- On December 11, 2024, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued updated guidance for industry on the registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products. The guidance provides recommendations and instructions to help individuals and companies comply with the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulations Act of 2022 (MoCRA).
- MoCRA mandates that cosmetic companies report serious adverse events to FDA within 15 business days, register their facilities and list their products, ensure product safety before marketing, and comply with FDA’s authority to access records and order recalls if products are found to be unsafe or misbranded.
- The updated guidance outlines the statutory requirements for submitting cosmetic product facility registrations and product listings. It finalizes the frequently asked questions (FAQs) in Appendix B (Q1-19) and introduces three new FAQs (Q20-22) for public comment.
- Q20 outlines the responsibilities of a U.S agent, which includes assisting FDA with communications, responding to product inquiries, helping schedule inspections, and receiving documents on behalf of the foreign establishment;
- Q21 explains that multiple buildings within three miles can share one FEI number if they are part of the same establishment and management, and can be inspected together; and
- Q22 indicates that a product listing is generally required for all cosmetic products, including free samples or gifts, unless specific exemptions apply.
- The comment period is open until January 13, 2024, and comments can be submitted through the docket.
Category: Biotech & Cleantech
BIOSECURE Act: Anticipated Movement, Key Provisions, and Likely Impact
Last night, the House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act (BIOSECURE or the Act) by a bipartisan vote of 306 to 81.
The BIOSECURE Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring or obtaining any biotechnology equipment or service produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Subject to some exceptions, it also prohibits federal agencies from contracting with a company that uses equipment or services produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Further, the Act prohibits recipients of a loan or grant from a federal agency from using federal funds to purchase equipment or services from a biotechnology company of concern.
The Senate version of BIOSECURE, sponsored by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), was voted out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs with bipartisan support in March 2024. Given its passage in the House last night, the BIOSECURE Act is likely to be signed into law by the end of the year. The House version of BIOSECURE is likely to be the version that becomes law. President Biden is unlikely to veto the Act given its bipartisan support, his previous executive actions to support domestic biotechnology development, and his Administration’s approach towards competition with China.
The Act defines “biotechnology company of concern” as any entity that:
- is subject to the jurisdiction, direction, control, or operates on behalf of the government of a foreign adversary (defined as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia);
- is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, provision, or procurement of a biotechnology equipment or service; and
- poses a risk to U.S. national security based on:
- engaging in joint research with, being supported by, or being affiliated with a foreign adversary’s military, internal security forces, or intelligence agencies;
- providing multiomic data obtained via biotechnology equipment or services to the government of a foreign adversary; or
- obtaining human multiomic data via the biotechnology equipment or services without express and informed consent.
Somewhat unusually, the Act names specific Chinese companies as automatically qualifying as “biotechnology companies of concern”:
- BGI (formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute);
- MGI;
- Complete Genomics;
- WuXi AppTec; and
- WuXi Biologics.
Both categories include any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, or successor entities of biotechnology companies of concern.
The Act also has very broad definitions of “biotechnology equipment or service.” The definition of equipment encompasses any machine, device, or subcomponent, including software that is “designed for use in the research, development, production, or analysis of biological materials.” The definition of services is similarly broad.
The BIOSECURE Act also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to publish a list of additional biotechnology companies of concern. The list is prepared by the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security, and State, as well as the Director of National Intelligence and National Cyber Director. This list of companies must be published by OMB within one year of BIOSECURE’s enactment and reviewed annually by OMB in consultation with the other Departments.
Guidance and Regulatory Authorities
OMB is also tasked with developing guidance and has 120 days from enactment of the statute to do so for the named companies. For the list of biotechnology companies of concern, OMB’s guidance must be established within 180 days after the development of the list.
Beyond OMB, the Act requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to incorporate its prohibitions. The FAR regulations must be issued within one year of when OMB establishes its guidance.
For named companies the Act’s prohibitions are effective 60 days after the issuance of the FAR regulations. For companies placed on the biotechnology company of concern list, the effective date for the Act’s prohibitions is 80 days after the issuance of FAR regulations.
