11 Key Takeaways from the 3rd Annual Life Science Compliance Training Conference

Last week, we sponsored Q1 Production’s 3rd Annual Life Science Compliance Training Conference, where a highly-energized group of compliance training leaders from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries shared their ideas and techniques for making compliance training more engaging, creative and effective.

Here are my key takeaways from two great days of presentations and spirited conversation:

1. Less is more.
The idea of shorter, higher-impact training was reiterated throughout the conference and was a common theme across the presentations. One presenter said her company now limits all compliance training to 15 minutes and another said her company “hasn’t rolled out training longer than 15 minutes in two years.”

2. Remember the tone from the middle.
While “tone from the top” has been a point of emphasis in the industry for a long time, “tone from the middle” was cited as a key in multiple sessions in Chicago. “The immediate manager has to understand the message,” one presenter said, “that is who the people in the field are going to hear the message from.”

3. Communication is training too.
As one presenter put it, “anytime we can connect with an employee with something they can takeaway, it’s training.” Companies are using a variety of methods to make that connection, ranging from quick reminders via email, to video clips, resource websites, and graphic comic novels. Think outside the box and look for continuous touch points.

4. Tell a good story.
Research shows that well written stories improve learning and increase retention of critical compliance content and policies. The quality of the writing is the key. Once you find a good writer, have him or her create a story arc and develop a narrative. To save on budget in the production, use illustration instead of video. It’s less complex. The quality of the writing is as important, if not more important, than the nature of the medium.

5. Measure the metrics.
Data is important and even the “soft” metrics like feedback from the learners and the managers, testing results, changes in audit data, and increases in hotline reports, are important when identifying what curriculum adjustments are necessary. Data is important, so much so that one presenter noted that she recently hired a “data analytics person” to see what else they can learn.

6. The principles-based approach to compliance is here to stay.
The principles-based approach to compliance was introduced years ago and it has clearly become a trend in the life science industry. Multiple presenters discussed the need to empower personnel with the ability to make decisions, rather than just training on the rules. As one presenter put it, “let them make their decisions about what is the right thing to do, and let them know where to get the answers if they are uncomfortable making the decisions.”

7. GXP compliance training requires a different approach.
This one was a surprise and was raised in response to questions from the audience. Several presenters noted that they are also responsible for GXP compliance training and the nature of the content and the expectations of the learners require a much more traditional approach to training. Essentially, a rules-based approach is much more necessary when dealing with manufacturing compliance.

8. Create a brand.
To quote one presenter, “companies spend millions of dollars branding products, so why not brand compliance training?” Branding gives you more opportunities to creatively communicate the key concepts and messaging. Brand the policies and the principles to create a coordinated and clear message.

9. One size does not fit all.
When developing compliance training, keep the learner’s application of the content in mind. In other words, make it relevant to the learners. Use scenarios that reflect risks they are likely to encounter. As one presenter stated, “training needs to be risk-based, and you need to train on the topics that are core to your business.”

10. Relationships count.
Getting stakeholder buy in on the training at every stage (development/delivery/completion) is critical. Don’t just focus on the proverbial seat at the table with upper management, develop relationships across the company, and seek feedback from the business groups, sales managers, and sales training.

11. And finally, beware of the speaker programs!
When evaluating risks, make those speaker programs a priority.

Kudos to Q1 productions, the presenters, and everyone involved in the 3rd Annual Life Science Compliance Training Conference. From the opening audience ice-breaker, to the closing session, it was one of the most informative, focused, and engaging conferences I have attended in ten years of working in life science compliance.

I look forward to next year’s conference and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in sharing ideas and hearing what others in the industry are doing to make their curricula more engaging and more effective.

Thanks for reading!

Sean Murphy
Product and Marketing Manager
PharmaCertify by NXLevel Solutions

“Dear Connie the Compliance Training Specialist” Debuts on the PharmaCertify Blog!

Welcome to the inaugural edition of “Dear Connie the Compliance Training Specialist,” where we answers questions about timely compliance topics and delve into the best training methods to reduce the risks.  

