Photo of Scott Liebman

Scott Liebman

Subscribe to Scott Liebman's Posts

Scott Liebman is leader of the firm's Life Sciences team and is based in the firm’s New York office.

Contact:Read more about Scott Liebman

In this second installment of our nine-part deep-dive into the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA” or “the Agency”) final rule on Laboratory Developed Tests (“LDTs”) – which established a staged plan that will phase out the Agency’s previous policy of enforcement discretion for LDTs – we are taking a closer look at the response to the rule, not only from laboratories and other industry stakeholders but also from members of the legislature. The long and short of it is – people are not happy!Continue Reading LDT Final Rule Series: Part 2 – Response to the Rule

Yesterday, the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA” or “the Agency”) issued a highly anticipated – and highly controversial – final rule, which rolls out a four-year, five-stage plan that will phase out the Agency’s previous policy of enforcement discretion for Laboratory-Developed Tests (“LDTs”). The final rule was issued at an astonishing speed compared to FDA’s usual rulemaking timeline,[1] coming not even six months after FDA issued the proposed rule.Continue Reading LDT Final Rule Series: Part 1 – Rule Overview

As we reflect on 2023 and make predictions for 2024, it is remarkable the number of significant events occurring this past year that will be impactful for the activities of the life sciences industry going forward. Although there was no single moment like the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, there are numerous distinct events that will loom large in 2024 and beyond.Continue Reading 2024 Top-of-Mind Issues for Life Sciences Companies

In late April this year, the Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) announced that it would make changes to its existing body of healthcare compliance program guidance (CPGs) as part of its current Modernization Initiative.[1] These CPGs were directed at various segments of the health care industry and provided specific guidance on risks posed by industry practices. To kick off the initiative, OIG indicated that it would first issue a new general compliance program guidance (GCPG) by year end applicable to individuals and entities in all segments of the health care industry that would address overarching compliance elements regarding federal fraud and abuse laws, compliance program basics, compliance program effectiveness and general process and procedures. Thereafter, OIG said it planned to update existing industry-specific compliance program guidance (ICPG), which would include tailoring each to address fraud and abuse risk areas specific to a particular industry and describing the compliance measures that industry could take to reduce these risks[2].Continue Reading OIG General Compliance Program Guidance November 2023

The Sheppard Mullin Life Sciences Team decided to take a different approach to our year-end review. We surveyed and considered issues most important to our clients, asking the experts across the various specialties in our Life Sciences Practice the following question: What do life sciences companies need to keep top of mind in 2023?Continue Reading 2023 Top-of-Mind Issues for Life Sciences Companies

On Thursday, March 16, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) issued OIG Advisory Opinion (“AO”) No. 22-05, relating to subsidization of certain Medicare cost-sharing obligations in the context of a clinical trial involving medical devices (the “Proposed Arrangement”). This is the third AO in a recent series of AOs (see AO 21-17 on November 19, 2021 and AO 21-13 on October 4, 2021) focused on Medicare cost subsidies in a clinical trial setting for serious conditions that affect large portions of the population in the US. Like these other AOs, OIG found that while the Proposed Arrangement could generate fraud and abuse risks under both the Federal anti-kickback statute (i.e., Section 1128A(a)(7) and 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (“Act”)) and the Beneficiary Inducements CMP (i.e., Section 1128A(a)(5) of the Act), the Proposed Arrangement nevertheless presented a minimal risk of fraud and abuse under the law on the facts presented. Medical device manufacturers should pay close attention to this trend when considering trial designs and patient populations.
Continue Reading OIG Advisory Opinion Alert: Yet Another Favorable Decision for Medical Device Manufacturers