Health Law

Who Has to Pay? Major Contractual Elements That Affect Which Party Bears the Cost of Supply Chain Delays and Price Increases in Construction Projects

April 17, 2022
Business Law, Contracts, COVID-19

Kristin Thompson, MJLST Staffer

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic there have been supply chain issues occurring around the world, causing constant price increases and delivery delays for construction materials.[1] While there are numerous factors that will affect exactly where the expenses of those delays fall, this article briefly outlines the major contractual elements that will come into play when determining whether the contractor, subcontractor or owner bears the risk. The first question that should be asked when investigating COVID-19 related supply chain issues is, “what does the contract say?” However, my first area of analysis begins when the answer to that question is “we don’t have one yet.”

 

The contract is not yet executed

This is the first major element to be addressed: what point of the contractual process the parties are in. To be clear, once the contract and subcontracts are executed the parties must rely on contract remedies and their pricing structures for relief. However, if the contracts have not yet been executed the contractor and subcontractors still have the potential to push the risk onto the owner or devise an equitable way to share those risks. They can build the supply chain-related price increases and project delay costs into their estimates, putting the owner in the position to either accept the increased cost and timeline or forego the project. During this pre-execution process the contractors will largely either be bidding a cost plus guaranteed maximum price model (“GMP”) or a lump sum model.[2] Here the GMP is ideal as the contractor can build the increased costs into the contingency. The lump sum model will call for an upward adjustment to their estimated total costs to account for the increases, chancing that those estimates will be enough. After adjusting their price model, the contractor and subcontractors can then add contractual language specifically saying that they are allowed time extensions for any and all supply chain delays, define their force majeure clause as inclusive of a pandemic or epidemic, and include change in law provisions that cover mandates issued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

The Contract is Executed

In this case, the parties will need to dive into their contract to see who bears the responsibility for extra costs and find out if they are able to extend their timelines without consequence. Issues relating to extra costs will be almost exclusively determined by whether or not a GMP or lump sum price model was used. Absent provisions stating otherwise, a GMP will allocate the extra costs to the owner up to the guaranteed maximum price as those costs come out of the contingency fee, while a lump sum contract will allocate them to the contractor as the costs will come out of the total bid price.[3] In the latter scenario, the contractor can then hold subcontractors to the price of their contract and make them bear their own price increases which would relieve the contractor from some of the extra cost burden. However, the contractor must keep in mind the reality in which a subcontractor would not be able to bear the extra costs and then either go out of business or refuse to perform. Legal action taken will either be futile if the subcontractor is insolvent, or expensive and time-consuming if they refuse to perform.

The parties then must determine whether or not schedule extensions resulting from supply chain issues are proper. This determination will largely be based on the force majeure clause and change in law provision located in the general conditions.

 

Force Majeure Clause

If the COVID-19 pandemic is found to be included as a force majeure event, the contractor will be allowed a time extension for the extra work relating thereto. Some contracts pre-dating the pandemic already used language relating to a pandemic or epidemic. The most regularly used form contracts, 200AIA.201-017[4] and ConsensusDocs 200[5],include broad force majeure provisions that have been read to include the pandemic.[6] The AIA provides for “other causes beyond contractors control,[7]” and the ConsensusDocs200 for “any cause beyond the control of constructor” and “epidemics.[8]” The specific delays must still be attributed to the pandemic, and proving causation will depend on the amount of proof the suppliers can provide to support that claim. The more challenging situations are those in which the contracts have narrow force majeure clauses or contain catch-all phrases.[9] Interpretation in these cases tend to be dependent on state law and vary widely.[10] If found to not include the pandemic, the contractor will not be guaranteed a time extension for delays and will be held to their original timeline absent other contractual provisions affording them an extension.

 

Changes in Law Provision

The final factor is whether the contract has a change of law provision. If so, executive orders or other changes of law related to the pandemic may allow for time extensions.[11] For instance, a delay in production because a factory producing specified windows had to cut their work force in half to stay in line with federal social distancing mandates would constitute a change in law allowing the contractor an extension while they wait for the windows. ConsensusDOCS 200 currently provides that “the contract price or contract time shall be equitably adjusted by change order for additional costs resulting from any changes in laws…[12]” thus laying out an avenue for relief for those party to a ConsensusDOCS 200 contract. Conversely, the AIA.201-2017 currently does not provide a change in law provision, taking away this option for the large number of contractors that use this form.

In sum, when viewing supply chain delays and expenses in an attempt to ascertain who bears the risk one should look to where the parties are at in their contractual process, the price model being used, the general conditions involved and the breadth of the force majeure and change in law provisions.

 

Notes

[1] Continued Increases In Construction Materials Prices Starting To Drive Up Price Of Construction Projects, As Supply-chain & Labor Woes Continue, The Associated General Contractors of America (November 9, 2021).

[2] Richard S. Reizen, Philip P. Piecuch, & Daniel E. Crowley, Practice Note, Construction Pricing Models – Choosing an Appropriate Pricing Arrangement, Gould + Ratner (2018).

