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.    

Will 2021 Witness the Creation of More State Green Banks?

With the incoming Biden Administration, the President elect has announced his new environmental plan “To Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and Equitable Clean Energy Future.” Among the various policy points discussed in the plan, one interesting initiative describes the development of “innovative financing mechanisms that leverage private sector dollars to maximize investment in the clean energy revolution.” This last sentence reminds me of what happened in Connecticut with regards to their Green Bank. 

The Connecticut Green Bank is the first green bank in the country. According to the Bank’s website “Established by the Connecticut General Assembly on July 1, 2011 as a part of Public Act 11-80, Connecticut Green Bank supports the Governor’s and Legislature’s energy strategy to achieve cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable sources of energy while creating jobs and supporting local economic development. The Connecticut Green Bank evolved from the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) and the Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (CEFIA), which was given a broader mandate in 2011 to become the Connecticut Green Bank.

Our mission is to confront climate change and provide all of society a healthier and more prosperous future by increasing and accelerating the flow of private capital into markets that energize the green economy.

Our green bank model upended the government subsidy-driven approach to clean energy by working with private-sector investors to create low-cost, long-term sustainable financing to maximize the use of public funds. We continue to innovate, educate and activate to accelerate the growth of green energy measures in the residential (single and multifamily), commercial, industrial, institutional and infrastructure sectors.”

With the incoming Administration’s intent to push into green energy and region’s like New England that have so many industries relying on a stable environment, it will not be surprising to see states create green banks like Connecticut’s in order to jumpstart local economies. 

At Lanton Law we understand the complexities of how green energy plays into business strategies. Contact us to learn about how either ourlegal orlobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Novartis Announces Renewable Energy Goals For Its European Operations

Last week, Novartis announced its signature on five virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs), which are expected to collectively add more than 275 megawatts of clean power to the electrical grid. The announcement sets the company to be the first pharmaceutical entity to attain 100% renewable electricity in its European operations via its VPPAs. 

According to the company’s press release “wind and solar electricity will be generated from six renewable energy projects being developed by three different providers – Acciona, EDP Renewables and Enel Green Power. All projects will be located in Spain. The projects are expected to be online by 2023 and aim to address the company’s carbon footprint across its European operations over a period of 10 years from the start of operations.” 

This move is not surprising since electricity use for process manufacturing is an area that manufacturers will be looking more to in order to reduce energy costs as well as CO2 emissions. 

As the debate around climate change starts to take shape, many manufacturing companies have already started thinking about green energy as a next step in their evolution plans. We will definitely see more announcements like these from pharmaceutical manufacturers and other similarly situated supply chain members. 

At Lanton Law we understand the complexities or the healthcare and life science industries and how green energy plays into their business transitions. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.       

The Rise of the Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC)

With the tumultuous chain of events we have witnessed throughout 2020, we have also been hearing more about the rise of SPACs. We have been getting asked more about SPACs such as what they are and what is their role within Wall Street?

A Special Purpose Acquisition Company or SPAC is known as a “blank check company.” This entity’s main function is to raise money through an initial public offering or an IPO in order for the SPAC to make strategic acquisitions by buying other companies. 

SPACs raise money similar to a traditional IPO where the SPAC management team will arrange meetings with private equity and hedge fund players to discuss interest in the SPAC offering. These institutional investors will buy into the SPAC offering along with retail investors resulting in the SPAC’s funding. The funds are then moved into a trust until management decides how to deploy the capital. 

SPACs may be a more suitable alternative way for some companies to get public funding for an IPO. For example when a private company is seeking an IPO, there are a myriad of steps to go through when dealing with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). 

Additionally, there are a lot of behind the scenes strategic conversations regarding how a company attains a particular stock price when it debuts on one of the stock exchanges. Pricing is important for companies for a number of different reasons including how much of a profit insiders could realize from selling, etc.

There are also institutional interests at play when it comes to an IPO. Towards the end of the process is when the company’s bank partner(s) assign a share price and then a block of shares are sold at the price to institutional investors who provide the liquidity. 

After this process, the company begins the process of being traded on the open market. The problem lately with this is sometimes companies are underpriced from what underwriters believed would be a reasonable price for a company, which means that the block of shares sold to the institutional investors prior to the company’s first day on the market sold for less than the company could have realized. This means there was money oftentimes left of the table.   

Not to mention that a company’s stock price goals could also be complicated by outside factors beyond a company’s control such as geopolitical risks and other headline risks that could affect the overall market the day that a company debuts. While companies do try and time these issues out, uncertainty still remains no matter what. 

SPACs could offer more certainty and liquidity to companies seeking a direct listing since acquisition prices are pre-negotiated and there are less steps involved when it comes to the SEC, thus shielding companies from market volatility. Overall SPACs offer a faster timeline for companies to go public. SPAC shareholders have the ability to vote for or against an acquisition due to a SPAC’s corporate governance protocols.   

As with anything new it wouldn’t be out of the question to expect for SPACs to receive additional regulatory scrutiny. SPAC interests should expect this, especially since there will be an upcoming Administration change. 

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, SPAC, hedge fund, bank, etc. we have a suite of strategic services that can help. Contact us today to learn more.

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.    

Online Marketplaces Will Benefit from November 2020 Sports Betting Ballot Initiatives

Online stakeholders in the sports betting market have made policy inroads from the November 2020 ballot initiatives. Below are three states that expanded sport betting capabilities.   

Maryland: The State of Maryland has joined both Virginia and the District of Columbia in legalizing sports betting. Voters passed Ballot Question 2 which allowed for legalized sports betting while having the revenue generated from this to go towards funding public education.

Louisiana: The State of Louisiana approved sports betting in the major cities of Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Lafayette. The following parishes approved the measure as well including: St. Tammany, Jefferson, Ascension, Livingston, St. Bernard, West Baton Rouge, Plaquemines, St. Charles and Terrebonne parishes.

South Dakota: Voters in South Dakota have allowed sport betting as early 2021. By approving Amendment B  sports betting is legal in the city of Deadwood as well as the state’s Native American gaming facilities.

Lanton Law’s fintech and online marketplace practice helps stakeholders understand and navigate regulatory complexities. Contact us today to learn more about how our services can help you.  

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. 

California Passed Proposition 22 in a Win for Uber & Lyft

Proposition 22’s passage in California on November 3, 2020 will have a major impact on the future of the gig economy not just in California but potentially the rest of the country. 

Proposition 22 involved the issue of whether transportation drivers for app-based entities such Uber and Lyft should be classified as independent contractors. This now means that these companies would be exempt from a California law enacted last year that made it harder for these app-based companies to not classify their workers as employees.    

If you have questions about what this means for you contact Lanton Law. We are experts in the technology and fintech industries and can help stakeholders navigate these evolving markets.

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.

The Department of Justice Releases Proposed Section 230 Legislation

For some time now we have been forecasting that technology stakeholders had to be aware of looming regulatory oversight, especially around the issues of antitrust and Section 230. 

Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  The draft legislative text implements reforms that the Department of Justice deemed necessary in its June Recommendations. 

The Justice Department’s proposals available here focus on two issues: addressing illicit activity online and promoting transparency and open discourse. 

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.

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.

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