New York State of the State 2021 Calls for Proposal to Safeguard Data Security Rights

Last month as part of the State of the State 2021, Governor Cuomo announced a comprehensive law around personal data and privacy protections for New York state residents.

So what does this proposal outline?

According to the Governor’s proposal “This law will mandate that companies that collect information on large numbers of New Yorkers disclose the purposes of any data collection and collect only data needed for those purposes. Governor Cuomo will also establish a Consumer Data Privacy Bill of Rights guaranteeing every New Yorker the right to access, control, and erase the data collected from them; the right to nondiscrimination from providers for exercising these rights; and the right to equal access to services.”  

“The proposal also expressly protects sensitive categories of information including health, biometric and location data and creates strong enforcement mechanisms to hold covered entities accountable for the illegal use of consumer data. New York State will work with other states to ensure competition and innovation in the digital marketplace by promoting coordination and consistency among their regulatory policies. 

New York’s proposal seems to be following a trend set by California’s Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act. We believe that we are witnessing a slow moving transition towards similar oversight in other states. 

The increasing demands around data security and data privacy has presented new challenges to business operations and compliance efforts. Not to mention there are new rising risks around consumer data privacy expectations. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences and technology. We are the dedicated business partner that you need behind you to help you confront the changing regulatory landscape around data. 

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!

Jazz Pharmaceuticals Purchases GW Pharmaceuticals for $7.2 billion

Jazz Pharmaceuticals has announced that it will “acquire GW for $220.00 per American Depositary Share (ADS), in the form of $200.00 in cash and $20.00 in Jazz ordinary shares, for a total consideration of $7.2 billion, or $6.7 billion net of GW cash. The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2021.” 

“GW is a global leader in discovering, developing, manufacturing and commercializing novel, regulatory approved therapeutics from its proprietary cannabinoid product platform to address a broad range of diseases. The company's lead product, Epidiolex® (cannabidiol) oral solution, is approved in patients one-year and older for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Dravet Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC), all of which are rare diseases characterized by severe early-onset epilepsy. Epidiolex was the first plant-derived cannabinoid medicine ever approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

Interestingly, Epidiolex brought in approximately $510 million in annual sales within two years of its launch. 

The cannabis market is definitely an emerging one with high growth potential for interested stakeholders. We foresee that there will be additional deals in the near term as more companies embrace this sector. However; the cannabis industry has several federal and state regulatory hurdles to overcome.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and lobbying 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!

Lanton Strategies: D.C. Based Lobbying Firm with No State Boundaries

COVID-19 has changed the way that we interact in a variety of ways. One of them being the way that businesses large and small interact with the government. Gone are the days where we can meet people in person without having to worry about travel restrictions and COVID-19 protocol. What remains is that businesses still need to get their voices heard. This is where Lanton Strategies has a strategic advantage. 

For years our firm has made connections nationwide that have allowed us to tap our business and industry rolodex in order to get client goals realized. Our unique holistic approach enables us to lobby legislators and regulators, no matter the state. In essence we are that “digital lobbyist firm” that you need. 

If you are looking for federal or state solutions and you’re unsure how to get something done, contact Lanton Strategies; a division of Lanton Law 

FDA Releases Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Action Plan

Earlier this month, the FDA released its first Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Action Plan. 

As part of its breakthrough, the FDA pointed out some interesting aspects of its new policy area.

“Consistent with FDA’s longstanding commitment to develop and apply innovative approaches to the regulation of medical device software and other digital health technologies, in April of 2019, FDA published the “Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) - Discussion Paper and Request for Feedback.” This paper described the FDA’s foundation for a potential approach to premarket review for artificial intelligence and machine learning-driven software modifications. The ideas delineated in the discussion paper leveraged practices from our current premarket programs and relied on the International Medical Device Regulators Forum’s risk categorization principles, the FDA’s benefit-risk framework, risk management principles described in the software modifications guidance, and the organization-based total product lifecycle approach also envisioned in the Digital Health Software Precertification (Pre-Cert) Pilot Program.