Impact on Existing Business Relationships
In response to stakeholder concerns about disrupting existing commercial relationships and triggering delays in drug development, the House version of the BIOSECURE Act provides a five-year unwinding period for contracts and agreements entered into before the Act’s effective dates. Contracts entered into after the Act’s effective dates do not qualify for the five year unwinding period.
Process for Designating Companies
BIOSECURE specifies the process for designating a biotechnology company of concern. Critically, the Act does not require OMB to notify a company prior to the Department of Defense making the designation. Rather, a company will receive notice that it is being designated and placed on the biotechnology company of concern list. Moreover, the criteria for listing will only be provided “to the extent consistent with national security and law enforcement interests.” Thus, companies may face a circumstance where they are not provided the evidence supporting their designation.
Once a company receives the notice, it will have 90 days to submit information and arguments opposing the listing. The Act does not require a hearing or any formal administrative process. If practicable, the notice may also include steps the company could take to avoid being listed, but it is not required.
Safe Harbor, Waivers and Exceptions
The Act only has one safe harbor for biotechnology equipment or services that were formerly but no longer provided or produced by a biotechnology company of concern. This safe harbor seems intended to allow a biotechnology company of concern to sell their ownership of a product or service to another company without prohibitions applying to the new owner.
Agency heads may waive the Act’s prohibitions on a case-by-case basis, but only with the approval of OMB acting “in coordination with the Secretary of Defense.” Waivers must be reported to Congress within 30 days of being granted. The waiver may last for up to a year with an additional “one time” extension of 180 days allowed if an agency head determines it is “in the national security interests of the United States.” The 180-day extension must be approved by OMB and the agency head must notify and submit a justification to Congress within 10 days of the waiver being granted.
The Act has only two exceptions. First, its prohibitions do not apply to intelligence activities. Second, the prohibitions do not apply to health care services provided to federal employees, members of the armed services, and government contractors who are stationed in a foreign country or on official foreign travel.
Impact and Considerations for Clients
1. Increased Risk of Partnerships with Chinese Companies and Researchers:
Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that receive federal funding or contract with federal agencies should be prepared to wind down business ties to biotechnology companies in China. Impacted companies need to begin evaluating the risk to their supply chains, manufacturing capacity, and R&D pipelines in the event a business partner is listed.
Universities in the United States and other research institutes that receive federal funding will also need to undertake a similar assessment of their research partners and collaborators based in China.
2. Loss of CDMO capacity:
Wuxi App Tec is a large, global provider of contract development and manufacturing (CDMO) services to the life sciences industry. According to the New York Times “[b]y one estimate Wuxi has been involved in developing one-fourth of the drugs used in the United States.” BIOSECURE would effectively ban Wuxi from conducting business in the United States, and if passed, risks causing delays, shortages, and cost increases as companies seek to transition to other CDMOs. It will likely take years for competitors to replace the lost CDMO capacity.
3. Fate of Wuxi U.S. Facilities:
Wuxi has a large presence in the United States. It operates 12 facilities and employs almost 2,000 people. Normally, Wuxi would be expected to sell its U.S.-based facilities. However, based on Tiktok’s experience, it is unclear if the Government of China will permit Wuxi to sell its facilities as opposed to dismantling and/or relocating facilities outside of the United States.
4. OMB’s Management of Biotechnology Companies of Concern List
OMB does not typically manage processes like the one envisioned by BIOSECURE. How OMB interprets the broad criteria for listing companies will be critical. Which Departments, beyond the Department of Defense, will have the greatest influence on OMB’s decision making and how open OMB is to evidence from companies seeking to avoid listing will also need to be watched closely. Until OMB starts preparing its guidance and the FAR regulations are proposed, it is hard to anticipate the rate at which new companies will be added to the list. How the process established by BIOSECURE will interact with or leverage existing entity lists will be another development to closely monitor.
5. Retaliation by China
BIOSECURE’s passage is likely to trigger a response from the Government of China. Responses could range from imposing its own export controls to using the country’s sweeping national security laws to harass United States businesses and their employees. Companies doing business in China, particularly those in the pharmaceutical or biotech industries need to be prepared.
