NEW EVENT (2/18): Assessing the Viability of FDA’s Biosimilar Pathway

16.02.18, FDA Biosimilars Pathway posterNEW EVENT: Assessing the Viability of FDA’s Biosimilar Pathway
February 18, 2016 12:00 PM
Pound Hall, Room 100
Harvard Law School
1536 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Description

The 2010 passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was intended to create a pathway for the approval of biosimilar drugs, to bring to market less expensive versions of innovators’ biologic therapeutics in the same way the Hatch-Waxman Act has worked so well for FDA approval of generic small-molecule drugs. But the Act has been mired in a host of statutory, regulatory, and scientific complication and delays, and five years later, the FDA has approved just one biosimilar product.  Continue reading

Does the NAM Recommendation of Sex Selection for Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy Violate the Equal Protection Clause (Part III on my take on the NAM report)

As I said in one of my earlier posts today one of the most interesting parts of the NAM report on mitochondrial replacement therapy was its recommendation that only male embryos be implanted and not female ones. The argument is that this will eliminate the risks of germ-line transmission of anything untoward. I will leave it to others more versed in the risk factors to discuss whether this is an over-reaction (the UK did not adopt this in their recommendation) or reasonable. In the last post I discussed why politically/ethically this may get them in some hot water, but here  I want to raise a different question. Would such a recommendation be unconstitutional?

If FDA were to adopt this rule it would clearly be state action. It seems to be a state-law that favors one gender (males) over another (females) in that only males can be produced in this way. If that is right, under existing Supreme Court precedent it would be judged under “intermediate scrutiny.” To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Would this rule satisfy that test? Continue reading

Why Senator Markey’s Message Hurts Children

Last week, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) placed a hold on the Senate’s nomination of Robert Califf’s as head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The move was less against Califf and more as political leverage against FDA’s approval of OxyContin. In August 2015, FDA approved OxyContin, a prescription painkiller, for pediatric patients ages 11 to 17. OxyContin is the painkiller most associated with United State’s prescription drug abuse epidemic, accounting for an increase in drug overdose and death over the last decade. FDA’s approval of OxyContin for children drew concern from Markey and others that the approval would lead to an increase in drug misuse for children and their family members. Markey, who has prioritized the fight against opioid addiction in his legislative agenda, hopes he can use the hold to convince FDA to reverse its August decision.

Senator Markey’s message is well intentioned, but may ultimately do more harm than good for children.

Before FDA approved OxyContin in August, children who suffered from severe, chronic pain due to cancer, extensive trauma, or serious surgeries had few drugs approved to treat their pain. Many physicians treating severe pain in children prescribed OxyContin off-label, without proof that OxyContin could safely and effectively treat children. These physicians often relied on their experience or intuition to not under or overprescribe the drug. FDA’s approval in August meant the pharmaceutical manufacturer finally provided physicians with instructions, backed by controlled studies, explaining how physicians could safely use OxyContin to treat children with severe pain. Continue reading

REGISTER NOW! (3/29) The Future of Health Law and Policy: The Petrie-Flom Center’s 10th Anniversary Conference Celebration

PFC 10th Logo-Horizontal-Otlns-FnlThe Future of Health Law and Policy: The Petrie-Flom Center’s 10th Anniversary Conference Celebration
March 29, 2016 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

The Petrie-Flom Center is celebrating its first decade and kicking off the next by looking at the future of health law and policy!

Please join us as we bring together Petrie-Flom and other prominent Harvard Law School alumni to discuss major trends, developments, and open questions in the fields of health law policy, biotechnology, and bioethics. We’ll hear about the founder’s vision for the Center and the Dean’s perspective on the Center’s influence within the Harvard Law School community and beyond. Center Leadership will discuss what we have accomplished in the first ten years, and more important, our plans for the future. Alan Weil JD ’89, Editor-in-Chief of Health Affairs, will deliver the keynote address.

