Ron Lanton 8/6/20 Ron Lanton 8/6/20

New Congressional Bill Aimed at Tech ISPs

The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act has been introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and John Thune (R-South Dakota), which targets Internet Service Providers and attempts to limit their protections under 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act has been introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and John Thune (R-South Dakota), which targets Internet Service Providers and attempts to limit their protections under 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The proposed Act points out two critical facts:

“Online consumers are not adequately protected in the United States because, with the exception of Federal criminal statutes, providers of interactive computer services are immune from the enforcement of most Federal statutes and regulations.
The bill among a list of proposed policies also seeks to preserve the internet and other interactive computer services as forums for diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual and commercial activity.”

Specifically, the interactive computer service provider shall provide the following elements:

reasonably inform users about the types of content that are allowed on the interactive computer service;
explain the steps the provider takes to
ensure content complies with the acceptable use policy;
explain the means by which users can notify the provider of potentially policy-violating content, illegal content, or illegal activity
include publication of a quarterly transparency report outlining actions taken to enforce the policy

While there are some First Amendment concerns with this legislation, this demonstrates how Section 230 comes under increasing scrutiny by policymakers. It’s a question of when for technology regulation so if you are a technology stakeholder, it is better to be prepared.

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.

Ron Lanton 8/6/20 Ron Lanton 8/6/20

Senator Hawley Proposes New Congressional Legislation Targeting Behavioral Ads

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has recently announced his new legislation titled the Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act. This bill proposes to remove Section 230 immunity from Big Tech companies that display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them. Behavioral ads are defined in the legislation.

It is unclear as to how this ties directly to Section 230 immunity and is different from other Congressional bills that create a nexus between Section 230 and its protections to content policies on websites. This bill would not apply to contextual ads such as advertising that is directed to a user based on:

‘‘(aa) the content of the website, online service, online application, or mobile application to which the user is connected;
‘‘(bb) the location of the user, as of the time at which the advertising is directed to the user; or
‘‘(cc) the search terms that the user applied to arrive at the website, service, or application to which the user is connected

Regardless of whether this or other legislation gets enacted this year, Section 230 comes under increasing scrutiny by policymakers. It’s a question of when for technology regulation, so if you are a technology stakeholder it is better to be prepared.

Ron Lanton 8/3/20 Ron Lanton 8/3/20

Lanton Law Newsletter is Out

We have released our August newsletter.

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.

Ron Lanton 7/30/20 Ron Lanton 7/30/20

Big Tech Company Executives Pressed On Capitol Hill On Their Market Influence

On July 29th four of the biggest tech companies, CEOs testified in front of Congress. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Google all took questions from the U.S House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

On July 29th four of the biggest tech companies CEOs testified in front of Congress. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Google all took questions from the U.S House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. The hearing which can be viewed here was titled “Online Platforms and Market power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.”

Sadly, there was a lot of political posturing on both sides of the political aisle and not a lot of policy. The main takeaway is that there is still no clear bipartisan antitrust agenda.

Democrats presented evidence regarding antitrust concerns. It seemed they had pointed questions regarding certain deals such as Amazon's purchase of Ring to control that sector of the market and Facebook's alleged threats against Instagram before its purchase of the company.

Republicans focused on perceived anti-conservative bias in tech instead of addressing company size and market power. Their questions focused on whether the tech companies will participate in "electioneering" for Joe Biden and grilled Facebook about Twitter's shutdown of Trump Jr.'s account.

This has been a year-long investigation by this Subcommittee with this testimony capping the investigation. Subcommittee members are still in the process of sending follow-up questions to the CEOs and finalizing their conclusions over the next few weeks. Once they are done the Subcommittee will file a report of its findings.

This process has been highly politicized, and many tech stakeholders are wondering whether any significant policymaking will get done by the end of the year. While there is reason to be skeptical, there is a highly charged election about to take place, meaning it wouldn’t surprise us if a small step towards technology regulation was accomplished. The bigger question is what happens to tech policy at the start of 2021?

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.

Ron Lanton 7/29/20 Ron Lanton 7/29/20

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.

Ron Lanton 7/29/20 Ron Lanton 7/29/20

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.

Ron Lanton 7/27/20 Ron Lanton 7/27/20

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.

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.

Ron Lanton 7/27/20 Ron Lanton 7/27/20

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.

Ron Lanton 7/27/20 Ron Lanton 7/27/20

White House Issues Executive Order Advocating for Importation

The White House has issued an Executive Order titled “Executive Order on Increasing Drug Importation to Lower Prices for American Patients,” which seeks to advocate for having supply chain entities proceed with importation.

