II. Compliance Program Elements B. Written Policies and Procedures (Page 1)
In developing a compliance program, every pharmaceutical manufacturer should develop and distribute written compliance standards, procedures, and practices that guide the company and the conduct of its employees in day-to-day operations. These policies and procedures should be developed under the direction and supervision of the compliance officer, the compliance committee, and operational managers.
At a minimum, the policies and procedures should be provided to all employees who are affected by these policies, and to any agents or contractors who may furnish services that impact federal health care programs (e.g., contractors involved in the co-promotion of a manufacturer’s products).
1. Code of Conduct
Although a clear statement of detailed and substantive policies and procedures is at the core of a compliance program, the OIG recommends that pharmaceutical manufacturers also develop a general corporate statement of ethical and compliance principles that will guide the company’s operations. One common expression of this statement of principles is the code of conduct. The code should function in the same fashion as a constitution, i.e., as a document that details the fundamental principles, values, and framework for action within an organization. The code of conduct for a pharmaceutical manufacturer should articulate the company’s expectations of commitment to compliance by management, employees, and agents, and should summarize the broad ethical and legal principles under which the company must operate. Unlike the more detailed policies and procedures, the code of conduct should be brief, easily readable, and cover general principles applicable to all employees.
As appropriate, the OIG strongly encourages the participation and involvement of the pharmaceutical manufacturer’s board of directors, CEO, president, members of senior management, and other personnel from various levels of the organizational structure in the development of all aspects of the compliance program, especially the code of conduct. Management and employee involvement in this process communicates a strong and explicit commitment by management to foster compliance with applicable federal health care program requirements. It also communicates the need for all employees to comply with the organization’s code of conduct and policies and procedures.
2. Specific Risk Areas
This section is intended to help prudent pharmaceutical manufacturers identify areas of their operations that present potential risk of liability under several key federal fraud and abuse statutes and regulations.6 This section focuses on areas that are currently of concern to the enforcement community and is not intended to address all potential risk areas for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Importantly, the identification of a particular practice or activity in this section is not intended to imply that the practice or activity is necessarily illegal in all circumstances or that it may not have a valid or lawful purpose underlying it.
This section addresses the following areas of significant concern for pharmaceutical manufacturers: (1) Integrity of data used by state and federal governments to establish payment amounts; (2) kickbacks and other illegal remuneration; and (3) compliance with laws regulating drug samples.
This guidance does not create any new law or legal obligations, and the discussions that follow are not intended to present detailed or comprehensive summaries of lawful and unlawful activity. Rather, these discussions should be used as a starting point for a manufacturer’s legal review of its particular practices and for development of policies and procedures to reduce or eliminate potential risk.
a. Integrity of Data Used To Establish or Determine Government Reimbursement. Many federal and state health care programs establish or ultimately determine reimbursement rates for pharmaceuticals, either prospectively or retrospectively, using price and sales data directly or indirectly furnished by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The government sets reimbursement with the expectation that the data provided are complete and accurate. The knowing submission of false, fraudulent, or misleading information is actionable. A pharmaceutical manufacturer may be liable under the False Claims Act7 if government reimbursement (including, but not limited to, reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid) for the manufacturer’s product depends, in whole or in part, on information generated or reported by the manufacturer, directly or indirectly, and the manufacturer has knowingly (as defined in the False Claims Act) failed to generate or report such information completely and accurately. Manufacturers may also be liable for civil money penalties under various laws, rules and regulations. Moreover, in some circumstances, inaccurate or incomplete reporting may be probative of liability under the federal anti-kickback statute.
Where appropriate, manufacturers’ reported prices should accurately take into account price reductions, cash discounts, free goods contingent on a purchase agreement, rebates, up-front payments, coupons, goods in kind, free or reduced-price services, grants, or other price concessions or similar benefits offered to some or all purchasers. Any discount, price concession, or similar benefit offered on purchases of multiple products should be fairly apportioned among the products (and could potentially raise anti-kickback issues). Underlying assumptions used in connection with reported prices should be reasoned, consistent, and appropriately documented, and pharmaceutical manufacturers should retain all relevant records reflecting reported prices and efforts to comply with federal health care program requirements.