Major Changes Coming for Medicare Drug Program: Negotiated Prices, Cap on Out of Pocket and Creditable Coverage
Some major changes are on the way for Medicare beneficiaries regarding drug costs. Due to the Inflation Reduction Act, the federal government now will have the ability to negotiate the prices of drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. After an initial set of negotiations, new lower prices have been announced for 10 expensive drugs. The discounts for some blood thinners and drugs for arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and heart failure result in costs as much as 79% lower. The new drug prices will go into effect starting in 2026. Just these 10 drugs make up about 20% of the program’s drug spending, so the impact is huge for the medicinal market. The federal government will turn to negotiating another batch of drugs in 2025, with 15-20 drugs targeted annually.
Another major change under the Inflation Reduction Act will be the out-of-pocket maximum under all Medicare Part D plans of $2,000 per year beginning January 2025. Beneficiaries will be able to prorate the cost monthly or pay it as the costs are incurred. This will be a game changer for many Medicare beneficiaries with high drug costs. In addition, certain drugs covered by Part B (typically those administered in a doctor’s office or hospital) might incur a co-pay of less than the standard 20% if the prices have increased faster than inflation. The drugs subject to reduced copays will be published quarterly.
These changes may have an unintended consequence for Medicare-eligible individuals who are still working and therefore enrolled in employer plans, or other individuals enrolled in retiree or other private plans. Those who are Medicare eligible but are enrolled in non-Medicare plans must show that they have “creditable” coverage under Medicare standards. A plan is “creditable” if coverage is at least as good as or better than the Medicare drug benefit. Creditable coverage is based on a test that measures whether the expected amount of paid claims is at least as much as the standard Part D benefit. Non-Medicare plans must advise enrollees if their coverage is considered “creditable.” It is crucial for coverage to be considered “creditable;” otherwise, the Medicare beneficiary can be subject to a Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP) for each month they are not enrolled in a plan providing creditable coverage.
It is unclear whether the $2,000 cap coming to Part D plans or other changes in drug coverage will mean that non-Medicare plans that do not match the changes will continue to be considered creditable in the future. Beneficiaries need to be aware of this important issue when considering their coverage options.
It’s Official – BIPA’s “Per-Scan” Damages Are Out; Electronic Signatures Are In
If you heard a collective sigh of relief last week, it was probably businesses reacting as Illinois Governor Pritzker finally signed Senate Bill 2979, officially reforming BIPA for the first time since 2008. As a reminder, SB 2979 was passed back in May, but has been awaiting the Governor’s signature.
This development is significant for two reasons. First, the new law prohibits the recovery of “per-scan” damages. This means that if a business collects or discloses an individual’s biometric data without consent, then that business is only liable for one BIPA violation as to that individual. In 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle Systems decided that violations were accrued on a “per-scan” basis, leading to an outpouring of claims. This law effectively overrules that decision. Second, the bill permits businesses to fulfill the “written release” requirement for consent via “electronic signature.” This will make it easier for businesses to collect – and individuals to provide – consent for the collection and retention of biometric information.
Putting it into Practice: These amendments became effective on August 2, 2024. Businesses that anticipated costly litigation from a “per-scan” BIPA demand may have cause for relief. However, the prohibition on “per-scan” damages may not apply retroactively to pending BIPA actions. Additionally, businesses can reconfigure their consent flows to enable electronic signatures.
Listen to this post here
by: David M. Poell , Kathryn Smith of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
For more news on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), visit the NLR Consumer Protection section.
EPA, USDA, and FDA to Clarify Overlapping Biotechnology Regulatory Frameworks
On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a joint plan to identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainty in their coordinated regulation of biotechnology products. Consistent with a directive issued by President Biden in September 2022, the agencies’ plan identifies specific issues that each has either recently addressed or will work to address to promote such products’ safe use.
Key Takeaways
- What Happened: EPA, USDA, and FDA issued a joint plan for regulatory reform under their Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.
- Who’s Impacted: Developers of PIPs, modified mosquitos, biopesticides, and other biotechnology products under EPA’s jurisdiction.
