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 AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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