“One way to minimize international disparities in price is to increase the trade of prescription drugs between nations with lower prices and those with persistently higher ones. Over time, reducing trade barriers and increasing the exchange of drugs will likely result in lower prices for the country that is paying more for drugs. For example, in the European Union, a market characterized by price controls and significant barriers to entry, the parallel trade of drugs has existed for decades and has been estimated to reduce the price of certain drugs by up to 20 percent. Accordingly, my Administration supports the goal of safe importation of prescription drugs.”

The Executive Order gives stakeholders three methods to accomplish the goals of this order. Either allow reimportation of insulin products from Canada, finalize the December 2019 proposed rule addressing importation, or allow individuals to import drugs as long as the importation is designated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as safe and results in lower costs to patients.

(a) facilitating grants to individuals of waivers of the prohibition of importation of prescription drugs, provided such importation poses no additional risk to public safety and results in lower costs to American patients, pursuant to section 804(j)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 384(j)(2);
(b) authorizing the re-importation of insulin products upon a finding by the Secretary that it is required for emergency medical care pursuant to section 801(d) of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 381(d); and
(c) completing the rulemaking process regarding the proposed rule to implement section 804(b) through (h) of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 384(b) through (h), to allow importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada.

Ron Lanton 7/27/20 Ron Lanton 7/27/20

The Administration Releases Executive Order Targeting Insulin and Injectable Epinephrine via 340B

The White House has announced a few Executive Orders targeting healthcare. One Executive Order titled Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications targets insulin and injectable epinephrine by requiring federally qualified community health centers to pass through 340B program discounts to patients using insulin and epinephrine auto-injectors.

Specifically the Executive Order outlines the following:

“It is the policy of the United States to enable Americans without access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to purchase these pharmaceuticals from an FQHC at a price that aligns with the cost at which the FQHC acquired the medication.

To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take action to ensure future grants available under section 330(e) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 254b(e), are conditioned upon FQHCs’ having established practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at the discounted price paid by the FQHC grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to individuals with low incomes, as determined by the Secretary, who:

(a) have a high cost sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine;

(b) have a high unmet deductible; or

(c) have no health care insurance.”

This will be interesting to see how this gets enforced. The 340B program which is where manufacturers provide outpatient drugs to eligible healthcare entities at a reduced price has been embroiled in controversy the last several years between manufacturers and hospitals over pricing. This Order does not address hospital practices.

Ron Lanton 7/20/20 Ron Lanton 7/20/20

The Policy Conversations Around Tik-Tok Warrant Monitoring from Technology Stakeholders

With all the news surrounding the Trump Administration and its complex political and economic relationship with China, some may find it surprising that the latest company suspected to be possibly impacted by the two countries would be TikTok.

According to its website, TikTok is an app for short-form mobile videos. The company says it has offices in Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, and Tokyo, but the company does have close ties to China through the company’s owner ByteDance; a Beijing-based technology company. TikTok has become more mainstream in the U.S. due to the pandemic, whereby various users including small business owners have been using the app to expand their economic reach.

The last few months have brought increased scrutiny over the app. Both India and Indonesia have banned the app, while the U.S. Navy and other U.S. armed forces branches have banned the app as well. Most of the concerns have been around the issue of national security and how much user information is shared with the Chinese government.

TikTok responded to this brewing controversy last year with a statement that addressed the company’s viewpoint on data privacy and security as well as content concerns. In response to the Administration threatening that it is considering a ban on TikTok, the company has been increasing its lobbying presence to hedge against a possible ban.

Will a possible ban have a chilling effect on U.S. technology companies? Currently, the answer is no. We don’t want to cause controversy by suggesting this, but with the recent activities in Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice that we have been reporting about, warrants that technology stakeholders keep a close watch on how the industry is receiving a lot of policy interests. It is safe to believe that technology policy is on the verge of changing, as technology stakeholders can no longer sit back and think that this industry is immune from regulatory oversight.

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

Ron Lanton 7/20/20 Ron Lanton 7/20/20

This Week in Washington D.C.

It is widely anticipated this week that negotiation on another stimulus bill will begin on Capitol Hill. The backdrop of these negotiations are that we are starting to see an alarming increase in the number of COVID-19 infections nationwide, along with the fact that enhanced unemployment benefits that were approved in March 2020 will expire this week for many states without Congressional action to extend these benefits. The question is will we see another COVID-19 relief package that is similar to the CARES Act?