- What Should They Consider Doing in Response: Watch the three agencies’ regulatory dockets closely and consider submitting comments once new rules or draft guidance are published that may affect their products.
Background
President Biden’s executive order defined “biotechnology” as “technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.” Biotechnology products thus may include organisms (plants, animals, fungi, or microbes) developed through genetic engineering or manipulation, products derived from such organisms, and products produced via cell-free synthesis. These products may, in turn, be regulated under the overlapping statutory frameworks of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), Plant Pest Act (PPA), Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and more. Therefore, close coordination between EPA, USDA, and FDA is essential to ensure effective and efficient regulation of biotechnology products.
EPA Sets Sights on PIPs, Mosquitos, and Biopesticide Products
The agencies’ newly released plan identifies five biotechnology product categories where regulatory clarification or simplification are warranted: (1) modified plants; (2) modified animals; (3) modified microorganisms; (4) human drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and (5) cross-cutting issues. Under the new plan, EPA is engaged in all but the fourth category above.
For example, EPA has already taken steps to clarify its regulation of modified plant products, such as exempting from regulation under FIFRA and FFDCA certain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created in plants using newer technologies. EPA next plans to address the scope of plant regulator PIPs and update its 2007 guidance on small-scale field testing of PIPs to reflect technological developments and harmonize with USDA containment measures.
Regarding modified animal products, EPA intends to work with USDA and FDA to coordinate and provide updated information on the regulation of modified insect and invertebrate pests. Specifically, EPA intends to provide efficacy testing guidance on genetically modified mosquitos intended for population control. As outlined in guidance published by FDA in October 2017, products intended to reduce the population of mosquitoes by killing them or interfering with their growth or development are considered “pesticides” subject to regulation by EPA, while products intended to reduce the virus/pathogen load within mosquitoes or prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals are considered “new animal drugs” subject to regulation by FDA.
EPA also now intends to prioritize its review of biopesticide applications, provide technical assistance to biopesticide developers, and collaborate with state pesticide regulators to help bring new biopesticide products to market more quickly.
Further, the three agencies are making efforts to collaborate with each other and with the regulated community. The agencies jointly released plain-language information on regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes for biotechnology products in November 2023 and now intend to explore the development of a web portal that would direct developers to the appropriate agency or office overseeing their product’s development or regulatory status. The agencies also intend to develop a mechanism for a product developer to meet with all agencies at once early in a product’s development process to clarify the agencies’ respective jurisdictions and provide initial regulatory guidance; to update their joint information-sharing memorandum of understanding; and to formally update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology by the end of the year.
Biotechnology product developers should closely monitor EPA, USDA, and FDA’s progress on the actions described above, as well as other USDA- and FDA-specific regulatory moves. Developers should assess the regulatory barriers to their products’ entry to market, consider potential fixes, and be prepared to submit feedback as the agencies propose new rules or issue draft guidance for comment.
CTP Releases New 5-year Strategic Plan
On December 18, 2023, Dr. Brian King, the Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products announced the Center’s new five-year strategic plan which outlines the Center’s programmatic and workforce initiatives and includes five goals, ten outcomes, and several corresponding objectives.
The new strategic plan incorporates recommendations from the Reagan-Udall Foundation report published in December 2022. The Reagan-Udall Foundation report provided fifteen recommendations for CTP which included improving transparency regarding the Center’s approach to Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) reviews and compliance and enforcement. The report highlighted industry concerns with the CTP’s framework for approaching PMTA reviews, particularly after FDA issued Refuse To Accept (RTA) letters, Refuse to File (RTF) Letters, or Marketing Denial Orders (MDOs) for millions of deemed tobacco products. The five-year plan seeks to address the issues of transparency, enforcement, and education.
The five goals are:
- Develop, advance, and communicate comprehensive and impactful tobacco regulations and guidance;
- Ensure timely, clear, and consistent product application review;
- Strengthen compliance of regulated industry utilizing all available tools, including robust enforcement actions;
- Enhance knowledge and understanding of the risks associated with tobacco product use; and
- Advance operational excellence.
