A new study reveals surprising information about FDA panelists and their ties to manufacturers seeking regulatory approval, the DOJ files a False Claims suit against a neurosurgeon and a spinal implant company, the FTC accuses two companies of trying to stymie generic competition for Androgel, and a collection of advocacy groups ask CMS for an indirect payments exemption.

Ahoy there mateys! Stand fast, secure the rigging, and let us hear your best “arrr.” Yes, “Talk Like a Pirate Day” is on the horizon. As you prepare to weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen, we strongly recommend you avoid the parrot on the shoulder idea – that didn’t end well for one of the old salts here at the Week in Review offices last year. The big day isn’t until Friday, so we’ll fill the time with this week’s Compliance News in Review.

It’s not the amount of treasure involved, but rather the type of treasure, that may be more influential in the decisions made by FDA panel members when they decide which drugs to recommend for regulatory approval. A recent study found that panelists who have financial ties only to the drug manufacturer seeking approval are 1.5 times more likely to vote favorably for the company than members with no ties. However panelists who have ties to the company seeking approval and its competitors are no more likely to recommend for approval than those panelists who have no ties. Panelists with multiple relationship may not have a sense of loyalty to any one particular manufacturer. In addition, panelists who serve on advisory boards are more likely to approve a drug than panelists who have research or consulting relationships with the manufacturer.

A physician and spinal implant company have found themselves on the wrong end of a hornswaggle claim by the Department of Justice. The agency has filed a False Claims Act suit against a Michigan neurosurgeon, as well as spinal implant company, Reliance Medical Systems, and two of its distributorships. The company is accused of paying kickbacks through physician-owned distributorships (PODs). The government alleges that the company set up the PODs to induce physicians to use its spinal implants. The physician involved received payments through a POD in which he had an ownership stake. He is also accused of performing unnecessary procedures on patients who did not need spinal implants.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is suing Abbvie and Besins Healthcare for running a rig and trying to prevent generic competition for the product Androgel. The agency claims the companies filed baseless patent infringement lawsuits in an effort to prevent potential generic competitors from entering the market. While the lawsuits were pending, Abbvie then entered into a pay-for-delay deal with Teva in order to postpone the launch of its generic version of the product. The FTC is asking the court to declare that Abbvie and Besins Healthcare violated the Federal Trade Act, and is seeking disgorgement of profits.

The mutiny against indirect payment disclosures under Sunshine continues to grow. A collection of 64 patient advocacy groups sent a letter to CMS requesting an exemption for indirect payments to the groups. The letter claims drug and device manufacturers have no discretion on how funds provided to patient advocacy groups are directed. It also suggests that the process of determining how a manufacturer’s funds are allocated places an unnecessary administrative burden on the groups.

As we heave to on this week’s journey into the world of compliance, we end with a question: arrr your sales representatives prepared with the up-to-date content on topics like the Sunshine Act, HIPAA, and Good Promotional Practices? The PharmaCertify™ suite of solutions offers your team compliance-focused information where and when they need it most – in the field and at their fingertips.

Have a great rest of the week everyone.