As part of this proposed framework, FDA described a “Predetermined Change Control Plan” in premarket submissions. This plan would include the types of anticipated modifications—referred to as the “SaMD Pre-Specifications”—and the associated methodology being used to implement those changes in a controlled manner that manages risks to patients —referred to as the “Algorithm Change Protocol.” In this approach, FDA expressed an expectation for transparency and real-world performance monitoring by manufacturers that could enable FDA and manufacturers to evaluate and monitor a software product from its premarket development through postmarket performance. This framework would enable FDA to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness while embracing the iterative improvement power of artificial intelligence and machine learning-based software as a medical device.”

Lanton Law is an innovative firm at the center of tomorrow’s legal, policy and market trends. We continue to monitor the developments of emerging sectors such as AI and give counsel to stakeholders accordingly. Contact Lanton Law to discuss your lobbying and legal strategies.    

FDA Announces the Launch of its Digital Health Center of Excellence

With all the attention on the 2020 elections, what may have been lost in the fray was the announcement that the FDA created the Digital Health Center of Excellence, within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). According to the FDA’s release, the new Center is dedicated “to the advancement of digital health technology, including mobile health devices, Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), wearables when used as a medical device, and technologies used to study medical products.”

So what is the mission of the Digital Health Center of Excellence? According to the FDA:

“The Digital Health Center of Excellence is primarily focused on helping both internal and external stakeholders achieve their goals of getting high quality digital health technologies to patients by providing technological advice, coordinating and supporting work being done across the FDA, advancing best practices, and reimagining digital health device oversight. Along those lines, the Digital Health Center of Excellence is creating a network of digital health experts and engaging in Collaborative Communities to share knowledge and experience concerning digital health issues and priorities with FDA staff. An integral part of the launch includes the activities that will be provided to complement advances in digital health technology – such as launching strategic initiatives that advance digital health technologies, facilitating synergies in regulatory science research in digital health, and facilitating and building strategic partnerships.”

As COVID 19 has forced our society to become more mobile and technologically dependent, the trends of big data, AI, machine learning and mobile health to name a few are here to stay. 

Lanton Law is an innovative firm that sees itself at the center of tomorrow’s legal, policy and market trends. We continue to monitor the developments of emerging sectors and give counsel to stakeholders in highly regulated industries. If you are a stakeholder examining your options for this year and need advice, contactLanton Law to discuss yourlobbying andlegal strategies.

National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) Files Lawsuit Against HHS Seeking to Eliminate Pharmacy DIR Fees

NCPA has sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over DIR fees. The lawsuit can be viewed here.  Specifically the crux of the case is found below:

This is an action for judicial review of a policy of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that undermines Medicare beneficiaries’ access to negotiated prices for prescription drugs and otherwise alters Medicare payment for those drugs in a way that reduces their availability. 

Despite having been reopened time and time again over the last several years, the agency’s current definition of “negotiated prices” continues to enable Medicare Part D plans under the Medicare program (and the pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) with which they contract) to downward-adjust reimbursement to pharmacies for prescription drugs months after a patient has paid cost-sharing for the prescription drugs based on an artificially inflated price. This dynamic results from an exception to the definition of “negotiated prices” for pharmacy price concessions that cannot “reasonably be determined” at the time of sale, an exception that HHS said would be narrow but never was. In reality, this exception swallows the rule and hereby threatens the solvency of independent community pharmacies and drives up the cost of prescription drugs for Medicare patients nationwide. Plaintiff asks this Court to set aside that invalid exception and the agency’s guidance on it.

Lanton Law applauds NCPA’s leadership in filing this much needed lawsuit. Lanton Law has been assisting pharmacies on the state level with issues such as DIR via lobbying. If you are a pharmacy that would like to discuss your advocacy options, contact Lanton Law to discuss your lobbying and legal strategies.