To achieve these goals, CTP plans to develop and implement several guidance documents to ensure that regulations are clear and accessible. Furthermore, CTP will develop new processes to review PMTA efficiently and to communicate the review process and marketing decisions transparently. CTP also plans to pursue more robust enforcement actions by collaborating with other federal and state agencies.
CTP highlighted the importance of promoting education surrounding the risks of tobacco product use, particularly for preventing youth initiation, and educating adults on the benefits of cessation, including the relative risks of different tobacco products. The fifth and last goal regards CTP’s operational goals by supporting its workforce and operating efficiently.
In conjunction with this strategic plan, CTP also published the Center’s policy agenda of rules and guidance documents. The policy agenda provides guidance documents in development, including current and long-term priorities for the Center.
The Center’s current priorities include:
- Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes;
- Tobacco Product Standard for Characterizing Flavors in Cigars;
- Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Certain Tobacco Products;
- Prohibition of Sale of Tobacco Products to Persons Younger Than 21 Years of Age;
- Administrative Detention of Tobacco Products; and
- Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice.
The ultimate goal of the strategic plan is to reduce harm caused by tobacco product use and to work with regulated industries in a manner that demonstrates a commitment to science, health equity, stakeholder engagement, and transparency.
Navigating Hemp THC Beverages
Nonalcoholic beverages infused with delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) derived from hemp (aka intoxicating hemp beverages) are becoming increasingly popular for consumers looking for an alternative to alcohol.
With major alcohol retailers like Total Wine entering the cannabis space, alcohol beverage producers may be looking for opportunities to leverage their existing experience in manufacturing, marketing and distributing alcohol beverages towards the emerging intoxicating hemp beverage market. While intoxicating hemp beverages are arguably legal pursuant to the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), risks remain under federal and state food and drug laws. Accordingly, beverage producers looking to enter this emerging market should become familiar with the ambiguities involved.
Federal Treatment of Intoxicating Hemp Beverages
The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp, defined as cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.) and derivatives of cannabis with extremely low concentrations of delta-9 THC (specifically, no more than 0.3 percent THC on a dry weight basis), from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act. The federal government defines hemp as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Accordingly, products that meet the definition of “hemp” may be marketed and sold in the United States and are no longer classified under federal law as illegal drugs.
How Is Hemp Regulated?
Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been assigned to regulate hemp production.
However, any hemp-derived foods, including beverages, are subject to regulation by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). While the FDA has largely avoided enforcement actions against such products, focusing most of its efforts on products making unsubstantiated medical and therapeutic claims, it has clearly concluded that it is a prohibited act under federal law to introduce any food in the market to which THC or cannabidiol (CBD) has been added. Therefore, the risk of federal enforcement remains until the agency changes its stance towards THC as a beverage additive.
State Regulation
While the federal government has been inactive in this space, the legal status of intoxicating hemp beverage products varies significantly by state. On the one hand, several states, including Minnesota, have expressly legalized the inclusion of hemp-derived cannabinoids in beverage products, with clear regulations regarding testing, labeling, advertising and more. On the other hand, some states have legalized hemp beverage products but lack a robust regulatory framework – leading to a mostly unregulated, laissez-faire market.
Further, many states fall into a grey area when it comes to the legality of such products. Some of these states have legalized hemp along the lines of the 2018 Farm Bill but have not officially opined on whether it can be added to beverage products, while others do not mention hemp products at all. A subset of states has expressly legalized hemp in beverages, as long as it complies with federal guidance, which currently does not affirmatively allow hemp to be used as a beverage additive.
One of the most extreme measures taken by state officials to ban hemp from beverage products is currently underway in South Carolina. The state’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) recently issued a letter to the hemp industry warning that certain hemp products are not approved to be added to beverage products, including delta-9 THC.
In its letter, the DHEC also ruled that labels and packaging may not contain references to “THC,” “CBD” or “delta-9” products, or isolates, as this implies the product is no longer a food item but is a drug and is unlawful.
This new guidance is far from outlawing cannabinoids in beverages, but it affects a growing industry that has already been promoting intoxicating hemp beverages in the state. Indeed, some beverage manufacturers in South Carolina have been forced to halt production, citing confusion over the new labeling and packaging requirements. This demonstrates how the legal landscape around intoxicating hemp beverages can change rapidly.