Given the importance of the Medicaid Rebate Program, as well as other programs that rely on Medicaid Rebate Program benchmarks (such as the 340B Program 8), manufacturers should pay particular attention to ensuring that they are calculating Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price accurately and that they are paying appropriate rebate amounts for their drugs.9
In sum, pharmaceutical manufacturers are responsible for ensuring the integrity of data they generate that is used for government reimbursement purposes.
b. Kickbacks and Other Illegal Remuneration—A. General Considerations. Pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as their employees and agents, should be aware of the federal anti-kickback statute and the constraints it places on the marketing and promotion of products reimbursable by the federal health care programs, including, but not limited to, Medicare and Medicaid. In the health care sector, many common business activities, including, for example, sales, marketing, discounting, and purchaser relations, potentially implicate the anti-kickback statute. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and their employees and agents should be aware that the anti-kickback statute prohibits in the health care industry some practices that are common in other business sectors. In short, practices that may be common or longstanding in other businesses are not necessarily acceptable or lawful when soliciting federal health care program business.
The anti-kickback statute is a criminal prohibition against payments (in any form, whether the payments are direct or indirect) made purposefully to induce or reward the referral or generation of federal health care business. The anti-kickback statute addresses not only the offer or payment of anything of value for patient referrals, but also the offer or payment of anything of value in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or ordering of any item or service reimbursable in whole or part by a federal health care program. The statute extends equally to the solicitation or acceptance of remuneration for referrals. Liability under the anti-kickback statute is determined separately for each party involved. In addition to criminal penalties, violators may be subject to civil monetary sanctions and exclusion from the federal health care programs. Under certain circumstances, a violation of the anti-kickback statute may give rise to liability under the False Claims Act.
Although liability under the anti-kickback statute ultimately turns on a party’s intent, it is possible to identify arrangements or practices that may present a significant potential for abuse. Initially, a manufacturer should identify any remunerative relationship between itself (or its representatives) and persons or entities in a position to generate federal health care business for the manufacturer directly or indirectly. Persons or entities in a position to generate federal health care business include, for example, purchasers, benefit managers, formulary committee members, group purchasing organizations (GPOs), physicians and certain allied health care professionals, and pharmacists. The next step is to determine whether any one purpose of the remuneration may be to induce or reward the referral or recommendation of business payable in whole or in part by a Federal health care program. Importantly, a lawful purpose will not legitimize a payment that also has an unlawful purpose.
Although any arrangement satisfying both tests requires careful scrutiny from a manufacturer, the courts have identified several potentially aggravating considerations that can be useful in identifying arrangements at greatest risk of prosecution. In particular, manufacturers should ask the following questions, among others, about any problematic arrangements or practices they identify:
- Does the arrangement or practice have a potential to interfere with, or skew, clinical decision-making? Does it have a potential to undermine the clinical integrity of a formulary process? If the arrangement or practice involves providing information to decision-makers, prescribers, or patients, is the information complete, accurate, and not misleading?
- Does the arrangement or practice have a potential to increase costs to the federal health care programs, beneficiaries, or enrollees? Does the arrangement or practice have the potential to be a disguised discount to circumvent the Medicaid Rebate Program Best Price calculation?
- Does the arrangement or practice have a potential to increase the risk of overutilization or inappropriate utilization?
- Does the arrangement or practice raise patient safety or quality of care concerns?