This week: managing the potential perils of speaker programs

————————————————-

Dear Connie,

I am a compliance manager for a small pharmaceutical company in the Northeast. I am concerned that our new sales representatives may assume that they don’t need to worry about the details on speaker programs since an outside vendor manages them for us. We touch on speaker programs in the initial training all representatives take, but I am not sure we emphasized their responsibilities enough. Am I crazy to be concerned?

Signed,

Concerned in Connecticut

—————————————————

Dear Concerned,

First, you are not crazy and I understand your concern. Speaker programs are a hotbed for potential compliance risks. It has been my experience that if you roll out additional training, like microlearning, assessments, and contests continuously to the reps, you’ll significantly reduce the risk around speaker programs.

Here are just a few topics to keep top-of-mind for the reps, and cover in the continuous training, even when an outside vendor is managing the program for you.

Attending to Attendees Concerns

On-going training needs to emphasize the finer details involving attendance. Representatives need to know that transparency laws require attendance to be documented, and it also helps the company evaluate the program. Whether a meal is offered or not, all attendees must sign-in. Reps need to remember no-shows and those who refuse a meal must be documented.

Speaker programs typically have a minimum required number of attendees. If the RSVPs fall short of that number, the program should be cancelled. Verbal commitments do not count.

Off-label Questions

Off-label questions asked during the presentation are another area of concern. If your company allows speakers to answer off-label questions (not all companies do), the speaker needs to make attendees aware that the question is in reference to an off-label use, and answer only the question that is asked. If that doesn’t happen, the sales representative must interrupt the speaker. Otherwise, the company can be accused of promoting the product for the off-label use. This is a great topic for role-playing during live training.

In addition, physician speakers represent the company. The programs are promotional in nature, so representatives must follow FDA regulations and speakers must follow the approved program. They may not proactively share their experience involving unapproved uses of products.

Speaker Requirements and Issues

I remember one case when a speaker unavoidably arrived late due to traffic and he suggested that he skip several slides to catch up on the time. Make sure the representative knows to stand firm on this. All slides must be delivered.

Another time, the representative realized, after the presentation started, that the speaker added his own slides to the deck. Representatives need to be trained to not panic and cause a disruption, but make note of the incident and notify a manager and the compliance department about the incident. Representatives should remind speakers that in the future, only the approved slides may be used.

Speakers sometimes ask if they can bring additional material about the topic being discussed, to hand out to the attendees. Representatives need to be trained to always let the speaker know that all materials must be approved by their company in advance of the program – whether the request occurs prior to the program or when the speaker arrives. Unapproved handouts are not permitted.

Thank you for a great question!

Connie the Compliance Training Specialist

Kicking Out Kickbacks in the Medical Device Industry

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits the exchange of anything of value to induce or reward the referral of federal health care program business. Business processes that are perfectly legitimate in other industries, like entertaining clients, or providing gifts to prospects, can be tricky in the medical device industry. Identifying the activities hold the potential to implicate the Anti-Kickback Statute is key to reducing risk across a medical device company.

Here are five areas to evaluate for risk:

Device Loaners/Evaluation Units
Device loaners and evaluation units are big risks. Be sure to provide only as many units as needed for evaluation, and for no longer than is necessary for the evaluation. If the loaner is provided to temporarily replace a broken unit, make sure the loan period does not continue past the time necessary to complete the service work.

Pricing Discounts
Pricing discounts require a level of transparency on the part of the seller and the buyer. Purchase agreements must clearly disclose the discount, and purchasers should be advised in writing that they too need to disclose the discount when they submit information to federal healthcare programs for reimbursement.

Gifts, Meals, Travel
Providing meals, gifts, travel and hospitality to an individual who is in a position to purchase, or recommend the use of a product, is risky. Gifts that do not have an educational benefit for the recipient or patients are particularly problematic.

When a gift is provided, the value should be nominal and cash or cash equivalents are never appropriate. Avoid lavish meals, and make sure meals occur in locations that are conducive to holding a business, educational, or scientific discussion. Finally, do not provide lavish travel or hospitality for company training or meetings.

