Source: https://www.fcaupdate.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:22:34+00:00

Document:
On February 8, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Middle District of Tennessee against two pharmacies, their owner and three pharmacists from dispensing controlled substances, including opioids. The DOJ simultaneously unsealed a complaint alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Controlled Substances Act against the same parties. DOJ’s press release is available here.
The DOJ described this action as part of a coordinated effort by the Prescription Interdiction & Litigation (PIL) Task Force to deploy its criminal, civil and regulatory tools to address the opioid epidemic in the United States. The complaint alleges that the pharmacies and pharmacists filled numerous prescriptions for controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the pharmacists’ corresponding responsibility to ensure that prescriptions were written for a legitimate medical purpose. In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants routinely dispensed controlled substances and ignored “red flags” of diversion and abuse, such as unusually high dosages of oxycodone and other opioids, dangerous combinations of opioid prescriptions other controlled substances and patients travelling extremely long distances to get and fill prescriptions. The complaint also asserts that the pharmacies falsely billed Medicare for illegally dispensed prescriptions.
While the DOJ has previously obtained TROs and a permanent injunction against physicians for prescribing opioids upon filing a complaint, this is the first case in which the agency has taken this combination compliant and TRO action against a pharmacy and pharmacists.
On January 31, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a notice of proposed rulemaking (the Proposed Rule) as part of ongoing administration drug pricing reform efforts. The Proposed Rule would modify a regulatory provision that had previously protected certain pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates from criminal prosecution and financial penalties under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.
Specifically, the Proposed Rule would exclude from “safe harbor” protection rebates and other discounts on prescription pharmaceutical products offered by pharmaceutical manufacturers to Medicare Part D plan sponsors or Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), unless the price reduction is required by law (such as rebates required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program). The proposed exclusion would apply to rebates offered directly to Part D plan sponsors and Medicaid MCOs, as well as those negotiated by or paid through a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). HHS stated that it does not intend for the revisions in this Proposed Rule to negatively impact protection of prescription pharmaceutical product discounts offered to other entities such as wholesalers, hospitals, physicians, pharmacies and third party payors in other federal health care programs. The proposed effective date of this regulatory modification is January 1, 2020, although HHS has sought comments regarding whether this allows sufficient time for parties to restructure existing arrangements.
This latest installment of the Health Care Enforcement Quarterly Roundup reflects on trends that persisted in 2018 and those emerging trends that will carry us into 2019 and beyond. Leading off with the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) December announcement of its fiscal year 2018 False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries, it remains clear that the health care industry is a primary target of FCA enforcement activity. We also revisit the current state of implementation of DOJ’s Granston Memorandum, substantive revisions to the Yates Memorandum, critical interpretations of the landmark Escobar case (including those expected in the coming year), and continued enforcement activity in the pain management industry.
Section 3731(b) requires an FCA case be filed either (1) six years after the date on which the violation…is committed, or (2) three years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever is later.
In Cochise Consultancy, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that § 3731(b)(2) was available to a relator in a non-intervened case. The court also held that the relevant person whose knowledge triggers the limitations period is an official of the United States.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision deepens the divide among circuits as to how to apply § 3731(b)(2), creating a three-way circuit split. The decision is a departure from the Fourth Circuit and Tenth Circuit. Both courts determined that § 3731(b)(2) extends the statute of limitations period only if the government is a party. See United States ex rel. Sanders v. N. Am. Bus Indus., Inc., 546 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, 472 F.3d 702 (10th Cir. 2006).
The decision is also a departure from the Third Circuit and Ninth Circuit. The Third Circuit and Ninth Circuit also held that § 3731(b)(2) is available when the government does not intervene. However, the three-year period depends on the relator’s knowledge. See United States ex rel. Malloy v. Telephonics Corp., 68 F. App’x 270 (3d Cir. 2003); United States ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp., 91 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Supreme Court’s decision to tackle this issue will provide clarity to businesses subject to the FCA because it will likely provide an answer as to how long a relator has to bring an action when the government has not intervened. It could also do away with any forum shopping that relators currently have the ability to engage in.
The Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services posted an unusual negative Advisory Opinion (AO 18-14) on a drug company’s proposal to provide free drugs to hospitals for use with pediatric patients suffering from a form of epilepsy. Of particular interest is OIG’s reliance on a longstanding, but rarely used, authority to justify finding and relying on public information about the drug at issue, including pricing information, to support its unfavorable conclusion. This advisory opinion might counsel future opinion requestors to withdraw their opinion request once OIG indicates the opinion will be unfavorable.

References: § 3731
 § 3731
 § 3731
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3731
 v. 
 v.