Finally, it is important to note that even states that expressly allow and regulate THC-infused beverage products fall into a grey area when we consider the current state of federal regulations. Until Congress acts or the FDA changes its stance towards THC as a beverage additive, we will continue seeing a patchwork of different approaches.
Three Individuals Sentenced for $3.5 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme
Three Individuals Sentenced for $3.5 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme
On February 6, three individuals were sentenced for fraudulently obtaining and misusing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans that the US Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, in 2020 and 2021, defendants Khadijah X. Chapman, Daniel C. Labrum, and Eric J.O’Neil submitted falsified documents to financial institutions for fictitious businesses to fraudulently obtain $3.5 million in PPP loans intended for small businesses struggling with the economic impact of COVID-19. Chapman was convicted in November 2023 of bank fraud. Labrum and O’Neil pleaded guilty in 2023 to bank fraud. Following their convictions, Chapman was sentenced to three years and 10 months in prison, Labrum was sentenced to two years in prison, and O’Neil was sentenced to two years and three months in prison.
Read the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) press release here.
False Claims Act Complaint Filed Against Former President and Co-Owner of Mobile Cardiac PET Scan Provider
The DOJ filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Rick Nassenstein, former president, chief financial officer, and co-owner of Illinois-based Cardiac Imaging Inc. (CII), which provides mobile cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) scans.
The complaint alleges that Nassenstein caused CII to pay excessive, above-market fees to doctors who referred patients to CII for cardiac PET scans. The government alleges that the compensation arrangements violated the Stark Law, which prohibits health care providers from billing Medicare for services referred by a physician with whom the provider has a compensation arrangement unless the arrangement meets certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Claims knowingly submitted to Medicare in violation of the Stark Law also violate the federal FCA.
The complaint alleges that CII provided cardiac PET scans on a mobile basis and paid the referring physicians, usually cardiologists, to provide physician supervision as required by Medicare rules. From at least 2017 through June 2023, Nassenstein allegedly caused CII to enter into compensation arrangements with referring cardiologists that provided for payment to the cardiologists as if they were fully occupied supervising CII’s scans, even though they were actually providing care to other patients in their offices or patients who were not even on site. CII’s fees also allegedly compensated the cardiologists for additional services the physicians did not actually provide. The complaint alleges that CII paid over $40 million in unlawful fees to physicians and submitted over 75,000 false claims to Medicare for services provided pursuant to referrals that violated the Stark Law.
The lawsuit was originally a qui tam complaint filed by a former billing manager at CII, and the United States, through the DOJ, filed a complaint in partial intervention to participate in the lawsuit.
The case, captioned US ex rel. Pinto v. Nassenstein, No. 18-cv-2674 (S.D. Tex.), follows an $85.5 million settlement in October 2023 by CII and its current owner, Sam Kancherlapalli, for claims arising from this conduct.
Read the DOJ’s press release here.
San Diego Restaurant Owner Charged with Tax and COVID-19 Relief Fraud Schemes
On February 2, a federal grand jury in San Diego returned a superseding indictment charging a California restaurant owner with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, tax evasion, filing false tax returns, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and failing to file tax returns.
According to the indictment, Leronce Suel, the majority owner of Rockstar Dough LLC and Chicken Feed LLC, conspired with a business partner to underreport over $1.7 million in gross receipts on Rockstar Dough LLC’s 2020 federal corporate tax return. From March 2020 to June 2022, Suel and the business partner then allegedly used this fraudulent return to qualify for COVID-19-related loans pursuant to the PPP and Restaurant Revitalization Funding program. In connection with those loans, Suel also allegedly certified falsely that he used the loan money for payroll purposes only. The indictment alleges that Suel and his business partner laundered the fraudulently obtained funds through cash withdrawals from their business bank accounts and stashed more than $2.4 million in cash in their home.
The indictment further charges that Suel failed to report millions of dollars received in cash and personal expenses paid for by his businesses as income, in addition to reporting false depreciable assets and business losses.
