Merle M. DeLancey
The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) National Acquisition Center (“NAC”), which administers the VA Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) Program, has already had a busy year. Among other procurement streamlining activities, the NAC currently is in the process of refreshing all nine (9) of its FSS solicitations to incorporate the most recent regulations and provide updates and clarifications.
Last month, the NAC updated the open and continuous Solicitation for Pharmaceuticals—Schedule 65 I B Pharmaceuticals FSS contract. The NAC issued Mass Modification 0006 and Solicitation Refresh 8. The Modification and Refresh update and incorporate procurement regulations and update or clarify FSS Program policy changes since the last refresh in February 2014, as amended. Refresh 8 applies to all companies submitting FSS proposals (for new contracts and renewals) after June 21, 2018. The Mass Modification is a standard bilateral modification to existing FSS terms and conditions, which the NAC is requesting manufacturers sign and return by July 30, 2018. Continue reading “Department of Veterans Affairs Updates Pharmaceutical Federal Schedule Supply”
Merle M. DeLancey
On March 23, 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced the introduction of a new Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement. The new Agreement incorporates legislative and regulatory changes, including, for example, the Affordable Care Act, which have occurred since the original Agreement was published in 1991.
Manufacturers currently participating in the Medicaid Program have until October 1, 2018, to sign the new Agreement. Failure to enter into a new Agreement by October 1, will result in termination of a manufacturer’s existing Agreement.
While the new Agreement does not contain significant changes from the existing Agreement, several changes are worth noting and repeating: Continue reading “New Medicaid Rebate Agreement”
Merle M. DeLancey
Over the past several months, there has been a confluence of congressional and agency actions that will have a significant impact on Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contract holders. These changes are so significant that they will likely cause companies with FSS contracts to question whether having an FSS makes sense. These changes could also cause companies to restructure the segments of their companies that are responsible for selling to the federal government.
Order Level Materials
In late January 2018, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) issued its Order Level Materials (“OLM”) final rule. This rule allows agencies to purchase supplies or services in direct support of a task or delivery order placed against FSS contract or Blanket Purchase Agreement (“BPA”). OLMs are subject to special ordering procedures. See GSAR 552.238-82. For example, the OLMs cannot have been known when an FSS contract or BPA was awarded. OLMs (excluding travel) cannot exceed 33.33 percent of the total value of the applicable task or delivery order. Whether an FSS holder is required to obtain competitive quotes for an OLM order depends upon the value of the order and the FSS holder’s purchasing system. Continue reading “Do Federal Supply Schedule Contracts Still Have Value?”
Merle M. DeLancey, Jr.
No one knows exactly how much fraudulent conduct costs the United States healthcare system. Some suggest it may cost Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers $100 billion each year. Regardless of the exact amount, everyone agrees that the fraudulent activities result in more expensive healthcare and possibly the deprivation of healthcare for some.
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and agency inspectors general have recovered billions of dollars based upon demonstrated or alleged healthcare fraud. These cases and investigations, however, have generally been limited to a specific company or class of providers. Government investigators have struggled for years with how to identify fraudulent practices in government healthcare programs involving large volumes of claims. Continue reading “The Government’s Use of Data Analytics to Identify Healthcare Fraud”
Merle M. Delancey, Jr.
Although several bills were introduced in Congress and President Trump has complained that drug prices are way too high, during 2017, the federal government did not pass any law nor implement any policy requiring drug manufacturers to disclose information concerning price increases. As a result, state legislatures have stepped in to fill this void. Unlike Congress, state legislatures have been much more aggressive in taking on drug price increases. Continue reading “2017 Was a Busy Year for State Imposition of Drug Manufacturer Price Disclosure Obligations and 2018 Isn’t Looking Much Better”
As Congress continues to grapple over healthcare reform, there are many uncertainties. However, one thing is clear: as government healthcare funding shrinks, federal and state enforcement agencies will continue to target compounding pharmacies for potential fraud.
Compounded drug use and related government spending, particularly on topical creams and ointments, has skyrocketed. Many argue that drug compounding regulation remains murky, making it too easy to prosecute traditional compounders. Compounding advocates suggest regulation of compounders has been heavy-handed and ignores the multiple benefits associated with compounding. Continue reading “Compounding Pharmacies Should Expect Greater Scrutiny as Government Healthcare Budgets Get Squeezed”
Merle DeLancey, James Staiger, Jennifer Daniels
For years, states and the federal government focused their drug pricing enforcement efforts on higher priced and more expensive branded drugs. Not surprisingly, private qui tam lawyers followed on the coattails of these government enforcement efforts. The focus on branded drugs was not wrongheaded. States, the federal government, and qui tam plaintiffs were handsomely rewarded for such efforts, as in the multiple Average Wholesale Price (“AWP”) cases against brand manufacturers. However, while regulators focused on brands, they subsequently found that the pricing for generic drugs had increased unimpeded. In more recent years, the focus has shifted to generic drug price increases. For example, effective for the first time at the start of 2017, the Medicaid Program applied an inflation penalty component to Medicaid rebate payments for generic drugs. Historically, the inflation penalty applied only to branded drugs. The inflation penalty provides that when a drug’s price increases faster than the increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, a manufacturer is required to pay an additional Medicaid rebate amount to state Medicaid programs. Continue reading “Targeting Generic Drug Prices”