[3] Joseph Clancy, How Do Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Contracts Work?, Oracle (May 20, 2021).

[4] AIA Document 201-2017.

[5] ConsensusDOCS 200.

[6] Force Majeure Provisions: COVID-19, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (June 3, 2021).

[7] AIA Document 201-2017 § 8.3.1.

[8] ConsensusDOCS 200 § 6.3.1.

[9] Douglas V. Bartman, Force Majeure in Construction and Real Estate Claims, American Bar Association (July 17, 2020).

[10] Id.

[11] Peter Hahn, Enough About Force Majeure! What Other Options Does a Construction Contractor Have for COVID-19 Pandemic Losses?, JDSupra (April 3, 2020).

[12] ConsensusDOCS 200 § 3.21.1

Predicted Effects of Price Transparency on Healthcare Economics

March 29, 2022
Administrative Law, Health Law, Healthcare

David Edholm, MJLST Staffer

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) promulgated the Price Transparency Rule in order to allow patients to access healthcare pricing information. The stated purpose of the Price Transparency Rule is as follows:

By disclosing hospital standard charges [including payer-specific negotiated charges and discounted-cash prices], we believe the public (including patients, employers, clinicians, and other third parties) will have the information necessary to make more informed decisions about their care. We believe the impact of these final policies will help to increase market competition, and ultimately drive down the cost of healthcare services, making them more affordable for all patients.

There is significant debate whether compliance with the Price Transparency Rule will actuate its intended purpose.

On the proponent side, economic theory to support this purpose statement comes from a market advocacy perspective. In order to drive down the cost of healthcare through competition, consumers must know the prices in advance in order to bargain between providers. By giving consumers the ability to shop around and barter, the thinking goes, providers will undercut competitors by lowering their own prices, even slightly below a competitor’s rate.

Another theory that supports price transparency is that shining light onto healthcare pricing will lead to more public outcry, guilting providers to lower overinflated or unconscionable gross charges or hospital fees. Public outcry may also compel states to create global healthcare budget caps, which have been shown to have positive price-lowering effects. A recent study from Rice University found that Maryland’s all-payer global budget policy reduces costs while increasing quality of care.

Skeptics of the rule, however, including the American Hospital Association (AHA), argue that price transparency will induce institutions that currently charge less than competitors to increase their prices to match their competitors, ultimately raising costs. In litigation, the DC Circuit responded to that argument, holding that, based on available research, this result is unlikely. Secretary Azar was not required to rely on definitive rather than predictive data in writing the requirements because of the novelty of the price disclosure scheme and the unique complexity of healthcare pricing. The DC Circuit held that relying on studies of similar price disclosure schemes in other industries was sufficient to inform a stable policy judgment.

However, the healthcare service market is of a unique nature in that quality of care may be a consumer’s primary consideration before seeking treatment, trumping price considerations. Alternatively, a consumer may assume that paying more means receiving higher-quality care. Quality of care is incredibly hard to measure and report, and unless a consumer has access to quality-of-care information alongside pricing information, they are more likely to make fallacious assumptions about this correlation. Another unique factor about healthcare shopping is that many consumers have a strong relationship with their physician, thus would base their decision primarily on receiving advice from one they trust, rather than the out-of-pocket cost of care, especially if the difference is negligible.

Last is the complexity of healthcare viewpoint. Opponents of the price transparency rule emphasize the nature of healthcare as an unpredictable trade. For example, if a patient consumer undergoes surgery to fix one problem, a surgeon may discover another problem amidst the procedure. The standard of care likely prompts the surgeon to correct both problems, thus the patient consumer will be charged an amount higher than they could have reasonably predicted. The AHA brought this argument to court to support its assertion that the price transparency rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by overstating the rule’s benefits. The DC Circuit court responded that the rule did not require hospitals to publish every potential permutation of finalized charges, rather that the baseline charges are publicized. Thus, in the surgery scenario, a patient consumer should have access to the payer-negotiated rate to fix the initial problem.

The jury is out, so to speak, on the effects that Price Transparency Rule compliance will have on healthcare economics. But from a consumer perspective, rapidly increasing healthcare costs are at the forefront of relevant political issues.

Xenotransplantation: Ethics and Public Policy Need to Catch Up to the Science

March 5, 2022
Administrative Law, Biotechnology, Discrimination, Ethics, Food and Drug Law, Health Law, Medical Devices, New Technology

Claire Colby, MJLST Staffer

In early January, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center made history by successfully transplanting a genetically altered pig heart to a human recipient, David Bennett.  The achievement represents a major milestone in transplantation. The demand for transplantable organs far outpaces the supply, and xenotransplantation–the implantation of non-human tissue into human recipients–could help bridge this gap. In the U.S. alone, more than 106,000 people are on the waiting list for transplants. Legal and ethical questions remain open about the appropriateness of implementing xenotransplants on a large scale. 

