April 04, 2022
Healthcare Alert
Author(s): Rebecca Simone, Sarah E. Swank, Alexandra Busto, Meredith D. LaMaster
OIG issues an advisory opinion on subsidies of cost-sharing obligations in sponsored clinical trial to expand socio-economic diversity in clinical research participants, including Medicare beneficiaries.
On March 11, 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion No. 22-05 finding that a medical device manufacturer’s program permitting certain Medicare cost-sharing obligations in the clinical trial would pose minimal risk under federal fraud and abuse regulations. OIG reviewed the arrangement in the context of a clinical trial with the intent to create socio-economic diversity in the subjects.
A medical device manufacturer (the Requestor) manufactures a device used for investigational therapy. The Requestor is sponsoring a clinical trial to study the safety and effectiveness of the therapy in patients at roughly 40 sites with each participating site to meet certain requirements and comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, including oversight and monitoring by an Institutional Review Board.
The Requester submitted an inquiry to the OIG as to whether certain subsidies provided under a proposed arrangement (the Proposed Arrangement) would trigger sanctions under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the provision prohibiting inducements to Medicare beneficiaries under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (CMPL), or the OIG’s exclusion authority. Through the Proposed Arrangement, the Requestor would provide remuneration to study sites and/or investigators by providing an opportunity to bill Medicare for items and services related to the study, and guaranteed payment of beneficiaries’ cost-sharing obligations (i.e., patients’ copays, co-insurance, deductibles, etc. would be covered by the manufacturer). The Requestor would provide the same subsidy to study participants regardless of how such services are reimbursed (i.e., commercial, Medicaid, or Medicare).
The Requestor stated that the proposed cost-sharing subsidies will serve three purposes for the study:
The OIG determined that the Proposed Arrangement would implicate the AKS because the Requestor’s payment of the subsidy may inappropriately encourage Medicare beneficiaries to participate in the study to receive billable healthcare items and services reimbursed through the Medicare program. The OIG determined that the CMPL would also be implicated because the subsidies may influence the beneficiary’s decision to obtain Medicare-billable items and services from the Requestor. The OIG further determined that the Proposed Arrangement failed to meet the AKS safe harbors and CMPL remuneration exceptions. The exception applies to a “waiver” of cost-sharing obligations. In this case, the Requestor would pay investigators and sites the cost-sharing amounts they otherwise would have collected from beneficiaries rather than a waiver of cost-sharing amounts by the provider.
Notwithstanding, the OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement presented minimal risk under the AKS and the CMPL for the following key reasons:
The Proposed Arrangement appeared to the OIG to be a reasonable way to attract participant enrollment for the study, including a socio-economically diverse group of participants, by eliminating the financial burdens associated with participation. The subsidy would also likely reduce attrition in the study period, which included a two-year period requiring nine visits. Further, since 40% of participating Medicare beneficiaries would be in the control group, they would not have the potential to receive any therapeutic benefit under the study. The OIG found that the out-of-pocket costs to participate in the study would be cost prohibitive for many Medicare beneficiaries who otherwise would participate in the study.
The Proposed Arrangement presented a low likelihood for overutilization or impermissible utilization of items and services billed to Medicare. Although the OIG recognized the possibility that utilization of services may increase, there were several safeguards in place, including: the subsidies would not be advertised; participants are required to meet specific enrollment criteria for participation and receipt of the subsidy; and the study would be limited to 260 participants. The OIG found the regulatory framework related to the clinical trial as protective of overutilization because investigators must comply with the study protocol and are subject to oversight and monitoring by the IRB.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved the study as a Category B IDE study, meaning Medicare will provide reimbursement for the items and services provided during the study. CMS’s approval of the study as a Category B IDE study involved an evaluation and determination that appropriate patient protection mechanisms are in place under the study. To be approved for Medicare coverage, a study must meet a number of criteria, including, for example, that:
When establishing these approval criteria, CMS explained that where Medicare coverage is sought, these criteria help to ensure that the study design is appropriate to answer questions of importance to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries and to reduce the risk of harm to individuals.
The Proposed Arrangement could be distinguished from other arrangements, including those where device manufacturers offer subsidies to lure participants into using the item or service moving forward. Under the Proposed Arrangement, even though study participants may receive future services reimbursable by Medicare, the OIG found that the Requestor would not benefit from such future services.
In Advisory Opinion 22-05, the OIG found that a device manufacture’s subsidies for cost-sharing in the context of a clinical trial had low fraud and abuse risk based on the intent to creating socio-economic diversity in the trial by recruiting and retaining participants throughout the two-year trial. This finding was based on factors such as recruitment goals, the small enrollment numbers, the enrollment criteria, regulatory compliance with clinical research laws and the protocol including oversight by IRB and that subsidies would not be advertised.
Medical device manufacturers should look to the Opinion’s insights on safeguards and socio-economic diversity factors that may be incorporated into clinical trial programs to attempt to lower the risk of fraud and abuse scrutiny by the OIG.
The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.