If convicted, Suel faces prison sentences up to 30 years for each count of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 10 years for each count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, five years for tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States, three years for each count of filing false tax returns, and one year for each count of failing to file tax returns.
Read the DOJ’s press release here.
Office of Science and Technology Policy Requests Public Input on Biotechnology Regulation
- The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a request for information (RFI) today in which it invites public comment on the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (the “Coordinated Framework”).
- The Coordinated Framework, which is a Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology products, was first issued in 1986, updated in 1992— to affirm that federal regulation should focus on characteristics of the product and the environment into which it being introduced, and not on the process by which it is produced—and then updated again in 2017 to clarify the roles of EPA, FDA, and USDA. And, in September of this year, Executive Order 14081 directed the three agencies to clarify and streamline regulations to support the safe of use of biotechnology products.
- Accordingly, the RFI requests comment on seven questions related to the Coordinated Framework. The questions include a request for comment on identification of any regulatory gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties; data or information to improve any identified issues; and new or emerging biotechnology products that the agencies should be prepared to address. Comments to the RFI are due by February 3, 2023. Also, on January 12, 2023, OTSP will host a virtual event in which it will listen to public feedback on the RFI.
© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP
All Federal Research Agencies to Update Public Access Policies
On 25 August 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released a guidance memorandum instructing federal agencies with research and development expenditures to update their public access policies. Notably, OSTP is retracting prior guidance that gave discretion to agencies to allow a 12-month embargo on the free and public release of peer-reviewed publications, so that federal funded research results will be timely and equitably available at no cost. The memo also directs affected agencies to develop policies that:
- Ensure public access to scientific data, even if not associated with peer-reviewed publications;
- Ensure scientific and research integrity in the agency’s public access by requiring publication of the metadata, including the unique digital persistent identifier; and
- Coordinate with OSTP to ensure equitable delivery of federally funded research results and data.
KEY COMPONENTS OF GUIDANCE:
Updating Public Access Policies
Federal agencies will need to develop new, or update existing, public access plans, and submit them to OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Deadlines for submission are within 180 days for federal agencies with more than US$100 million in annual research and development expenditures, and within 360 days for those with less than US$100 million in expenditures.
Agencies will need to ensure that any peer-reviewed scholarly publication is free and available by default in agency-designated repositories without any embargo or delay following publication. Similarly, OSTP expects the access polices to address publication of any other federally funded scientific data, even if not associated with peer-reviewed scholarly publications. As a concession, federal agencies are being asked to allow researchers to include the “reasonable publication costs and costs associated with submission, curation, management of data, and special handling instructions as allowable expenses in all research budgets.1”
Ensuring Scientific Integrity
To strengthen trust in governmentally funded research, the new or updated policies must transparently communicate information designed to promote OSTP’s research integrity goals. Accordingly, agencies are instructed to collect and make appropriate metadata available in their public access repositories, including (i) all author and co-author names, affiliations, and source of funding, referencing their digital persistent identifiers, as appropriate; (ii) date of publication; and (iii) a unique digital persistent identifier for research output. Agencies should submit to OSTP and OMB (by 31 December 2024) a second update to their policies specifying the approaches taken to implement this transparency, and publish such policy updates by 31 December 2026, with an effective date no later than one year after publication of the updated plan.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH), OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, AND THEIR GRANTEES
The NIH is expected to update its Public Access Policy, potentially along with its Data Management and Sharing Policy to conform with the new OSTP guidance. Universities, academic medical centers, research institutes, and federally funded investigators should monitor agency publications of draft and revised policies in order to update their processes to ensure continued compliance.
In doing so, affected stakeholders may want to consider and comment to relevant federal agencies on the following issues in their respective public access policy development:
- Federal agency security practices to prevent foreign misappropriation of research data;
- Implications for research misconduct investigations and research integrity;
- Any intellectual property considerations without a 12-month embargo, especially to the extent this captures scientific data not yet published in a peer-review journal; and
- Costs allowable research budgets to support these data management and submission expectations.
1 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research at p. 5 (25 August 2022) available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf
Copyright 2022 K & L Gates