{"title":"真相,虚假和欺诈:非标签药品和解和民事虚假索赔法的未来。","authors":"Joan H Krause","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The pharmaceutical industry may be losing the battle of public opinion, but it has won important victories in the war over First Amendment commercial speech. In December 2012, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Caronia that the misbranding provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could not prohibit a sales representative’s truthful statements promoting off-label uses of his company’s products. At the same time, a parallel area of pharmaceutical litigation has curiously remained almost untouched: Civil False Claims Act (FCA) settlements based on allegations that manufacturers caused false claims to be submitted by promoting their drugs off-label. Yet logic suggests that if manufacturers have a First Amendment right to discuss off-label drug uses, claims submitted when drugs are prescribed for those uses should not be considered false. This inconsistency is problematic and likely unsustainable. If manufacturers are emboldened by Caronia to challenge off-label FCA suits, the focus likely will be on the truth of the company’s statements. Despite its name, however, FCA is unsuited to addressing disputes over medical and scientific data. To maintain the integrity of this key anti-fraud enforcement tool, it is crucial to separate the truth of the claims for payment from the truth of the manufacturer’s underlying scientific statements. Because Medicare and Medicaid coverage determinations rely heavily on FDA approval, however, those issues are inextricably intertwined. This article explores why off-label promotion has been treated inconsistently in these contexts, and how this trend highlights the limitations of the FCA as a panacea for health care fraud.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truth, Falsity, and Fraud: Off-Label Drug Settlements and the Future of the Civil False Claims Act.\",\"authors\":\"Joan H Krause\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The pharmaceutical industry may be losing the battle of public opinion, but it has won important victories in the war over First Amendment commercial speech. In December 2012, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Caronia that the misbranding provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could not prohibit a sales representative’s truthful statements promoting off-label uses of his company’s products. At the same time, a parallel area of pharmaceutical litigation has curiously remained almost untouched: Civil False Claims Act (FCA) settlements based on allegations that manufacturers caused false claims to be submitted by promoting their drugs off-label. Yet logic suggests that if manufacturers have a First Amendment right to discuss off-label drug uses, claims submitted when drugs are prescribed for those uses should not be considered false. This inconsistency is problematic and likely unsustainable. If manufacturers are emboldened by Caronia to challenge off-label FCA suits, the focus likely will be on the truth of the company’s statements. Despite its name, however, FCA is unsuited to addressing disputes over medical and scientific data. To maintain the integrity of this key anti-fraud enforcement tool, it is crucial to separate the truth of the claims for payment from the truth of the manufacturer’s underlying scientific statements. Because Medicare and Medicaid coverage determinations rely heavily on FDA approval, however, those issues are inextricably intertwined. This article explores why off-label promotion has been treated inconsistently in these contexts, and how this trend highlights the limitations of the FCA as a panacea for health care fraud.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food and drug law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
制药业可能正在输掉舆论之战,但它在反对第一修正案商业言论的战争中赢得了重要胜利。2012年12月,第二巡回法院在《美国诉卡罗尼亚案》(United States v. Caronia)中裁定,《食品、药品和化妆品法》(Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)的虚假商标条款不能禁止销售代表在推销其公司产品的标签外用途时做出真实陈述。与此同时,令人奇怪的是,制药诉讼的一个平行领域几乎没有受到影响:民事虚假申报法(FCA)基于制造商通过推销其药品标签外导致虚假声明提交的指控达成和解。然而,从逻辑上讲,如果制造商根据第一修正案有权讨论标签外药物的用途,那么在处方药物用于这些用途时提交的声明不应被视为虚假。这种不一致是有问题的,而且可能是不可持续的。如果制造商们因为Caronia而敢于挑战FCA的标签外诉讼,那么焦点可能会集中在该公司声明的真实性上。尽管名为FCA,但它并不适合解决有关医疗和科学数据的争议。为了保持这一关键的反欺诈执法工具的完整性,将付款索赔的真实性与制造商基础科学陈述的真实性分开是至关重要的。然而,由于医疗保险和医疗补助覆盖范围的决定严重依赖于FDA的批准,这些问题是不可避免地交织在一起的。本文探讨了为什么标签外促销在这些情况下被不一致地对待,以及这一趋势如何突出了FCA作为医疗保健欺诈灵丹妙药的局限性。
Truth, Falsity, and Fraud: Off-Label Drug Settlements and the Future of the Civil False Claims Act.
The pharmaceutical industry may be losing the battle of public opinion, but it has won important victories in the war over First Amendment commercial speech. In December 2012, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Caronia that the misbranding provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could not prohibit a sales representative’s truthful statements promoting off-label uses of his company’s products. At the same time, a parallel area of pharmaceutical litigation has curiously remained almost untouched: Civil False Claims Act (FCA) settlements based on allegations that manufacturers caused false claims to be submitted by promoting their drugs off-label. Yet logic suggests that if manufacturers have a First Amendment right to discuss off-label drug uses, claims submitted when drugs are prescribed for those uses should not be considered false. This inconsistency is problematic and likely unsustainable. If manufacturers are emboldened by Caronia to challenge off-label FCA suits, the focus likely will be on the truth of the company’s statements. Despite its name, however, FCA is unsuited to addressing disputes over medical and scientific data. To maintain the integrity of this key anti-fraud enforcement tool, it is crucial to separate the truth of the claims for payment from the truth of the manufacturer’s underlying scientific statements. Because Medicare and Medicaid coverage determinations rely heavily on FDA approval, however, those issues are inextricably intertwined. This article explores why off-label promotion has been treated inconsistently in these contexts, and how this trend highlights the limitations of the FCA as a panacea for health care fraud.
期刊介绍:
The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products.
Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law.
All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.