Manufacturers that have identified problematic arrangements or practices can take a number of steps to reduce or eliminate the risk of an anti-kickback violation. Detailed guidance relating to a number of specific practices is available from several sources. Most importantly, the anti-kickback statute and the corresponding regulations establish a number of ‘‘safe harbors’’ for common business arrangements, including personal services and management contracts, 42 CFR 1001.952(d), warranties, 42 CFR 1001.952(g), discounts, 42 CFR 1001.952(h), employment, 42 CFR 1001.952(i), GPOs, 42 CFR 1001.952(j), and certain managed care and risk sharing arrangements, 42 CFR 1001.952(m), (t), and (u). Safe harbor protection requires strict compliance with all applicable conditions set out in the relevant safe harbor. Although compliance with a safe harbor is voluntary and failure to comply with a safe harbor does not mean an arrangement is illegal, many arrangements can be structured to fit in safe harbors, and we recommend that pharmaceutical manufacturers structure arrangements to fit in a safe harbor whenever possible. Other available guidance includes special fraud alerts and advisory bulletins issued by the OIG identifying and discussing particular practices or issues of concern and OIG advisory opinions issued to specific parties about their particular business arrangements. Parties may apply for an OIG advisory opinion using the procedures set out at 42 CFR part 1008. The safe harbor regulations (and accompanying Federal Register preambles), fraud alerts and bulletins, advisory opinions (and instructions for obtaining them), and other guidance are available on the OIG web site at http://oig.hhs.gov.
B. Key Areas of Potential Risk. The following discussion highlights several known areas of potential risk. The propriety of any particular arrangement can only be determined after a detailed examination of the attendant facts and circumstances. The identification of a given practice or activity as ‘‘suspect’’ or as an area of ‘‘risk’’ does not mean it is necessarily illegal or unlawful, or that it cannot be properly structured to fit in a safe harbor. Nor does it mean that the practice or activity is not beneficial from a clinical, cost, or other perspective. Rather, the areas identified below are those areas of activity that have a potential for abuse based on historical law enforcement experience and that should receive close scrutiny from manufacturers. The discussion highlights potential risks under the anti-kickback statute arising from pharmaceutical manufacturers’ relationships with three groups: purchasers (including those using formularies) and their agents; persons and entities in a position to make or influence referrals (including physicians and other health care professionals); and sales agents.
(1) Relationships with Purchasers and their Agents—(a) Discounts and Other Remuneration to Purchasers. Pharmaceutical manufacturers offer purchasers a variety of price concessions and other remuneration to induce the purchase of their products. Purchasers include direct purchasers (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, some physicians), as well as indirect purchasers (e.g., health plans). Inducements offered to purchasers potentially implicate the anti-kickback statute if the purchased products are reimbursable to the purchasers, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by any of the federal health care programs. Any remuneration from a manufacturer provided to a purchaser that is expressly or impliedly related to a sale potentially implicates the anti-kickback statute and should be carefully reviewed.
Discounting arrangements are prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry and deserve careful scrutiny particularly because of their potential to implicate the Best Price requirements of the Medicaid Rebate Program. Because the Medicaid Rebate Program in many instances requires that states receive rebates based on the Best Price offered by a pharmaceutical manufacturer to other purchasers, manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to hide de facto pricing concessions to other purchasers to avoid passing on the same discount to the states. Because of the potential direct and substantial effect of such practices on federal health care program expenditures and the interest of some manufacturers in avoiding price concessions that would trigger rebates to the states, any remuneration from a manufacturer to a purchaser, however characterized, should be carefully scrutinized.
Discounts. Public policy favors open and legitimate price competition in health care. Thus, the anti-kickback statute contains an exception for discounts offered to customers that submit claims to the federal health care programs, if the discounts are properly disclosed and accurately reported. See 42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(b)(3)(A); 42 CFR 1001.952(h). However, to qualify for the exception, the discount must be in the form of a reduction in the price of the good or service based on an arms-length transaction. In other words, the exception covers only reductions in the product’s price. Moreover, the regulations provide that the discount must be given at the time of sale or, in certain cases, set at the time of sale, even if finally determined subsequent to the time of sale (i.e., a rebate).