Agenda

Continue reading

TOMORROW, 1/29! Fourth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review Symposium


MORE SEATS AVAILABLE! Fourth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review
January 29, 2016 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West AB 
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

The Fourth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium will feature leading experts discussing major developments during 2015 and what to watch out for in 2016. The discussion at this day long event will cover hot topics in such areas as health insurance, health care systems, public health, innovation, and other issues facing clinicians and patients.

In addition to presenting at the conference, many of our speakers will write about their topics for a collaborative blog series that will begin in February 2016 on the Health Affairs Blog.

This year’s Health Law Year in P/Review is sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, the New England Journal of MedicineHealth Affairs, the Hastings CenterHarvard Health Publications at Harvard Medical School, and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

Agenda Continue reading

Four Key Issues In Health Law That Are As Relevant As Ever In 2016

Petrie-Flom’s Executive Director Holly Fernandez Lynch has a new post over at the Health Affairs Blog as the first entry in a series that will stem from our Fourth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review conference, to be held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 29, 2016.

In it, Holly takes stock of which major issues in health law policy remain outstanding from years past, and which are coming down the pike, including:

  • The ACA (and the contraceptives coverage mandate, in particular)
  • The state of health care reform generally
  • Efforts to control health care costs
  • Emerging regulatory pathways to speed patient access to new products
  • And more…

Read the full post here.

TOMORROW, 1/20! A Conversation with Margaret A. Hamburg, FDA Commissioner 2009-2015

A Conversation with Margaret A. Hamburg, FDA Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), speaks during an interview in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. A new program that lets drugmakers move more quickly through the approval process for breakthrough products may help lower the cost of life-saving treatments, Hamburg, the nation's chief drug regulator, said today. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesCommissioner 2009-2015
January 20, 2016 12:30 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2nd floor)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Please join the Petrie-Flom Center for a conversation with former FDA Commissioner (and former New York City Health Commissioner), Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, led by Peter Barton Hutt, former Chief Counsel to FDA and current Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP and Lecturer on Law at HLS. Topics discussed will include FDA’s role and the changing scientific, legal, political, and economic landscape; the overlap of science, innovation, and cost regarding biomedical products; food safety and nutrition; challenges of globalization, and more.

Speakers:

  • Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009-2015
  • Peter Barton Hutt, Covington & Burling and Harvard Law School

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund.

March-In Rights Alone Won’t Solve Our Drug Pricing Problems

On Monday, a group of over 50 members of Congress sent a letter urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to use a little-known statutory provision to take action against high drug prices.  Their goal is laudable, and HHS and the NIH should certainly offer guidance in this area – but the existing law offers only a partial solution to the problem as the legislators describe it.

The members of Congress wrote to remind HHS and the NIH of a provision in the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act giving the government “march-in rights” to patents resulting from government-funded research.  More specifically, the statute spells out a range of conditions under which the government may require a patentholder to grant licenses on reasonable terms to others to practice the patent.  The government may require such a license where “action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs which are not reasonably satisfied,” 35 U.S.C. § 203(a)(2), or where the benefits of the invention are not being made “available to the public on reasonable terms,” 35 U.S.C. § 201(f).  The legislators argue that many drugs today violate these conditions, as even many insured Americans cannot access prescription drugs without incurring significant financial harm.

Although the “march-in rights” provision has existed in the statute since 1980, it has never been exercised by the federal government, even when it has been specifically asked.  And some of these cases have been paradigmatic examples where “health or safety needs” are not being satisfied.  A December 2015 study notes that in Bayh-Dole’s history, there have only been five petitions requesting that the NIH exercise its march-in rights.  Three of those requests were based on high prices for drugs for HIV/AIDS and glaucoma, and one was based on a persistent drug shortage which may have caused the deaths of people with Fabry disease, a rare condition.  (The fifth petition involved a medical device under patent litigation at the time.)  The NIH denied each request.  Some scholars argued that if the NIH denied the Fabry disease petition, where Genzyme’s drug shortages lasted for multiple years and caused great suffering, possibly including death, there may be no circumstances under which the NIH would grant such a petition.

