Policy & Compliance

Expert Analysis

• High Court's Expert Ruling May Help Health Fraud Defendants

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Diaz v. U.S. appears to give the government a powerful new tool in calling its own agents as expert witnesses, but it could also benefit defense counsel in criminal healthcare fraud and other white collar criminal cases that arise in complex legal or regulatory environments, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Unpacking HHS' Opinion On Cell Therapy Refund Programs

  

  A recent advisory opinion from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, determining that a biopharma company's refund program for its cell therapy will not be penalized, indicates an encouraging willingness to engage, but the regulator's assumptions about the program's limited term warrant a closer look, says Mary Kohler at Kohler Health.

• DOJ Innovasis Settlement Offers Lessons On Self-Disclosure

  

  The recent $12 million settlement with Innovasis and two of its executives demonstrates the U.S. Department of Justice's continued prioritization of Anti-Kickback Statute enforcement amid the growing circuit split over causation, and illustrates important nuances surrounding self-disclosure, say Denise Barnes and Scott Gallisdorfer at Bass Berry.

• How Orange Book Antitrust Scrutiny Is Intensifying

  

  Pharmaceutical patent holders should be reviewing Orange Book listing practices, as the Federal Trade Commission takes a more aggressive antitrust approach with actions such as the Teva listing probe, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration calls attention to potentially improper listings, say attorneys at McDermott.

• After Chevron: Slowing Down AI In Medical Research

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine may inhibit agencies' regulatory efforts, potentially slowing down the approval and implementation of artificial intelligence-driven methodologies in medical research, as well as regulators' responses to public health emergencies, say Ragini Acharya and Matthew Deutsch at Husch Blackwell.

• FDA's Multifaceted Role On Display In MDMA Therapy Scrutiny

  

  Ongoing deliberations at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding MDMA-assisted therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder serves as a window into the intricate balance of scientific innovation and patient safety oversight, and offers crucial insights into regulatory nuances, say Kimberly Chew at Husch Blackwell and Kevin Lanzo at Pharmaka Clinical Consulting.

• Analyzing FDA Draft Guidance On Clinical Trial Diversity

  

  In light of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's draft guidance on clinical trial diversity action plans, there are several important considerations for sponsors and clinical researchers to keep in mind to prevent delay in a drug or device application, say attorneys at Crowell & Moring.

• In The CFPB Playbook: Making Good On Bold Promises

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure in the second quarter cleared the way for the bureau to resume a number of high-priority initiatives, and it appears poised to charge ahead in working toward its aggressive preelection agenda, say Andrew Arculin and Paula Vigo Marqués at Blank Rome.

• Critical Questions Remain After High Court's Abortion Rulings

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in two major abortion-related cases this term largely preserve the status quo for now, but leave federal preemption, the Comstock Act and in vitro fertilization in limbo, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

• Navigating FDA Supply Rule Leeway For Small Dispensers

  

  As the November compliance deadline for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's new pharmaceutical distribution supply chain rules draws closer, small dispensers should understand the narrow flexibilities that are available, and the questions to consider before taking advantage of them, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.

• 1st Gender Care Ban Provides Context For High Court Case

  

  The history of Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming medical care — the first such legislation in the U.S. — provides important insight into the far-reaching ramifications that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti next term will have on transgender healthcare, says Tyler Saenz at Baker Donelson.

• 6 Lessons From DOJ's 1st Controlled Drug Case In Telehealth

  

  Following the U.S. Department of Justice’s first-ever criminal prosecution over telehealth-prescribed controlled substances in U.S. v. Ruthia He, healthcare providers should be mindful of the risks associated with restricting the physician-patient relationship when crafting new business models, says Jonathan Porter at Husch Blackwell.

• After Chevron: Scale Tips Favor Away From HHS Agencies

  

  The loss of Chevron deference may indirectly aid parties in challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' interpretations of regulations and could immediately influence several pending cases challenging HHS on technical questions and agency authority, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.