Consulting Agreements
Remember to establish the objectives for consulting engagements with healthcare professionals (HCPs) prior to the start of the business relationship and only use as many consultants as needed to achieve the objectives. Timelines need to be included in the agreement and the consultants must be compensated at fair market value. The consulting relationship needs to be disclosed during the program.

Grants and Donations
Establish processes to objectively evaluate requests for grants and donations. Support should not be awarded to induce or reward the purchase or recommendation of product. Support of educational grants should not be contingent on the ability to select faculty or determine content of the program.

Medical Device Anti-Kickback Training
Our Compliance Foundations medical device eLearning modules cover critical topics such as the Anti-Kickback Statute, interactions with healthcare professionals, transparency, and speaker programs. Course titles include The AdvaMed Code; Global Anticorruption Laws; Medical Device Compliance Overview; and On-label Promotion. To see a demo and learn more, please contact Dan O’Connor at doconnor@nxlevelsolutions.com or 609-483-6875.

Thanks for reading!

Lauren Barnett, Senior Compliance Specialist

Compliance Trends 2018: Our Point of View

The festivities have ended and a shiny new year is upon us, so we are switching hats – from party to prognostication – to delve into what we see as the hot compliance topics and trends for 2018. Based on our reading of the enforcement tea leaves, several 2017 topics should remain at the forefront, but our prediction on the level of activity emanating from the OPDP has changed from last year. So if you’ve resolved to stay up-to-date on all the compliance news fit to blog this year, what better way to start than with this look ahead.

We expect funding for patient assistance organizations, which are charities that provide financial assistance to patients to help cover the cost of medications, to be a trending topic in 2018. In 2016, federal agencies started to focus on the topic and issued subpoenas related to support provided to these charities. In 2017, two companies entered into settlements with the government over that funding. The government considers the practice to be a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute because the funding offsets the co-pay of patients who participate in government healthcare programs.

Donations to charities that assist with medication costs are permitted, but assistance cannot be directed to patients who are prescribed the donating company’s medications. We would not be surprised to see the government take more of an interest in the financial relationship between the industry and charitable patient organizations this year. Training must emphasize the need to maintain appropriate independence between the company and the patient organizations it chooses to support.

In 2017, a small group of states passed laws related to price reporting, sales representative registration, and physician payment caps. That trend should continue in 2018 and the laws will most likely be focused on pricing transparency, as opposed to spend transparency, which was more common a few years ago. Expect more states to follow New Jersey’s lead and implement broader restrictions and caps on payments to healthcare professionals. The law is intended to combat the growing opioid addiction crisis.

2017 was a surprising year for the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). After a flurry of letters at the end of 2016, we expected the agency to continue that trend into 2017, but only four letters were issued the entire year. That is a record low. Don’t expect a dramatic increase this year.

The letters that were issued last year were focused on false and misleading statements related to risk and omission of risk. Two industry settlements in 2017 included charges of failure to disclose risk in violation of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, so emphasizing the importance of fair balance and truthful, accurate promotional statements when training sales representatives is critical.

On the global front, we would not be surprised to see an uptick in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement following the implementation of new processes that reward companies for self-disclosing potential violations and cooperating with investigations.

With that, we end this “preview” edition of the Compliance News in Review. To be automatically notified when we post new editions of the News in Review, conference highlights, or compliance training tips, just click the “follow” button on the right side of this page.

Have a safe and compliant 2018!

The 2017 Compliance Year in Review!

As the year winds to a close, we take a break from the hustle and bustle of holiday preparations to reflect on the 2017 trends, topics, and focal points from the world of life sciences compliance. It’s been a busy year, with some expected updates, along with a few surprises, filling our News in Review missives from month to month. So, grab a cup of egg nog, fire up the Yule Log on YouTube, and enjoy this “year in review” edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Drug pricing transparency was a hot topic at the end of 2016, and the trend carried through 2017. The rules for Chicago’s new sales representative licensure law, which is intended to help combat opioid addiction, went into effect. The law requires representatives to obtain a license to sell products in the city and to document their interactions with healthcare professionals. In California, drug manufacturers must now notify the State and other payers in advance when they intend to raise the wholesale acquisition cost of a drug over a certain percentage, and when new drugs are expected to have a wholesale acquisition cost that exceeds the Medicare Part D specialty drug threshold. Nevada passed similar legislation, but its law focuses on diabetes drugs. Nevada also requires sales representatives to be licensed and provide reports of their interactions with HCPs. Finally, Louisiana also jumped on the pricing transparency train.