Manufacturers offering discounts should thoroughly familiarize themselves, and have their sales and marketing personnel familiarize themselves, with the discount safe harbor at 42 CFR 1001.952(h) (and, if relevant, the safe harbors for price reductions in the managed care context, 42 CFR 1001.952(m), (t), and (u)). In particular, manufacturers should pay attention to the discount safe harbor requirements applicable to ‘‘sellers’’ and ‘‘offerors’’ of discounts. Under the safe harbor, sellers and offerors have specific obligations that include (i) informing a customer of any discount and of the customer’s reporting obligations with respect to that discount, and (ii) refraining from any action that would impede a customer’s ability to comply with the safe harbor. To fulfill the safe harbor requirements, manufacturers will need to know how their customers submit claims to the federal health care programs (e.g., whether the customer is a managed care, cost-based, or charge-based biller). Compliance with the safe harbor is determined separately for each party.
Product Support Services. Pharmaceutical manufacturers sometimes offer purchasers certain support services in connection with the sale of their products. These services may include billing assistance tailored to the purchased products, reimbursement consultation, and other programs specifically tied to support of the purchased product. Standing alone, services that have no substantial independent value to the purchaser may not implicate the anti-kickback statute. However, if a manufacturer provides a service having no independent value (such as limited reimbursement support services in connection with its own products) in tandem with another service or program that confers a benefit on a referring provider (such as a reimbursement guarantee that eliminates normal financial risks), the arrangement would raise kickback concerns. For example, the anti-kickback statute would be implicated if a manufacturer were to couple a reimbursement support service with a promise that a purchaser will pay for ordered products only if the purchaser is reimbursed by a federal health care program.
Educational Grants. Pharmaceutical manufacturers sometimes provide grant funding for a wide range of educational activities. While educational funding can provide valuable information to the medical and health care industry, manufacturer grants to purchasers, GPOs, PBMs and similar entities raise concerns under the anti-kickback statute. Funding that is conditioned, in whole or in part, on the purchase of product implicates the statute, even if the educational or research purpose is legitimate. Furthermore, to the extent the manufacturer has any influence over the substance of an educational program or the presenter, there is a risk that the educational program may be used for inappropriate marketing purposes.
To reduce the risks that a grant program is used improperly to induce or reward product purchases or to market product inappropriately, manufacturers should separate their grant making functions from their sales and marketing functions. Effective separation of these functions will help insure that grant funding is not inappropriately influenced by sales or marketing motivations and that the educational purposes of the grant are legitimate. Manufacturers should establish objective criteria for making grants that do not take into account the volume or value of purchases made by, or anticipated from, the grant recipient and that serve to ensure that the funded activities are bona fide. The manufacturer should have no control over the speaker or content of the educational presentation. Compliance with such procedures should be documented and regularly monitored.
Research Funding. Manufacturers often contract with purchasers of their products to conduct research activities on behalf of the manufacturer on a fee-for-service basis. These contracts should be structured to fit in the personal services safe harbor whenever possible. Payments for research services should be fair market value for legitimate, reasonable, and necessary services. Post-marketing research activities should be especially scrutinized to ensure that they are legitimate and not simply a pretext to generate prescriptions of a drug. Prudent manufacturers will develop contracting procedures that clearly separate the awarding of research contracts from marketing. Research contracts that originate through the sales or marketing functions—or that are offered to purchasers in connection with sales contacts—are particularly suspect.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers sometimes provide funding to their purchasers for use in the purchasers’ own research. In many cases, the research provides valuable scientific and clinical information, improves clinical care, leads to promising new treatments, promotes better delivery of health care, or otherwise benefits patients. However, as with educational grants, if linked directly or indirectly to the purchase of product, research grants can be misused to induce the purchase of business without triggering Medicaid Best Price obligations. To reduce risk, manufacturers should insulate research grant making from sales and marketing influences.
Other remuneration to purchasers. As already noted, any remuneration from a manufacturer provided to a purchaser that is expressly or impliedly related to a sale potentially implicates the anti-kickback statute and should be carefully reviewed. Examples of remuneration in connection with a sale include, but are not limited to, ‘‘prebates’’ and ‘‘upfront payments,’’ other free or reduced-price goods or services, and payments to cover the costs of ‘‘converting’’ from a competitor’s product. Selective offers of remuneration (i.e., offers made to some but not all purchasers) may increase potential risk if the selection criteria relate directly or indirectly to the volume or value of business generated. In addition, manufacturers may contract with purchasers to provide services to the manufacturer, such as data collection services. These contracts should be structured whenever possible to fit in the personal services safe harbor; in all cases, the remuneration should be fair market value for legitimate, reasonable, and necessary services.
