The Serious Fraud Office has its second application for a DPA approved, CMS solicits feedback, and experts are dismissed from an advisory panel due to perceived conflicts.
It’s hot, it’s humid, and the editorial staff at the New Jersey AND Georgia offices of the Compliance News in Review is already desperately seeking safety from the sun’s intense rays. The dog days of summer have arrived with gusto. If you’re looking for a good reason to spend a few more minutes in the comfortable confines of an air conditioned office or home, we suggest a deep dive into the cool waters of this edition of the CNIR, and all of the compliance news fit to blog.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) seem to be no sweat for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The agency has had its second application for a DPA approved in a case that involves violations of the UK Bribery Act. The company involved agreed to pay $8.48 million in fines and disgorgement. It must also report annually on its third-party intermediary transactions and compliance programs, and continue to cooperate with the SFO. The DPA remains in effect until 2020, but it may be terminated in 2018 if the company meets its financial obligations by then.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is basking in the Sunshine these days. In the proposed 2017 Physician Fee schedule, the agency solicited feedback for a number of questions related to the Open Payments program. The questions cover record retention, issues related to teaching hospitals, and the nature of payment categorization. Of particular note, the agency is seeking feedback about the benefits of pre-vetting payments with covered recipients and issues related to uploading data to Open Payments.
In an indication that their relationships with industry were a little too hot to handle, several experts have been removed from a panel that is responsible for advising the FDA about painkillers. The panel was created by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, a larger advisory group to the FDA. The removal of the panel members appears to have been spurred by a letter Senator Ron Wyden sent to the Academy of Medicine complaining that some panelists had received support (in the form of grants) from pharmaceutical companies. One panelist, Dr. Mary Lynn McPherson, says the support in question did not go to her directly, it went to the university where she is on staff, and was in the form of unrestricted grants so the pharmaceutical companies never had input on how the money was used. Another of the dismissed panelists, Dr. Gregory Terman, says he was removed because the nonprofit group he heads received funding from several pharmaceutical companies. Terman says his association with the nonprofit was well known, and he has gone out of his way to avoid conflicts of interest.
The last story serves as a reminder that much of the data regarding the relationship between healthcare professionals and the industry is presented with little context as to the nature and reasons for the payments. HCPs are understandably sensitive about receiving certain transfers of value, and they have questions about how those TOVs are disclosed. Your transparency training should remind learners that they need to be sensitive about these concerns, and educate them on the proper protocol for addressing HCP questions about data.
With that, we close this mid-summer edition of the Compliance News in Review. Stay compliant and stay cool.