In an effort to combat the opioid crisis,  Governor Christie in New Jersey issued rules that cap payments made to healthcare professionals by pharmaceutical companies.  Maine passed a gift ban law similar to the existing Minnesota law and, not surprisingly, we heard from Vermont in 2017. The attorney general there is reportedly investigating whether drug and device companies are adhering to the state’s HCP gift ban law.

Not all state-level action was successful. Missouri’s proposed price transparency law did not pass during the past legislative session, and a bill in California to restrict gifts and payments to HCPs passed the state Senate, but was rejected in the Assembly.

Pharmaceutical support for patient assistance charities was another 2016 hot topic that continued through 2017.  An IRS investigation into one of the charities focused on whether it provided an improper benefit to pharmaceutical donors by using the donations to purchase the drugs manufactured by those same companies. Support of patient assistance charities also figured into one company’s healthcare fraud criminal and civil settlement with the government.

2017 was a quiet year for the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). During December of 2016, the agency dropped a flurry of letters, but 2017 will likely see record low in activity with only three letters being issued so far for the entire year.

This was an interesting year in bribery and corruption enforcement. It began with a bang in January as the Serious Fraud Office entered into its first major Deferred Prosecution Agreement. With a changing of the guard in the U.S., FCPA actions were more subdued, but the diagnostic test company, Alere, settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission over improper payments to foreign officials allegedly made by its Colombian and Indian subsidiaries.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) published its Compliance Program Evaluation Guidance in 2017. The document offers details on what the agency considers to be an effective compliance program. Perhaps most notably, the DOJ made its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Pilot Program permanent. The pilot program ended in early 2017, but it was effectively made permanent with the announcement of a new FCPA Enforcement Policy. Like the pilot program, the new policy encourages companies to self-report possible FCPA violations and rewards companies for their  cooperation during investigations.

With that, we close out another issue of the Compliance News in Review, and another year in the wonderful world of life sciences compliance. We look forward to keeping you up-to-date on all compliance news fit to blog in 2017 and continuing to provide you with an ever-expanding suite of PharmaCertify compliance training products and services.

Thank you for reading. Have a warm and wonderful holiday season and a happy New Year!

One company seeks to negotiate a settlement with the several states over opioid marketing, while Vermont investigates violations of its gift ban regulation…in this edition of Compliance News in Review.

Will Purdue Pharma go for the Hail Mary? Is Vermont about to throw a flag for gift ban violations? Is there a new way to offset bribery penalties? Will there be a third down push from the OPDP? We address these questions and more, in this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

In the words of Max from Where the Wild Things Are, “let the wild rumpus start.” No, not the holiday shopping frenzy (although that certainly applies), but the college football conference championships! Championship weekend is upon us and with it, the fight for a position in the playoffs. So far, the season has had its share of twists and turns, and the conference championships should provide additional drama. It all ends with the selection of the four playoff teams on December 3rd. To help fill the time to kickoff, we offer “X’s” and “O’s” of our own, in this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Has Purdue Pharma huddled up with several state attorneys general? According to people familiar with the situation, the company has reached out to the states to gauge their interest in a global settlement related to its opioid drug. Currently, a consortium of 41 state attorneys general are investigating several opioid manufacturers’ marketing and sales practices. While Purdue is not authorized to represent other opioid makers, those familiar with the situation say the company is seeking an agreement that would cover all states’ lawsuits against all opioid manufacturers.

Vermont is calling for a review. The Vermont attorney general is investigating possible violations of the state’s gift to healthcare professionals ban according to a source familiar with the matter. The state law bans the provision of most items of value to healthcare providers. However, Open Payment data shows that physicians are receiving gifts, travel, and other banned transfers of value.