(b) Formularies and Formulary Support Activities. To help control drug costs while maintaining clinical appropriateness and quality of patient care, many purchasers of pharmaceutical products, including indirect purchasers such as health plans, have developed drug formularies to promote rational, clinically appropriate, safe, and cost-effective drug therapy. Formularies are a well-established tool for the effective management of drug benefits. The formulary development process— typically overseen by a committee of physicians, pharmacists, and other health care professionals—determines the drugs that are covered and, if tiered benefit levels are utilized, to which tier the drugs are assigned. So long as the determination of clinical efficacy and appropriateness of formulary drugs by the formulary committee precedes, and is paramount to, the consideration of costs, the development of a formulary is unlikely to raise significant issues under the anti-kickback statute.
Formulary support activities, including related communications with patients and physicians to encourage compliance, are an integral and essential component of successful pharmacy benefits management. Proper utilization of a formulary maximizes the cost-effectiveness of the benefit and assures the quality and appropriateness of the drug therapy. When provided by a PBM, these services are part of the PBM’s formulary and benefit management function—a service provided to its customers—and markedly different from its purchasing agent/price negotiator role. Most importantly, the benefits of these formulary support activities inure directly to the PBM and its customers through lower costs.
To date, Medicare and Medicaid involvement with outpatient drug formularies has been limited primarily to Medicaid and Medicare managed care plans. In light of the safe harbors under the anti-kickback statute for those managed care arrangements, the financial arrangements between health plans and pharmaceutical manufacturers or, where the pharmacy benefit is managed by a PBM, the arrangements among the three parties, have received relatively little scrutiny. However, as federal program expenditures for, and coverage of, outpatient pharmaceuticals increase, scrutiny under the anti-kickback statute has also increased. Several practices appear to have the potential for abuse.
- Relationships with formulary committee members. Given the importance of formulary placement for a manufacturer’s products, unscrupulous manufacturers and sales representatives may attempt to influence committee deliberations. Any remuneration from a manufacturer or its agents directly or indirectly to person in a position to influence formulary decisions related to the manufacturer’s products are suspect and should be carefully scrutinized. Manufacturers should also review their contacts with sponsors of formularies to ensure that price negotiations do not influence decisions on clinical safety or efficacy.
- Payments to PBMs. Any rebates or other payments by drug manufacturers to PBMs that are based on, or otherwise related to, the PBM’s customers’ purchases potentially implicate the anti-kickback statute. Protection is available by structuring such arrangements to fit in the GPO safe harbor at 42 CFR 1001.952(j). That safe harbor requires, among other things, that the payments be authorized in advance by the PBM’s customer and that all amounts actually paid to the PBM on account of the customer’s purchases be disclosed in writing at least annually to the customer. In addition, arrangements with PBMs that assume risk may raise different issues; depending on the circumstances, protection for such arrangements may be available under the managed care safe harbors at 42 CFR 1001.952(m), (t) and (u).
- Formulary placement payments. Lump sum payments for inclusion in a formulary or for exclusive or restricted formulary status are problematic and should be carefully scrutinized.
In addition, some manufacturers provide funding for purchasers’ or PBMs’ formulary support activities, especially communications with physicians and patients. While the communications may indirectly benefit the manufacturer, the primary economic beneficiary is typically the formulary sponsor. In other words, the manufacturer’s dollars appear to replace dollars that would or should be spent by the sponsor. To the extent the manufacturers’ payments are linked to drug purchases directly or indirectly, they potentially implicate the anti-kickback statute. Among the questions that should be examined by a manufacturer in connection with these activities are: Is the funding tied to specific drugs or categories? If so, are the categories especially competitive? Is the formulary sponsor funding similar activities for other drug categories? Has funding of PBM activities increased as rebates are increasingly passed back to PBM customers?
