On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law House Bill 4005 (HB 4005), which imposes substantial new state reporting requirements on pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding drug pricing, including details on manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs. HB 4005 also imposes new reporting requirements on health insurers and establishes a temporary task force charged with developing “a strategy to create transparency for drug prices across the entire supply chain of pharmaceutical products.”[1]

HB 4005 is the latest of several state-level drug pricing transparency laws aimed at containing the cost of prescription drugs,[2] and is similar to recent California legislation described here that is the subject of a legal challenge. Unlike the California legislation, HB 4005 appears to require manufacturers to disclose confidential and competitively sensitive information. Thus, HB 4005 could be viewed as the next step in state drug-pricing legislation, justified by some stakeholders on the ground that forcing disclosure of such information will give states—which are often among the largest purchasers of prescription drugs—additional leverage in their negotiation of drug purchases.

This alert summarizes key aspects of HB 4005. Many of the reporting provisions in the new law are ambiguous, meaning full compliance may be difficult without further guidance from the State.

Annual Reporting Requirements: HB 4005 requires manufacturers to make an annual report to Oregon’s Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) for any drug with a wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $100 or more for a one-month supply or course of treatment lasting less than one month that had a WAC increase of 10% or more during the previous calendar year.[3] The first report must be submitted no later than July 1, 2019; subsequent reports must be submitted no later than March 15 annually thereafter.[4] Among other information that must be submitted as part of the annual report, manufacturers must include:

  • the factors that contributed to the price increase;
  • the direct costs incurred by the manufacturer to manufacture, distribute, and market the drug, and for ongoing safety and effectiveness research associated with the drug;
  • the total sales revenue for the drug during the previous calendar year;
  • the 10 highest prices paid for the drug during the previous calendar year in any country other than the United States; and
  • documentation necessary to support the information provided in the report.[5]

For each of the prescription drugs identified in the annual report, manufacturers must also submit information about associated patient assistance programs offered by the manufacturer to Oregon consumers.[6] Required information includes:

  • the number of consumers who participated in the program;
  • the total value of coupons, discounts, and copayment assistance or other reduction in costs provided to program participants in Oregon;
  • the number of refills that qualify for the program (for each drug, as applicable);
  • the period of time that the program is available to each consumer (if the program expires after a specified period of time); and
  • eligibility criteria for the program and how eligibility is verified.

Other Reporting Requirements: Effective March 15, 2019, HB 4005 requires that within 30 days of introducing a new prescription drug for sale in the U.S. with a WAC that exceeds the Medicare Part D threshold for specialty drugs (currently $670 per month), a manufacturer must report to DCBS (among other information):

  • a description of the marketing used in the introduction of the drug;
  • the methodology used to establish the price of the drug;
  • whether FDA granted the drug breakthrough therapy designation or priority review; and
  • if the drug was not developed by the manufacturer, the date and price paid for acquisition of the drug.[7]

HB 4005 authorizes DCBS to issue a written request to manufacturers for supporting documentation or additional information concerning the annual report or price increase report.[8] The new law does not limit the information required to be submitted in an annual report or a price increase report to information that is in the public domain or otherwise publicly available. Information submitted to DCBS under HB 4005’s reporting requirements will be made available on DCBS’s website; trade secret information is exempt from disclosure on DCBS’s website.[9] Failure to report the required information to DCBS—that is, (1) failure to submit timely reports or notices, (2) failure to provide the required information, (3) failure to timely respond to a written request for information from DCBS, or (4) provision of inaccurate or incomplete information—could result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day of violation.[10] The new law also authorizes DCBS to adopt rules that establish fees to be paid by manufacturers that will cover DCBS’s implementation and enforcement costs associated with HB 4005.[11]

Health insurers also are subject to heightened reporting requirements under the new law. HB 4005 requires insurers to disclose the following information about drugs reimbursed by the insurer under state policies or certificates:

  • the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs;
  • the 25 most costly drugs as a portion of total annual spending;
  • the 25 drugs that have caused the greatest increase in total plan spending from one year to the next; and
  • the impact of the costs of prescription drugs on premium rates.[12]

HB 4005 requires DCBS to conduct an annual public hearing on prescription drug prices, information reported via the annual drug pricing reports, and information reported via the insurer prescription drug reports.[13]

* * *

HB 4005 also establishes a temporary 18-member task force to “develop a strategy to create transparency for drug prices across the entire supply chain of pharmaceutical products.”[14] The President of the Senate is to appoint certain members from the legislature (non-voting members) and the Governor is to appoint members including representatives from DCBS, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, consumers, medical providers, and biopharmaceutical companies based in Oregon, among others.[15] The task force is to submit a report to the Oregon legislature by November 1, 2018, which may contain recommendations for legislation and “must contain a cost-effective and enforceable solution that exposes the cost factors that negatively impact prices paid by Oregonians for pharmaceutical products.”[16]

 

[1] HB 4005 2018 Reg. Sess. (Ore. 2018), at Section 11.

[2] See, e.g., S.B. 17 (Cal. 2017), 2017 California Laws Ch. 603; S.B. 539, 79th Sess. (Nev. 2017); H.B. 631 (Md. 2017), 2017 Maryland Laws Ch. 818; S. 216 (Vt. 2016), 2016 Vermont Laws No. 165.