Companies that cooperate in FCPA investigations will now score big points with the Department of Justice. The agency will now consider foregoing criminal charges when a company self-reports. If a company cooperates with prosecutors, fixes the issue that led to the investigation, and helps investigators find the individuals responsible for the misconduct, the DOJ will presume the issue can be resolved without criminal charges. Any profits received from the misconduct will still need to be forfeited. Companies that do not voluntarily report possible FCPA violations may still be eligible for some leniency if they cooperate with investigators.

The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion has issued its third violation letter for 2017. A warning letter was issued to Amherst Pharmaceuticals and Magna Pharmaceuticals over promotional statements related to an insomnia drug. The OPDP cited false or misleading information about the risks and efficacy of the drug found on a product webpage and an exhibit panel. The letter also stated that the companies failed to submit the webpage and exhibit panels to the FDA prior to them being first used, as is required. Magna Pharmaceuticals says it will correct the exhibit panels and make sure all materials in the marketplace are correct. Amherst Pharmaceuticals was cited for information on the product webpage, but sold the insomnia drug to Magna in May.

With that news from the OPDP, the clock is winding down on this conference championship edition of the Compliance News in Review. If you’ve got a Dawg (how’s that for a hint as to who we will be pulling for?) in the fight in this weekend’s conference championships, we wish you luck (unless of course, your “Dawg” is a Tiger). Good luck to your favorite team or alma mater and we’ll see you here for the next edition.

Thanks for reading!

Open Payments Funding and Another Kickback Case in the News

An Open Payments letter from two senators, a list of diabetes drugs from Nevada, near silence from the Office of Prescription Drug and Promotion (OPDP), and an unsealed kickback case…all in this edition of the Compliance News in Review.

Thanksgiving is just around the corner! There’s nothing like a day of food, family, friends, and parades (and of course, football!) to kick off the holiday season. Can’t you just smell the turkey and fixings permeating the hallways and your olfactory senses now? Before we go unpack our “Thanksgiving pants,” we’ll leave you with a different type of tasty morsel: a new edition of the Compliance News in Review. Bon appetit!

Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chuck Grassley don’t want to see CMS’s Center for Program Integrity (CPI) left at the kids’ table. They sent a letter to the acting Health and Human Services Secretary urging that funding for the CPI be made a priority. The CPI is responsible for managing the Open Payments database. The letter includes references to “recent reports that have raised concerns about the effect payments to health professionals may have on opioid prescribing practices, which in many ways has exacerbated this ongoing public health epidemic.”

Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services published its list of three dozen diabetes drugs that are subject to the State’s new transparency law. Manufacturers with a drug on the list will have to report a variety of financial information, including costs associated with production the drug; rebates and coups offered; and profits earned from the drug. Regulations for reporting the information are still pending.

Will the OPDP pass on dessert at Thanksgiving Dinner? OPDP is on pace to issue a record low number of letters this year. So far, only two letters have been issued. In 2016, the agency issued five in the first six months, then in December, it issued six more. The letter count has steadily declined over the last sixteen years. Will 2017 will be a record low?

On the social media front, Twitter upped its character limit to 280, and according to social media manager, Andrew Grojean, pharmaceutical marketers should take advantage of the expanded word count. Grojean says the change does not solve all the issues related to use of the platform, but it provides more freedom and flexibility, as well as more space for the required fair balance.

Did Eli Lilly over stuff the turkey? A recently unsealed whistle blower case alleges that the company provided kickbacks to boost sales of its drugs. According to the suit, the company offered nursing services to HCPs through a third-party to induce doctors to prescribe three of its drugs. Allegedly, the nurses essentially acted as sales reps even though they were supposed to be providing independent medical advice and disease state education.

With that, we end this holiday edition of the Compliance News in Review. In the spirit of the season, we are thankful to all who take the time to read our tome on a regular basis, and as always, we invite you to contact our editor, Sean Murphy, with your feedback. He can be reached at smurphy@nxlevelsolutions.com.

Have a fun and festive Thanksgiving holiday!