FDA Regulatory

Joanne Hawana explains how FDA regulatory due diligence fits into the broader diligence that is done when a transaction involves an FDA-regulated entity as well as what the team is looking for when conducting an FDA regulatory diligence project.

Joanne Hawana talks about the rise in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and how FDA has adapted its regulatory approach to such tests over the past few years as it has become more comfortable with genetic testing and sequencing technologies.

Continuing progress on the initiatives announced in its Biosimilars Action Plan in July 2018 (see our prior post here), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released information about several important biosimilar-related actions on February 3, 2020. These recent moves make clear that FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who was confirmed and sworn in to his new role at the tail end of 2019, is continuing to focus agency resources on the Biosimilars and Drug Competition Action Plans developed under the leadership of his predecessor, Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

As discussed in an earlier blog post, the process for reauthorizing human medical product user fee programs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for another 5-year period is getting started this year. Below we highlight some changes made to the programs when they were last reauthorized through the 2017 Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act (FDARA) (P.L. 115-52) and consider what could be included in the upcoming user fee reauthorization package.

A history of FDA human medical product user fee programs, including those for prescription drugs (PDUFA), generic drugs (GDUFA), biosimilars (BsUFA), and medical devices (MDUFA), their negotiation and reauthorization, and how manufacturers and patients can participate and get involved in the negotiations.

In a coordinated effort, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation on January 9, 2020. The website serves to streamline information regarding agriculture biotechnology products, which are regulated by FDA, USDA, and EPA. The implementation of the website is in response to the June 2019 Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products. The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation complements prior joint actions such as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, an Obama administration effort to reform the biotechnology regulatory process by enhancing transparency, predictability, and efficacy.

As we noted in our previous blog post, there are several legislative priorities in the health care space that could see action this year. There are also a variety of activities beginning this year that could set the stage for later action. Here’s what we’re tracking for a 2020 health care legislative package.

Since the 21st Century Cures Act became law in December 2016, we have been keeping track of the Food and Drug Administration’s actions to carry out its obligations under the relatively new law. One particular provision of the Act: (i) emphasized the agency's responsibility to identify class II devices that may be exempted from premarket notification (or 510(k)) requirements, and (ii) required the agency to publish a list of each type of class II device that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines no longer requires a 510(k) submission to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness at least every five years, or as appropriate. On December 30, 2019, FDA published a final notice of its amendments to each classification regulation for the newly exempted devices.

On December 20, 2019, the President signed into law a bill to fund the federal government through September 30, 2020. The bill included several important health care provisions but left some longstanding policy challenges unresolved. Most notable changes to law are the elimination of three Affordable Care Act taxes and the passage of the CREATES Act. Noticeably absent is legislation related to surprise billing and prescription drug pricing. A summary of key health care provisions included in the 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-94) follows. We will address the legislative outlook for 2020 in a separate ML Strategies blog post next week.

At the end of July 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jointly published the Safe Importation Action Plan, which outlined the Trump Administration’s two-part plan to allow foreign prescription drugs to be imported into the United States in an effort to reduce drug prices. We wrote about the release of the Safe Importation Action Plan here, and the detailed proposals made public by the Administration on December 18, 2019, follow the framework that the agencies sketched out earlier this year. Specifically, HHS and FDA have proposed two different pathways: one that is being implemented via notice-and-comment rulemaking, and one that is being implemented via an FDA guidance document. HHS Secretary Alex Azar touted the two pathways together in a same-day FDA press release as “historic actions…[that] represent the bold nature of President Trump’s agenda for lowering drug costs.”

This is our third year-end post for 2019 related to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), focusing on the agency’s activities in the widely divergent area of “consumer products.” (You can find our two prior posts on medical devices and prescription therapeutic products here and here, respectively.) In taking a wide-lens view of the past year, we see it as having presented a huge number of opportunities for the FDA to educate the public about its role in regulating non-prescription products sold directly to consumers. Most of the educational opportunities we highlight below came in concert with some other agency actions, like the issuance of Warning Letters to specific firms, but we’ve decided to cover only the key issues in the interest of keeping this post from turning into a long list of hyperlinks given the post’s already broad scope. Consumer products that fall within FDA’s jurisdiction include over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and OTC homeopathic drug products; tobacco and other nicotine delivery products; dietary supplements; foods and beverages for both humans and animals (technically, there is no such thing as an animal “dietary supplement”); cosmetics (sort of); and a wide variety of cannabis-derived consumer products that exploded onto the national landscape during 2019 and essentially cross into all of the aforementioned product categories.