Continue reading

1/20/16: Register Now! A Conversation with Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner 2009-2015

A Conversation with Margaret A. Hamburg, FDA Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), speaks during an interview in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. A new program that lets drugmakers move more quickly through the approval process for breakthrough products may help lower the cost of life-saving treatments, Hamburg, the nation's chief drug regulator, said today. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesCommissioner 2009-2015
January 20, 2016 12:30 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East ABC (2nd floor)
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Please join the Petrie-Flom Center for a conversation with former FDA Commissioner (and former New York City Health Commissioner), Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, led by Peter Barton Hutt, former Chief Counsel to FDA and current Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP and Lecturer on Law at HLS. Topics discussed will include FDA’s role and the changing scientific, legal, political, and economic landscape; the overlap of science, innovation, and cost regarding biomedical products; food safety and nutrition; challenges of globalization, and more.

Speakers:

  • Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009-2015
  • Peter Barton Hutt, Covington & Burling and Harvard Law School

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund.

Happy New Year: From “Weltschmerz” to Pharmaceutical Innovation

Gallery

Dear readers and colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy, healthy and peaceful year 2016. Reaching the end of 2015, I cannot stop thinking about the year that has passed. Being a native German, … Continue reading

Bioethicist Art Caplan – About Time: FDA Overturns Ban On Gay Men Donating Blood

A new piece by Bill of Health contributor Art Caplan on Forbes:

In 2001 one of my goals as the chair of the Federal government’s Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability was to get the ban on gay men donating blood overturned. The ban made no sense ethically or scientifically. The ban stigmatized gay men, and insisting on a lifetime prohibition for even one sexual encounter, condom or no condom, made no scientific sense. Finally, almost 15 years later, the FDA has joined the rest of the Western world and dropped the lifetime prohibition.

The FDA still insists on a one-year ban on having sex with another man even though today’s testing is very reliable for detecting HIV and other diseases at six months. Still, at a time when blood donations are falling and demand is rising, getting more donors into the supply side is a very good thing. […]

Read the full article here.

Bioethicist Art Caplan: Cruz or FDA – Who do you trust with your health?

Bill of Health contributor Arthur Caplan and his colleagues have a new piece up on The Hill Blog:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) not only wants to be your president; he wants to decide what medicines you can get. On Dec. 10, Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation intended to speed up Food and Drug Administration review of drugs and devices that have been approved in certain foreign countries. The Reciprocity Ensures Streamlined Use of Lifesaving Treatments (RESULT) Act would require FDA to approve or reject within 30 days of application any drug or device that has been approved in a “trusted” foreign country — specifically, Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, and the European Union members. Should the FDA reject an application, Congress can override the agency. […]

Read the full post here.

Senator Cruz’s RESULT Act Contains a Particular View of the FDA’s Role – But What About CMS?

Last week, I blogged here about the introduction of the Reciprocity Ensures Streamlined Use of Lifesaving Treatments (RESULT) Act (text) by Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. As I noted, the Act would require the FDA to speed review of drugs, devices, and biologics that are already approved for marketing in a particular list of countries, including EU member countries, Japan, and Canada. If the FDA declines to grant reciprocal marketing approval, the Act would permit Congress to override the FDA’s decision through a majority vote via a joint resolution.

My post, and additional commentary from numerous other outlets (including RAPS, Vox, and Marginal Revolution) largely focused on the Act itself – on the merits of the various provisions, and on whether those provisions would be effective at accomplishing the Act’s stated goals. But each commentator’s view of the situation depends in large part on their priors about what the purpose of the FDA is, and relatedly, how it should behave to achieve those purposes. In this post, I want to first briefly explain these different views about the purpose of the FDA before explaining the ways in which our views about pharmaceutical regulators are often tied to our views about public health insurers – a point which has largely gone unmentioned in the debate about the RESULT Act.

