HRSA Proposes Administrative Process to Resolve Disputes Between 340B Program Covered Entities and Drug Manufacturers

Taking a step toward completing a requirement imposed by the Affordable Care Act, the federal government has proposed regulations that would create an administrative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process to resolve disputes between 340B Program covered entities and drug manufacturers. As proposed, the ADR process would be available for covered entities to submit claims that they have been charged for covered outpatient drugs amounts higher than the 340B Program ceiling price, and for drug manufacturers to claim that covered entities have violated the 340B Program prohibitions on the diversion of 340B drugs to persons who are not eligible patients or the prohibition on duplicate discounts. For manufacturers to bring a claim to the ADR they must have first conducted an audit of the covered entity. Publication of this proposed process has been long delayed, and is of great interest to 340B Program stakeholders. Comments on the proposed rule are being solicited, and are due October 11, 2016.

In the proposed regulation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) describes a process where ADR claims would be reviewed by a designated Panel of three members chosen from a roster of eligible individuals, each of whom will be Federal employees with expertise or familiarity with the 340B Program, as well as one ex-officio, non-voting member chosen from the staff at OPA. Members on the Panel will alternate, and will not be compensated.

ADR claims must be filed within three years of the date of the alleged violation, and must be supported by documentation sufficient to demonstrate the claim. If sufficient documentation is provided, the claim will move forward to review. If the claim is submitted by a covered entity, the covered entity may submit a written request to the ADR Panel for additional information from manufacturers or other third parties, and the ADR Panel will help facilitate those requests if they are reasonable and within the scope of the claim.

The Panel will consider the documentation and the claim in a closed session without the involved parties or the parties’ counsel, and without any trade associations or other interest groups present. The Panel would prepare a draft agency decision letter and provide it to all parties, who then have 20 business days to respond. Upon receipt and review of their responses, the Panel will prepare its final agency decision, which would be submitted to HRSA to determine if sanctions or enforcement are appropriate. The final agency decision would be binding on all parties unless invalidated by a court.

In its discussion, the government emphasizes that the ADR process is intended to be a “last resort” available to the parties in the event good faith efforts to resolve disputes without the government’s involvement have been unsuccessful. In particular, HHS is requesting comments on a number of areas of the proposed rule, including the makeup of the Panel (such as whether members of the Office of Pharmacy Affairs that oversee the 340B Program should be voting members, or whether the size of the panel should be increased for more complex claims), and with regard to how manufacturers could potentially consolidate claims.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.