[3] HB 4005 2018 Reg. Sess. (Ore. 2018), at Section 2.

[4] Id.; id., Section 7.

[5] Id., Section 2.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id., Section 3.

[11] Id., Section 2.

[12] Id., Section 5.

[13] Id.

[14] Id., Section 11. HB 4005’s provisions creating the task force are repealed on December 31, 2020. Id., Section 12.

[15] Id., Section 11.

[16] Id.

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Stefanie Doebler Stefanie Doebler

Stefanie Doebler is co-chair of the firm’s Health Care Practice Group, and a member of the Food, Drug, and Device Practice Group. Her practice focuses on health care compliance matters for pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device clients. She provides advice related to advertising…

Stefanie Doebler is co-chair of the firm’s Health Care Practice Group, and a member of the Food, Drug, and Device Practice Group. Her practice focuses on health care compliance matters for pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device clients. She provides advice related to advertising and promotion, fraud and abuse, transparency requirements, state law compliance and reporting regulations, interactions with health care professionals, Medicaid price reporting, and other aspects of federal and state regulation of pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Stefanie also advises on the development and implementation of health care compliance programs.

Photo of Jennifer Plitsch Jennifer Plitsch

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She…

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She has particular expertise in advising clients on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act, including march-in and substantial domestic manufacturing. Jen also has significant experience in negotiation and compliance under non-traditional government agreements including Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs), Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), Cooperative Agreements, Grants, and Small Business Innovation Research agreements.

For over 20 years, Jen’s practice has focused on advising clients in the pharmaceutical, biologics and medical device industry on all aspects of both commercial and non-commercial agreements with various government agencies including:

  • the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA);
  • the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC);
  • the Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBRN); and
  • the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

She regularly advises on the development, production, and supply to the government of vaccines and other medical countermeasures addressing threats such as COVID-19, Ebola, Zika, MERS-CoV, Smallpox, seasonal and pandemic influenza, tropical diseases, botulinum toxin, nerve agents, and radiation events. In addition, for commercial drugs, biologics, and medical devices, Jen advises on Federal Supply Schedule contracts, including the complex pricing requirements imposed on products under the Veterans Health Care Act, as well as on the obligations imposed by participation in the 340B Drug Pricing program.

Jen also has significant experience in domestic sourcing compliance under the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), including regulatory analysis and comments, certifications, investigations, and disclosures (including under the Acetris decision and Biden Administration Executive Orders). She also advises on prevailing wage requirements, including those imposed through the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Photo of Julia Post Julia Post

Julia Post advises companies and trade associations on a broad range of regulatory and policy matters related to drugs, biologics, and other regulated products in both the U.S. and China. Julia has significant experience in advising clients on clinical trial and product development…

Julia Post advises companies and trade associations on a broad range of regulatory and policy matters related to drugs, biologics, and other regulated products in both the U.S. and China. Julia has significant experience in advising clients on clinical trial and product development matters, including informed consent requirements, biospecimen procurement and research use, and other good clinical practice. She advises clients regularly on product life-cycle management issues, including patent linkage frameworks and marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and China.

Julia works with pharmaceutical, medical device, food, and cosmetics clients on complex regulatory compliance matters and helps them develop their advocacy strategies before U.S. and China regulators, at both national and local levels. She regularly assists companies and trade associations on policy issues, including the development and submission of comments on legislative and regulatory proposals. Julia works closely with local counsel throughout the Asia-Pacific region to assist clients with their marketing approval and compliance strategies.

Prior to joining the Food, Drug, and Device practice group, Julia was a member of the Litigation practice group where she focused on representing clients in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation.

Julia has an active pro bono practice at Covington, with a particular focus on reproductive justice matters and representation of third-party caregivers and children in custody cases.

Photo of Anna D. Kraus Anna D. Kraus

Anna Durand Kraus advises on issues relating to the complex array of laws governing the health care industry. Her background as Deputy General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) gives her broad experience with, and valuable insight into…

Anna Durand Kraus advises on issues relating to the complex array of laws governing the health care industry. Her background as Deputy General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) gives her broad experience with, and valuable insight into, the programs and issues within the purview of HHS, including Medicare, Medicaid, fraud and abuse, and HIPAA privacy and security. Anna is co-chair of the firm’s Health Care Industry practice group.

Anna regularly advises clients on Medicare reimbursement matters, particularly those arising under Part B and the Part D prescription drug benefit. She also has extensive experience with the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. She assists numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, health care providers, pharmacy benefit managers, and other health care industry stakeholders to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the Affordable Care Act.

Anna is a trusted adviser on health information privacy, security and breach notification issues, including those arising under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act. Her background in this area dates back to the issuance of the original HIPAA privacy regulations.

Anna’s clients depend on her to guide them through compliance with the Anti-Kickback statute, the Stark regulations, and other laws preventing fraud and abuse in the health care industry. Her deep knowledge of these laws has made her an important component of the firm’s representation of pharmaceutical companies and health care organizations under federal investigation or facing allegations under the False Claims Act. In addition, clients contemplating acquisitions in the health care sector rely on her to guide due diligence efforts.