Continue reading

Senator Cruz’s RESULT Act Unlikely to Achieve Results

On Thursday, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced the Reciprocity Ensures Streamlined Use of Lifesaving Treatments (RESULT) Act (text), which would require the FDA to speed review of drugs, devices, and biologics that are already approved for marketing in a particular list of countries, including EU member countries, Japan, and Canada. The Act would require the FDA to grant such “reciprocal marketing approval” within 30 days, unless the FDA makes affirmative determinations about the drug or device’s lack of safety and efficacy. If the FDA declines to grant reciprocal marketing approval, the Act would also permit Congress to override the FDA’s decision through a majority vote via a joint resolution.

Zachary Brennan at RAPS has already provided a helpful explanation of the problems with this proposal, and in particular the problems created if Congress were permitted to override FDA denials of approval. In this post, I want to focus primarily on the Act’s premise. Senators Cruz and Lee argue that this bill would speed approval of drugs and devices “which are currently saving lives in other developed countries, but have not been approved in the U.S. because of FDA red tape.” The implication is two-fold: 1) that drugs are often left languishing at the FDA while they enjoy approval in other countries, and 2) that the FDA has no grounds for failing to approve these drugs. The first argument, about the speed of FDA approval, is made quite frequently by legislators who seek to weaken the FDA’s gatekeeping authority over new drugs and devices in the United States. Unfortunately, it hasn’t really been true for decades. The second argument ignores the historical context of the FDA’s decision-making authority.

Continue reading

Female Viagra: Discrimination or Medicalization or Something Else?

Earlier this year, the flibanserin pill, aka “female Viagra,” was introduced to the market, generating tons of headlines. After many years in which the plain old (male) Viagra was the sole sexual stimulator in the market, flibanserin was finally approved last August, following an 18-6 vote by the FDA advisory committee.

Before approval, flibanserin was rejected twice, and reports say that even members on the advisory board who voted in favor still had misgivings despite their final decision. Their concerns were driven by doubts regarding flibanserin’s effectiveness to treat low sexual drives. Trials showed that women who took the pill ‘earned’ only 0.7 “sexually satisfying events” in a month, whereas the drop-out rate due to negative side effects was relatively high – 14%. The side effects associated with flibanserin are low blood pressure, dizziness and such.

So what made this low cost-benefit ratio get the advisory committee’s approval the third time around? Some credit mass political campaigns promoted by women’s organizations claiming to advocate women’s interests. One position advocated by the organizations presented the pill as a treatment for a legit medical problem called HSDD (hypoactive sexual desire disorder), and it was said to be a step towards realization of women’s sexuality. The other side of the debate pushed back against what they perceive as medicalizing another realm of women’s sexuality and subjecting it (again) to the gaze of the male expert.

Continue reading

The FDA de-regulates the first genetically-engineered animal

By Joanna Sax

On November 19, 2015, the FDA de-regulated the AquAdvantage Salmon.  This salmon is genetically engineered to grow faster.  This is the first time the FDA has de-regulated a genetically engineered animal.

Let me just say from the outset that the scientific consensus is clear that genetically engineered food is as safe as conventional food.  Despite the onslaught of public outrage against GMO food, most of the main arguments against GMO food are just hype.

The genie came out of the bottle a long time ago and it’s not going back in.  This happens time and again with scientific advances.   Over the past few decades, our ability to understand, manipulate, edit, and otherwise employ the DNA of various organisms to facilitate human understanding has grown exponentially.  Efforts to resist, combat, or villain-ize the application of biotechnology to impact society might delay, but will not ultimately succeed in keeping the application of scientific discoveries at bay.

Continue reading

FDA Releases Report Detailing Problematic Laboratory-Developed Tests

Last week, the FDA issued a report presenting 20 case studies of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) that have or may have harmed patients, in support of its ongoing efforts to impose greater regulatory oversight on LDTs.  The report came just before yet another House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the issue, and the timing of its release may have been motivated in part by questions FDA officials faced at the last Congressional hearing, about the existing evidence of harm to patients.  The report categorizes the 20 case studies into seven groups, organized by the primary problem posed by the LDT: those with a high degree of false positives (the test yields a positive result when the disease is not present), those with a high degree of false negatives (the test yields a negative result when the disease is present), those which yield both false positives and false negatives, those which test for a factor seemingly unrelated to the disease in question, those linked to treatments based on disproven scientific concepts, those which affirmatively undermined the drug approval process, and of course, “other.”