Lanton Law Attends 2021 American Farm Bureau Virtual Convention

Lanton Law was a participant in the 2021 American Farm Bureau Virtual Convention #AFBF21. The January 10-13, 2021 event covered a variety of topics such as the 2020 EPA Navigable Waters Protection Rule, country of origin labeling (COOL), climate change, mental health and broadband access to name a few issues. 

A new incoming Administration and a new Congress will bring new opportunities for farming and ranching in 2021. At Lanton Law our food law practice helps farmers, ranchers and similarly situated stakeholders attain their strategic priorities. Contact us to learn about how either our legal or lobbying services can help you attain your goals.

Biometric Policies Will Likely Be Debated Nationwide in 2021

New York has introduced Assembly Bill 27. According to the proposed bill, AB 27 seeks “to establish the biometric privacy act; requires private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information to develop a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within three years of the individual's last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first.”  

Currently, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, commonly known as BIPA, is the only state with a biometric privacy statute that provides for a similar private right of action. We have been writing in previous posts about how state policies have been taking shape regarding this subject. 

We expect this and other technology questions to be debated in various state houses throughout 2021. It is imperative for interested stakeholders to be prepared for what new potential legislation requires. Contact Lanton Law to discuss your lobbying and legal strategies.   

How to Choose a Lobbyist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact us today for more information regarding lobbying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Editing by John Oudens and Haylee Pearl.

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

Lanton Law quoted in Bloomberg Law Article

We were quoted in Bloomberg Law’s article titled “States Risk Losing Power to Regulate Pharmacy Drug Middlemen” by Lydia Wheeler. The article discusses the pros and cons of Rutledge v. PCMA, which is currently being debated at the Supreme Court.

For those that have trouble accessing the article we have provided it below.

States are going to have a hard time controlling the cost of prescription drugs if the Supreme Court broadens a federal law prohibiting states from regulating employee benefit plans.

A challenge to an Arkansas law meant to protect independent pharmacies from abusive reimbursement practices of rate-setting pharmacy middlemen is testing the bounds of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. A decision striking down Arkansas’s law could cripple state efforts to control the cost of prescription drugs and other health-care services. That could lead to a flood of litigation challenging dozens of similar laws in other states, health policy experts say.

“This is really the tip of the iceberg because states are trying to control drug costs in all kinds of different ways,” said Katherine Gudiksen, a senior health policy researcher at the Source on Healthcare Price and Competition, a project of the University of California Hastings College of Law.

The case could be one of the first decided by the Supreme Court this term. Arguments were heard Oct. 6.

Drawing the Line 

Arkansas’s fighting to save its law, which regulates the rates at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for drugs and gives pharmacies a right to appeal the rates they set.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held the law was preempted by ERISA, which prohibits states from passing laws that reference an ERISA plan or have an impermissible connection to an ERISA plan. But Arkansas argues pharmacy reimbursement regulation is basic rate regulation, which the Supreme Court has ruled isn’t preempted by ERISA.

“It’s hard to see how a law that directly affects benefits claims processing isn’t central to ERISA plan administration,” said Stacey Cerrone, a principal in the New Orleans office of Jackson Lewis PC.

“The court is struggling on where to draw the line with preemption,” she said.

Patchwork of State Laws

A win for Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)—the trade group for PBMs that’s aggressively fighting this law and others—would likely open the door for more legal challenges. Laws regulating PBMs have passed in 36 states.

“There’s no agency that oversees federally a pharmacy benefit manager,” said Ron Lanton, principal at Lanton Law, which helped lobby for some state PBM laws. “That’s the problem, so the states have had to come up with their own solution on how to regulate this problem.”

But PCMA argues Congress set out to create a uniform set of standards in administering ERISA plans, which include most private sector health plans. The trade group said employers will have to spend more money on administrative services and compliance, increasing the cost of care, if laws like the one in Arkansas remain.

“More than 266 million Americans rely on the prescription drug benefits PBMs administer, and now more than ever we’re committed to protecting accessible, affordable health care,” JC Scott, PCMA’s president and CEO, said in a statement after oral arguments in October.

