance had been developed to help support clinical research into development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products. 

Additional information on the draft guidance can be found here.  

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. Specifically we have expertise in cannabis and CBD related issues.

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 York Comptroller finds $605 million in unnecessary costs to the Medicaid program

The New York Comptroller recently released the results of an audit titled “Medicaid Program-Cost of Pharmacy Services Under Managed Care.” The audit covered the period January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019.

The following outline the key findings of the audit;

• The Department missed opportunities to minimize costs on pharmacy services delivered through Medicaid managed care because Department officials did not take steps to ensure the use of the lowest net cost drugs to the Medicaid program. As a result, for the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019, we estimated $605 million in unnecessary costs to the Medicaid program.

• The Department does not require MCOs to use the most cost-effective drugs to the Medicaid program, nor does it provide MCOs with information or assistance to determine the most cost-effective drugs.

• Medicaid-participating MCOs are required to regularly provide their drug formulary information, as well as information on costs and supplemental rebates (which MCOs did not always provide as required) for all drugs delivered under managed care, but the Department does not review this information to determine if MCO formulary preferences result in the use of the most cost-effective drugs.

The audit gave the following recommendation:

• Conduct timely routine analyses to identify the most cost-effective drugs to the Medicaid program and ensure drug utilization is steered toward drugs with the lowest net cost when medically appropriate.

If you are a healthcare stakeholder with an interest in New York state or do business within New York’s insurance system then you should be aware of this type of scrutiny. The legislature has already enacted a bill that will carve pharmacy benefits out of the Medicaid managed care program beginning in April 2021.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare 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 White House Drug Pricing Executive Order Released

On September 13, 2020, the Trump Administration released a new Executive Order (EO)  targeting drug pricing. The EO directs the Secretary of HHS to implement a “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing program for Medicare Parts B and D. This policy relies on international price competition and seeks to provide Americans with the same lower prices for prescriptions that we see in other countries.

Drug pricing has been a major point of contention as manufacturers and insurer/pharmacy benefit managers exchange blame over why drug prices are rising. Drug pricing has been a major issue that had been getting Congressional scrutiny until COVID-19. 

This issue will come back once a COVID-19 vaccine is available as there may be questions around the vaccine’s price. Additionally, once COVID-19 dies down, drug pricing for new therapies is expected to be front and center again.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare 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!

Lanton Law to Attend 9/14-9/18 2020 NASP Annual Meeting & Expo Virtual Experience

Lanton Law is proud to be attending the 9/14-9/18 2020 NASP Annual Meeting & Expo Virtual Experience.

We will be giving a presentation on the role of “State & Federal Regulations in Payer Contracting” and Ron Lanton will be serving as Vice Chair of Law Day! Additionally, we will be hosting a panel titled “Interoperability of Health Records: Providing Post-Market Data and Other Valuable Information.”

We are very much looking forward to interacting with our specialty colleagues including Sheila Arquette! Register today at https://lnkd.in/eU2VXaB

Lanton Law Newsletter is Out

We have released our August newsletter. This month we discuss our presentations at the National Association of Specialty Pharmacy, the new Executive Order aimed at PBMs, our recent Blogcast with Ken Kaitin, Professor and Director at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, the new LTC Congressional pharmacy bill and our interview with Pharmacy Times on Rutledge v. PCMA. Click here to view it.

Long Term Care Pharmacy (LTC) Legislation Introduced Aimed at Defining LTC Pharmacy

The Long-Term Care Pharmacy Definition Act of 2020 has been introduced by U.S. Senator Scott (R-SC) and co-sponsored by Senator Warner (D-VA). The bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Mullin (R-OK) and Congressman Schrader (D-OR). The bill seeks to establish a clear statutory definition of long term care pharmacy.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that closely monitors legislative, regulatory and legal developments in the LTC, specialty and retail pharmacy space. If you are in industry stakeholder with questions about strategy or simply need advice, contact us today.    

House E&C Committee Democrats Press Tech Companies on COVID-19 Information

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee led by Chairman Pallone (D-NJ) along with Congresswoman DeGette (D-CO) Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Congresswoman Schakowsky (D-IL) and Congressman Doyle (D-PA) sent a letter to Facebook along with other tech companies requesting more COVID-19 transparency on their platforms. The request seeks monthly reports on this issue which mirrors a similar request from the European Union. The letter discusses concerns around “a troubling rise of false or misleading information related to COVID-19 disseminated by domestic and foreign actors on platforms such as yours.”

We continue to see an increase in federal and state policymaking when it comes to technology companies. The threat of looming technology legislation will undoubtedly lead to increased regulation. It’s better to be prepared now by knowing the landscape and preparing your strategic options in order to navigate the increased scrutiny. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on technology and healthcare. 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 U.S. Supreme Court Case Rutledge v. PCMA & Its Implication on Pharmacy Policy

Lanton Law was interviewed by Pharmacy Times on the implications of the October 6, 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case of Rutledge v. PCMA. This case has major consequences for future PBM policies. Click here to access the interview.

New Executive Order Aimed at Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)

The White House has released an Executive Order titled “Executive Order on Lowering Prices for Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks to Middlemen.” 

“One of the reasons pharmaceutical drug prices in the United States are so high is because of the complex mix of payers and negotiators that often separates the consumer from the manufacturer in the drug-purchasing process.  The result is that the prices patients see at the point-of-sale do not reflect the prices that the patient’s insurance companies, and middlemen hired by the insurance companies, actually pay for drugs.  Instead, these middlemen — health plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — negotiate significant discounts off of the list prices, sometimes up to 50 percent of the cost of the drug.” 

This Executive Order advocates for HHS to complete its prior January 2019 proposed rule aimed at “revising the discount safe harbor to explicitly exclude from the definition of a discount eligible for safe harbor protection certain reductions in price or other remuneration from a manufacturer of prescription pharmaceutical products to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D, Medicaid managed care organizations as defined under section 1903(m) of the Act (Medicaid MCOs), or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under contract with them.”  

Not only does this Executive Order state that discounts offered on prescription drugs should be passed on to patients, but that HHS must confirm publicly prior to finalizing its proposed rule that “that the action is not projected to increase Federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients’ total out-of-pocket costs.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences, technology and finance. 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.