Continue reading

The Ongoing Push for E-Cigarette Regulations

By Katherine Kwong

Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics publicly joined the group of advocates for federal regulations on e-cigarettes. The AAP urged the government to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to everyone under age 21 and prohibit advertising to minors, and advocated for high taxes on e-cigarette products similar to those on other tobacco products. In its announcement, the AAP cited developing brains’ vulnerability to nicotine and the potential harms to long-term health as reasons for its recommendations to keep e-cigarettes away from youths. It also recommended that smoke-free laws governing secondhand smoke explicitly include e-cigarettes, saying, “[t]he aerosol emitted from e-cigarettes is not harmless; it contains a variety of toxic chemicals, including some carcinogens and significant amounts of nicotine.”

A recently released poll found that a majority of Americans (57%) believe e-cigarettes should be regulated like tobacco products, while less than 25% of respondents felt they should not be. The Food and Drug Administration proposed e-cigarette regulations in 2014, and recently sent the regulations to the Office of Management and Budget for review. While the final form of the regulations is still unknown, the proposal banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and required e-cigarette labels include a list of ingredients and a disclosure that they contain nicotine.

There is growing concern about the potential health risks posed by e-cigarettes. Advocates for restrictions on e-cigarettes have long warned that unregulated e-cigarettes frequently expose users to the harmful effects of nicotine, as well as toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, benzene, and other carcinogens. There have also been warnings about the risk that e-cigarette use may lead to greater social acceptance of smoking and higher rates of tobacco use. (Despite frequent claims that e-cigarettes may help with smoking cessation, longitudinal studies consistently find no evidence that e-cigarette use increases quitting rates.) Anecdotal evidence has linked e-cigarette use to pneumonia and other lung problems. Forty percent of e-cigarette users reported having health concerns about their use.

Continue reading

Lunch Talk & Book Launch Tomorrow, 10/28: FDA in the 21st Century

lync17118_frontBook Launch: FDA in the 21st Century
October 28, 2015 12:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East C
Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA [Map]

In September 2015, Columbia University Press published FDA in the Twenty-First Century: The Challenges of Regulating Drugs and New Technologies, co-edited by Petrie-Flom Center Executive Director Holly Fernandez Lynch and Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen. This edited volume stems from the Center’s 2013 annual conference, which brought together leading experts from academia, government, and private industry to evaluate the FDA and to begin charting a course for the agency’s future.

This event will provide a discussion of the book, including questions like: How is the agency faring in the 21st century? What are the greatest challenges to the FDA’s success, and what does success look like? What lessons has it learned and how can it best meet the challenges of today? Should we keep the agency we have, pull it apart, or rebuild from scratch?

Panelists: Continue reading

UDI Adoption: A Necessary Step Towards Better Care for Patients with Implanted Devices

By Dalia Deak

In the United States, though many millions of individuals live with implanted devices, it may shock you to know that it is easier to recall tainted dog food than it is to recall a faulty pacemaker. This is due in large part to the lag of the medical device world behind most other industries in the implementation of a standardized system that can uniquely identify and track medical devices as they move through the supply chain to a patient. Such an identification system has existed for most products since stores implemented the UPC and Congress mandated that drugs be labeled with the National Drug Code, both of which were introduced in the early 1970s.

To remedy this lag, Congress, in FDAAA of 2007, tasked the FDA with the creation of a unique device identification (UDI) system. In 2013, FDA published a Final Rule regarding manufacturer labeling of UDIs, to be rolled out by class in the coming years. While the establishment of such a system would certainly constitute an important step forward, another number on a label will do little to enhance patient safety on its own. Rather, the value of UDIs is in the uptake of the identifier at each point in a medical device’s life—from manufacturer to distributor to provider to patient to payer (see this report I co-authored on this very issue). Continue reading