(c) Average Wholesale Price. The ‘‘spread’’ is the difference between the amount a customer pays for a product and the amount the customer receives upon resale of the product to the patient or other payer. In many situations under the federal programs, pharmaceutical manufacturers control not only the amount at which they sell a product to their customers, but also the amount those customers who purchase the product for their own accounts and thereafter bill the federal health care programs will be reimbursed. To the extent that a manufacturer controls the ‘‘spread,’’ it controls its customer’s profit.
Average Wholesale Price (AWP) is the benchmark often used to set reimbursement for prescription drugs under the Medicare Part B program. For covered drugs and biologicals, Medicare Part B generally reimburses at ‘‘95 percent of average wholesale price.’’ 42 U.S.C. 1395u(o). Similarly many state Medicaid programs and other payers base reimbursement for drugs and biologicals on AWP. Generally, AWP or pricing information used by commercial price reporting services to determine AWP is reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
If a pharmaceutical manufacturer purposefully manipulates the AWP to increase its customers’ profits by increasing the amount the federal health care programs reimburse its customers, the anti-kickback statute is implicated. Unlike bona fide discounts, which transfer remuneration from a seller to a buyer, manipulation of the AWP transfers remuneration to a seller’s immediate customer from a subsequent purchaser (the federal or state government). Under the anti-kickback statute, offering remuneration to a purchaser or referral source is improper if one purpose is to induce the purchase or referral of program business. In other words, it is illegal for a manufacturer knowingly to establish or inappropriately maintain a particular AWP if one purpose is to manipulate the ‘‘spread’’ to induce customers to purchase its product.
In the light of this risk, we recommend that manufacturers review their AWP reporting practices and methodology to confirm that marketing considerations do not influence the process. Furthermore, manufacturers should review their marketing practices. The conjunction of manipulation of the AWP to induce customers to purchase a product with active marketing of the spread is strong evidence of the unlawful intent necessary to trigger the anti-kickback statute. Active marketing of the spread includes, for example, sales representatives promoting the spread as a reason to purchase the product or guaranteeing a certain profit or spread in exchange for the purchase of a product.
(2) Relationships with Physicians and Other Persons and Entities in a Position to Make or Influence Referrals. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and their agents may have a variety of remunerative relationships with persons or entities in a position to refer, order, or prescribe—or influence the referral, ordering, or prescribing of—the manufacturers’ products, even though the persons or entities may not themselves purchase (or in the case of GPOs or PBMs, arrange for the purchase of) those products. These remunerative relationships potentially implicate the anti-kickback statute. The following discussion focuses on relationships with physicians, but the same principles would apply when evaluating relationships with other parties in a position to influence referrals, including, without limitation, pharmacists and other health care professionals.
Manufacturers, providers, and suppliers of health care products and services frequently cultivate relationships with physicians in a position to generate business for them through a variety of practices, including gifts, entertainment, and personal services compensation arrangements. These activities have a high potential for fraud and abuse and, historically, have generated a substantial number of anti-kickback convictions. There is no substantive difference between remuneration from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or from a durable medical equipment or other supplier—if the remuneration is intended to generate any federal health care business, it potentially violates the anti-kickback statute.
Any time a pharmaceutical manufacturer provides anything of value to a physician who might prescribe the manufacturer’s product, the manufacturer should examine whether it is providing a valuable tangible benefit to the physician with the intent to induce or reward referrals. For example, if goods or services provided by the manufacturer eliminate an expense that the physician would have otherwise incurred (i.e., have independent value to the physician), or if items or services are sold to a physician at less than their fair market value, the arrangement may be problematic if the arrangement is tied directly or indirectly to the generation of federal health care program business for the manufacturer. Moreover, under the anti-kickback statute, neither a legitimate purpose for an arrangement (e.g., physician education), nor a fair market value payment, will necessarily protect remuneration if there is also an illegal purpose (i.e., the purposeful inducement of business).
Continued on next page >>