In addition to Arkansas, PCMA has challenged laws in North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Iowa in recent years.

The trade group has been successful in winning challenges in the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court ruled Iowa’s law and two North Dakota lawsare preempted by ERISA. Iowa’s law regulates how PBMs establish generic drug pricing, and requires certain disclosures on their drug pricing methodology. North Dakota’s laws regulate the fees PBMs can charge pharmacies. North Dakota officials have appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

In July, a federal judge blocked part of Oklahoma’s law. PCMA filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which it later had dismissed. The case is still playing out in the district court.

Lanton, who represents independent pharmacies, said his clients hope the Supreme Court provides some uniformity to what’s become a patchwork of state laws. He’s also hoping for a clear definition of what a pharmacy benefit manager is and isn’t.

“It comes down to this split in the court of whether or not the court sees a pharmacy benefit manager as an insurer that provides benefits or as an administrator that simply regulates reimbursement and cost.”

Market Power 

The three largest PBM companies are OptumRx, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group; CVS Caremark, a subsidiary of CVS Health; and Express Scripts, a subsidiary of Cigna Corp. They control 85% of the market share for PBM services, according to the National Association of Specialty Pharmacy’s brief in support of Arkansas.

That market power gives health plans very little bargaining power, said Erin Fuse Brown, director of the Center for Law, Health and Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

PBMs say they use their size and power to negotiate discounts with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but it’s not clear they’re passing along those savings to the health plans, she said.

The case is Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, U.S., No. 18-540.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Fawn Johnson at fjohnson@bloombergindustry.com; Brent Bierman at bbierman@bloomberglaw.com

Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 Still Pending in Congress

The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (SAFE Banking Act) is still pending in Congress. Also known as H.R. 1595, the bill proposes to create protections for depository institutions that provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers for such businesses.

In May 2020 the SAFE Banking Act language was included in the U.S. House stimulus bill called the The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, which aimed to provide $3 trillion in economic relief in response to the COVID-19 economic effects on the U.S.

 The bill is currently in the U.S. Senate whose future during this session is uncertain. 

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!

House Passes the MORE Act

The House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expengement Act of 2020 otherwise known as the MORE Act of 2020 or H.R. 3884. The party line vote was 228 to 164. The bill proposes to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substance Act and seeks to mirror the changing policy around this subject as medical cannabis is legal in ⅔ of the states while approximately 15 states have passed laws permitting recreational usage. The bill heads to the Senate where it is not expected to pass this session.

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. 

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!

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.

The Farm System Reform Act of 2019 Seeks to Level the Farming & Rancher Playing Field

Earlier this year, U.S. Senator Booker (D-NJ) unveiled The Farm System Reform Act of 2019 also known as S.3221. This proposed bill seeks to revitalize independent family farm agriculture and ensure a level playing field for all farmers and ranchers. 

The Farm System Reform Act of 2019 would, among other things, strengthen the Packers & Stockyards Act to crack down on the monopolistic practices of multinational meatpackers and corporate integrators, place a moratorium on large industrial animal operations, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.

According to the Senator’s release, below are a few issues that this bill seeks to address:

• Place an immediate moratorium on new and expanding large CAFOs, and phase out by 2040 the largest CAFOs as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency

• Hold corporate integrators responsible for pollution and other harm caused by CAFOs

• Provide a voluntary buyout for farmers who want to transition out of operating a CAFO

• Strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act to protect family farmers and ranchers, including:

  • Prohibit the use of unfair tournament or ranking systems for paying contract growers

  • Protect livestock and poultry farmers from retaliation

  • Create market transparency and protect farmers and ranchers from predatory purchasing practices

• Restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef and pork and expand to dairy products

• Prohibit the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from labeling foreign imported meat products as “Product of USA”

At Lanton Law our food law practice helps farmers, ranchers and similarly situated stakeholders attain their strategic priorities. 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.    

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.