The House has been discussing $3 trillion in possible aid while the Senate is positioning for a possible $1 trillion in economic aid. At this point it is unclear where the Administration is on this issue. Major issues within this discussion are whether to include more finding for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, etc.

The House late this spring passed a $3 trillion Heroes Act but since then the bill has been stalled in the Senate. The Senate is looking to create its own bill where the plan is the Senate version would be the blueprint to negotiate any possible further aid. It looks as though this may be the last possible economic relief bill before the election, however; this situation remains fluid.

Ron Lanton 7/17/20 Ron Lanton 7/17/20

New Telehealth Legislation Introduced In the U.S. House of Representatives

Lanton Law has been monitoring the state and federal policy developments with telehealth/telemedicine. We have noticed a newly introduced Congressional bill that is on point.

The Protecting Access to Post-Covid-19 Telehealth Act has been introduced by several members of the Congressional Telehealth Caucus including Representatives Schweikert (R-AZ), Thompson (D-CA), Welch (D-VT), Johnson (R-OH) and Matsui (D-CA).

This bi-partisan bill according to the bill’s press release “will continue the expanded use of telehealth beyond the Coronavirus pandemic by eliminating restrictions on the use in Medicare, providing a bridge for patients currently using the practices because of the crisis, and requiring a study on the use of telehealth during COVID-19.”

Here are the highlights of the legislation according to the release:

Eliminating most geographic and originating site restrictions on the use of telehealth in Medicare and establishing the patient’s home as an eligible distant site so patients can receive telehealth care at home and doctors can still be reimbursed,
Preventing a sudden loss of telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries by authorizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service to continue reimbursement for telehealth for 90 days beyond the end of the public health emergency,
Making permanent the disaster waiver authority, enabling Health and Human Service to expand telehealth in Medicare during all future emergencies and disasters, and
Requiring a study on the use of telehealth during COVID, including its costs, uptake rates, measurable health outcomes, and racial and geographic disparities.

Ron Lanton 7/16/20 Ron Lanton 7/16/20

Update on Closely the Watched U.S. Supreme Court Case of Rutledge v. PCMA

We have been providing occasion updates through our blog on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rutledge v. PCMA, whose outcome could have wide ranging policy and legal ramifications on pharmacy and pharmacy benefit managers.

We have been providing occasional updates through our blog on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rutledge v. PCMA, whose outcome could have wide ranging policy and legal ramifications on pharmacy and pharmacy benefit managers.

This issue in this case according to the Court is “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.”

The case will now be heard on October 6, 2020 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Additional information on this case can be found here.

Ron Lanton 7/13/20 Ron Lanton 7/13/20

EXIM Policies Impacting Biotechnology & Life Science Stakeholders

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) has established some new policies that will impact several stakeholder groups, especially biotechnology, biomedical sciences and life sciences stakeholders.

According to the EXIM’s release, the “EXIM’s historic seven-year reauthorization (P.L. 116-94), signed into law December 20, 2019, directs EXIM to establish a new “Program on China and Transformational Exports” (see Sec. 402). The Program’s purpose is to support the extension of loans, guarantees, and insurance, at rates and on terms and other conditions, to the extent practicable, that are fully competitive with rates, terms, and other conditions established by the People’s Republic of China or by other covered countries (as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury). The law charges EXIM with a goal of reserving not less than 20 percent of the agency’s total financing authority (i.e., $27 billion out of a total of $135 billion) for support made pursuant to the program, with a focus on specific industries.”

To achieve full implementation, EXIM will hold a July 16th call with Biotechnology and Biomedical Sciences. Additional information on this call can be found here.

Ron Lanton 7/9/20 Ron Lanton 7/9/20

Tech Companies to Testify At House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27th

The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee has scheduled a July 27, 2020 hearing for the CEO’s of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook (Big Tech) to testify regarding the Committee’s ongoing investigation of digital marketplace competition. The hearing is titled “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple.”

The Committee’s press release has a joint statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler (D-NY) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Cicilline (D-RI) which states “Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement. Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation.”

The Committee’s investigation launched its antitrust investigation last June. The Committee’s efforts are bipartisan and the Committee is attempting to address whether Congressional oversight is needed to pass tighter antitrust laws to ensure a more balanced marketplace. The Committee’s investigation will focus on documenting where competition is lacking in digital markets; exploring whether large companies are suppressing competition; and determining whether Congress and regulators need to do more to address Big Tech's dominance. If Congress decides that legislation is needed, it could lead to the first major policy revisions of U.S. antitrust law in decades.