In many ways, the past year could be called a “business as usual” year for the FDA’s drugs and biologics centers in that they continued to make progress all of large-scale programs and priorities initiated by former-Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who left the agency in April. At the same time, however, the final months of 2019 have exposed several challenges for various FDA programs that operate under the extensive drug and biologic authorities contained in the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), respectively.

This post is the first in a series of three in which we recap the Food and Drug Administration’s somewhat difficult year, having spent the majority of it without a permanent Commissioner and facing a slew of political and practical challenges. Today our topic is “medical devices” writ large, which is a product class that is becoming more complex by the day as it grows to encompass software, diagnostics, laboratory tests, and new medical technologies that resemble nothing that Congress had in mind when it first gave FDA authority to regulate medical devices in 1976. In the coming days, we’ll also take a broad look at FDA’s year from the standpoint of therapeutic medical products, including drugs and biologics, as well as the more commonly used category of consumer products.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee is set to vote on Dr. Stephen Hahn, the Trump administration’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on December 3, 2019. Hahn faced a flurry of questions at the confirmation hearing before the Senate Health Committee on Wednesday, November 20, 2019, most of which spoke to the youth vaping crisis with little emphasis on other hot topics such as prescription drug shortages or drug pricing. Despite the barrage of questions, many of his responses were non-specific in nature and avoided committing to any set platform. Instead, Hahn focused on his pledge as a doctor to put patient care first and rely on science and data as a basis for decision-making.

We have previously blogged about the Food and Drug Administration’s year of listening and information-gathering related to products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds since the 2018 Farm Bill removed “hemp” from the federal Controlled Substances Act. Among other things, the Agency issued a call for scientific information on a variety of topics identified in this April 3, 2019 notice; opened a public docket to receive written comments in response to those questions (docket no. FDA-2019-N-1482); and convened a public hearing in May 2019 to hear from stakeholders directly. Our summary of that May 31st hearing, which also provides an overview of the legal and regulatory landscape post-2018 Farm Bill, is available here. This intensive period of evaluation was led by an internal working group charged with making recommendations for the open scientific, technical, and policy questions created by the new legal status of hemp.

Despite congressional attention, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action, public and private sector efforts, and ongoing media coverage, drug shortages remain a significant public health crisis in the United States. In response to that crisis (and at Congress’s urging), the FDA formed the interagency Drug Shortages Task Force (Task Force) to study the issue. FDA has now released the report resulting from the Task Force’s activities: “Drug Shortages: Root Causes and Potential Solutions.” The report, issued on October 29, 2019, concludes that drug shortages are primarily the consequence of economic factors driven by private and public business practices. Those practices, according to the report, disrupt the supply chain availability of marketed pharmaceuticals. The report offers recommendations to provide a framework for stakeholders to address the underlying economic factors leading to drug shortages.

To anyone who has been following government enforcement and private litigation trends related to the over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic drug industry over the past several years, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announcement on October 24, 2019 likely came as no surprise. But to stakeholders in this industry, it was certainly unwelcome news and may portend a coming wave of unapproved drug enforcement actions by the FDA.

On September 26, 2019, FDA released a six revised digital health guidances. The primary objective of these revisions was to bring the guidances into alignment with the software function exemptions described in Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”). The medical device community has anticipated these changes since Congress passed the Cures Act almost three years ago in December 2016.

As promised, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the district court’s holding that the Secretary lacked the authority to compel drug manufacturers from disclosing drug prices in direct-to-consumers television advertisements (DTC rule). On September 23, 2019, HHS filed its appeal in the D.C. Circuit against plaintiffs Merck & Co., Eli Lilly and Co., and Amgen Inc. The brief argues that the district court erred in holding that HHS lacks the statutory authority through the Social Security Act (SSA) to force the DTC rule upon drug manufacturers because they are not direct participants in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Out of a sample of 29 non-representative drug manufacturers surveyed earlier this year, 23 had publicly posted policies related to accessing their investigational drugs outside of the context of formal clinical trials, according to the General Accountability Office (GAO). Of those 23 company policies, GAO reports that nineteen of them stated that the manufacturer would consider individual requests for expanded access to their drug candidates, while the remaining four companies stated that such requests would not be considered at the present time. Moreover, approximately half of those companies who would be open to meeting a patient’s request for expanded access also noted expressly in their policies that additional procedures would need to be followed, including review of the request by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and an institutional review board (IRB). The GAO study – released on September 9, 2019 – was conducted in response to a congressional mandate (included in the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017) for the investigative body GAO to review the agency’s actions to facilitate patient access to investigational drugs.