Health Care Reform's 'Sunshine' Law Requires Drug and Device Company Disclosures
Provision requires public reporting of all payments to doctors and teaching hospitals.
May 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
Employers in all industries face the challenge of implementing changes in their employee benefit plans as a result of the sweeping health care reform program that became law in March (see “Examining the New Health Care Law“). But health care providers, pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers face even more change as a result of “sunshine” and “integrity” provisions of the new law.
Included in the massive legislation is the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires drug and device manufacturers to make annual federal disclosures of their financial relationships with, and in-kind contributions to, physicians and teaching hospitals. The reports will be available to the public via an online database. While some states already require such disclosures, the new law is the first federal transparency requirement for the health care industry.
“The sunshine provisions for the first time on a broad-based national basis would require the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and devices to report payments that they make to physicians,” says Laura Keidan Martin, a partner in the health care practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman. “It requires disclosure of every transfer of cash, in-kind consideration or stock. Every dinner a sales rep has with a doctor now will have to be reported. It's very controversial because physicians feel it is an invasion of privacy, but the point is the public should know the relationships that their physicians have.”
While the first reporting deadline isn't until March 2013, Martin suggests that drug and device manufacturers start to prepare now.
“It's a huge undertaking to report every payment, in cash or in kind, including travel, consulting payments, royalty payments–and post them on a website,” Martin says. “For those kinds of companies, it's a really big change. It will require companies who haven't already done so to do a comprehensive review of every arrangement with a physician and make sure there is a need for it.”
Martin adds that the provision applies to contributions of all kinds to teaching hospitals as well to doctors.
“If a teaching hospital is getting a grant from a pharmaceutical company, that will have to be disclosed,” she says.
The law calls for stiff penalties for failure to report. Penalties range from $1,000 to $10,000 per payment for unintentional failure to report, up $10,000 to $100,000 for intentional failure to report.
In addition, physicians will have to report ownership interests in imaging facilities such as MRI centers; hospitals; and group purchasing organizations. This provision apparently will take effect as soon as regulations are issued, probably later this year, Martin says.
The health care law's “integrity” provisions include an important change for health care providers, Martin adds. A provider that discovers an overpayment from Medicare and Medicaid now has just 60 days to report and return the overpayment.
“Sixty days to identify and go through the necessary approvals is a nano-second,” Martin says. “It's a huge, huge change. [Providers] need to make changes now to have a protocol in place so once they ID an overpayment, they have a protocol to deal with it.”
Employers in all industries face the challenge of implementing changes in their employee benefit plans as a result of the sweeping health care reform program that became law in March (see “Examining the New Health Care Law“). But health care providers, pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers face even more change as a result of “sunshine” and “integrity” provisions of the new law.
Included in the massive legislation is the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which requires drug and device manufacturers to make annual federal disclosures of their financial relationships with, and in-kind contributions to, physicians and teaching hospitals. The reports will be available to the public via an online database. While some states already require such disclosures, the new law is the first federal transparency requirement for the health care industry.
“The sunshine provisions for the first time on a broad-based national basis would require the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and devices to report payments that they make to physicians,” says Laura Keidan Martin, a partner in the health care practice at
While the first reporting deadline isn't until March 2013, Martin suggests that drug and device manufacturers start to prepare now.
“It's a huge undertaking to report every payment, in cash or in kind, including travel, consulting payments, royalty payments–and post them on a website,” Martin says. “For those kinds of companies, it's a really big change. It will require companies who haven't already done so to do a comprehensive review of every arrangement with a physician and make sure there is a need for it.”
Martin adds that the provision applies to contributions of all kinds to teaching hospitals as well to doctors.
“If a teaching hospital is getting a grant from a pharmaceutical company, that will have to be disclosed,” she says.
The law calls for stiff penalties for failure to report. Penalties range from $1,000 to $10,000 per payment for unintentional failure to report, up $10,000 to $100,000 for intentional failure to report.
In addition, physicians will have to report ownership interests in imaging facilities such as MRI centers; hospitals; and group purchasing organizations. This provision apparently will take effect as soon as regulations are issued, probably later this year, Martin says.
The health care law's “integrity” provisions include an important change for health care providers, Martin adds. A provider that discovers an overpayment from Medicare and Medicaid now has just 60 days to report and return the overpayment.
“Sixty days to identify and go through the necessary approvals is a nano-second,” Martin says. “It's a huge, huge change. [Providers] need to make changes now to have a protocol in place so once they ID an overpayment, they have a protocol to deal with it.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250