Additional policy threats to technology companies remain besides Congress. In a mix of business and political reasons for determining whether a new class of start ups is being stifled by Big Tech, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) last year have announced joint efforts to investigate Big Tech. The FTC will have responsibility for investigating Amazon and Facebook while the DOJ will investigate Google and Facebook. It is looking as though some kind of regulatory action is coming by year end. Not to mention Big Tech has been receiving a lot of antitrust scrutiny from overseas.

It is no secret that oversight over technology stakeholders is near. It’s best to look at your risks to determine whether you have the tools to protect your business and be nimble enough to navigate the changing policy currents.

Ron Lanton 7/7/20 Ron Lanton 7/7/20

National Association of Insurance Commissioners release PBM Model Legislation Draft

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Regulatory Issues Subgroup has released a draft of its model PBM legislation.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Regulatory Issues Subgroup has released a draft of its model PBM legislation. The model is called the [State] Pharmacy Benefit Manager Licensure and Regulation Act and “it seeks to establish the standards and criteria for the licensure and regulation of pharmacy benefit managers providing claims processing services or other prescription drug or device services for health benefit plans.”

The Task Force began discussion on this issue last year as the proposed model seeks to build on state legislative and regulatory efforts surrounding PBMs. The draft model addresses issues such as PBM licensure, the prohibition of gag clauses, state insurance commissioner enforcement, clawbacks, affiliate compensation and spread pricing to name a few.

A conference call is scheduled for July 16th to discuss this issue further.

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 draft or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by the NAIC’s actions, contact us today.

Ron Lanton 6/28/20 Ron Lanton 6/28/20

New Legislation Targeting Technology Liability Shield Under Section 230

Now in addition to recent U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny, U.S. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which seeks to provide accountability for bad actors who abuse the Good Samaritan protections provided under that Act.

Earlier this year we started our conversation with the technology industry urging stakeholders to be aware of the growing policy attacks on the responsibilities of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) via the technology law 47 U.S. Code § 230.

The law which is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also called Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides ISP’s with federal immunity to any cause of action that seeks to make ISP’s liable for information that originated with a third party service user.

Specifically, §230 states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The additional specifics of this law describe the liability shield that these companies currently enjoy which is further protected by federal preemption law.

A few weeks back we highlighted how politicians on both sides of the aisle have been more assertive in how tech companies are not living up to their expectations under Section 230. Now in addition to recent U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny, U.S. Senator Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, which seeks to provide accountability for bad actors who abuse the Good Samaritan protections provided under that Act.

According to the Senator’s press release the bill “would prohibit Big Tech companies from receiving Section 230 immunity unless they update their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith and pay a $5,000 fine (or actual damages, if higher) plus attorney’s fees if they violate that promise.” This legislation makes it easier for Americans to sue tech companies that censor political speech or hide competitor content. This bill mirrors more conservative politicians who feel that tech companies are censoring conservative viewpoints.

Regardless of your political viewpoint, if you are a tech stakeholder that has ISP capabilities or you are providing services that deal with the exchange of ideas, you should be monitoring this type of legislative action to avoid unnecessary surprises to your business model. We at Lanton Law can help.

Our legal and policy tools can help offer your organization a clear path forward to navigate what will be changing policies for technology stakeholders. Contact us today to discuss your options.

Ron Lanton 6/3/20 Ron Lanton 6/3/20

FCC to Vote in June on Commissioner Carr’s 5G Upgrade Order

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced that it will vote on Commissioner Carr’s 5G Upgrade Order as part of an initiative to accelerate U.S. wireless infrastructure improvement plans.

According to the FCC “The 5G Upgrade Order clarifies the FCC’s 2014 rules by:

Explaining when the 60-day shot clock for local approval begins
Specifying what new equipment qualifies for streamlined approval
Clarifying how local governments’ concealment and aesthetic conditions of approval apply
Asking for public comment on what activity related to a modification can occur outside of a wireless site”

The full Commission will vote on the 5G Upgrade Order at its next open meeting on June 9, 2020.

Ron Lanton 6/2/20 Ron Lanton 6/2/20

New Lanton Law Specialty Drug Blogcast with Ken Kaitin of Tufts University

We are excited to interview Kenneth Kaitin; Professor and Director for the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts.

Our conversation touches on a wide variety of specialty drug issues such as oncology, orphan drugs, value based care, innovative payment models and Boston’s pharmaceutical R&D expansion.

Click here for the interview.