The FDA approved the January transplant through an emergency authorization compassionate use pathway because Bennett likely would have died without this intervention. Larger clinical trials will be needed to generate enough data to show that xenotransplants are safe and effective. The FDA will require these trials to show xenotransplantations are non-inferior to human organ transplants. IRB requirements bar interventions where risk outweighs benefits for patients, but accurately predicting and measuring risk is difficult. 

If xenotransplantation becomes standard clinical practice, animal rights proponents may balk at the idea of raising pigs for organs. Far before that point, pre-clinical trials will make heavy use of animal models. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) which oversee animal research in universities and medical entities apply a “much lower ethical standard” for animals than human research subjects. Bioethicists apply a “3R” framework for animal subjects research that stresses replacing animal models, reducing animal testing, and refining their use. Because of the inherent nature of xenotransplantation, applying this framework may be near impossible. Ongoing discussions are needed with relevant stakeholders.  

If both human and animal organs are approved for widespread transplant, but human organs prove superior, new allocation policies are needed to determine who gets what. Organ allocation policy is currently dictated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). As it stands, organ transplantation shows inequality across racial groups and financial status. New allocation policies for organs must not reinforce or worsen these disparities. 

Like all medical interventions, patients must be able to provide informed consent for xenotransplantation. The recipient of the altered pig heart had previously been deemed ineligible for a human heart transplant because his heart failure was poorly managed. Reserving experimental interventions, like xenotransplantations, for the sickest patients raises serious ethical concerns. Are these desperate patients truly able to give meaningful consent? If xenotransplantation becomes a common practice, the traditional model of institutional review boards may need updating. Currently, individual institutions maintain their own IRBs. Xenotransplantation of altered animal organs may involve several sites: procurement of the organ, genetic editing, and transplantation may all take place in different locations. A central IRB for xenotransplantation could standardize and streamline this process. 

In all, xenotransplantation represents an exciting new frontier in transplant medicine. Responsibly implementing this innovation will require foresight and parallel innovation in ethics and public policy. 

Reconsidering Roe: Has the Line of Fetal Viability Moved?

December 18, 2021
Constitutional Law, Family Law, Health Law, Privacy, Reproductive Health

Claire Colby, MJLST Staffer

After the Supreme Court heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on December 1, legal commentatorsbegan to speculate the case could be a vehicle for overturning Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi statute at issue in Dobbs bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. In questioning Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about the “advancements in medicine” that have changed the lines of viability since the Court last considered a major challenge to Roe with Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. “What has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line…?” she asked.

Roe v. Wade was a 1973 landmark decision in which the Supreme Court adopted a trimester framework for abortion. During the first trimester, the Court held that “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgement of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.” The court held that states could adopt regulations “reasonably related to maternal health” for abortions after the first trimester, and held that in the third trimester, upon viability, states may “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgement for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” In 1992, the Court rejected this “rigid trimester” framework in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the Court turned to a viability framework and found that pre-viability, states may not prohibit abortion or impose “a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.” The Court adopted an “undue burden” standard to determine whether state regulations of pre-viability abortion are unconstitutional.

In Casey, the court defined viability as “the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb.” So when do medical professionals consider a fetus viable? The threshold has moved to earlier in the gestation period since the 1970s, but experts disagree on where to draw the line. According to a journal articlepublished in 2018 in Women’s Health Issues, in 1971, fetal age of approximately 28 weeks was “widely used as the criterion of viability.” The article said that until recently, 24 weeks of gestation was the “widely accepted cutoff for viability in the highest acuity neonatal intensive care units.” According to the article, babies born as early as 22 weeks of gestation had an “overall survival rate of 23%” with “the most aggressive medical management available.” The article rebuked the idea of tying abortion restrictions to viability at all: “Tying abortion provisions to the word viability today is as misguided as it was to tie it to a specific trimester in 1973,” the article stated. “There was no true definition of viability then, and as long as medicine strives to treat every patient uniquely, there will never be one.”

A 2017 practice alert published in the official journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defined “periviable” births —births occurring “near the limit of viability” —as births occurring between 20 and 26 weeks gestation.

According to a 2020 New York Times article, determinations on the gestational age at which a baby is likely to survive outside of the womb are “in a complex moment of transition.” Though technology has improved, “even top academic institutions disagree about the right approach to treating 22- and 23-week babies.” The article reported that the University of California, San Francisco “a top-tier, high resource hospital,” is “transparent about its policy of offering only comfort care for babies that are born up to the first day of the 23rd week, down to the hour.”

In June 2020, a baby born at the Children’s Hospital and Clinics of Minnesota set the world record for the world’s most premature baby to survive, the Washington Post reported. He was born at 21 weeks and two days gestation.

Several medical developments help to explain this earlier period of viability.

According to a 2020 Nature article, “the biggest difference to survival came in the early 1990s with surfactant treatment.” Surfactant is a “slippery substance” that prevents airways from collapsing upon exhalation. According to Kaiser, premature babies with underdeveloped lungs often lack the substance. “When premature lungs are treated with surfactant after birth, the infant’s blood oxygen levels usually improve within minutes.”

A 2018 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, administering prenatal steroids to mothers between 22 and 25 weeks gestation prior to delivery led to a “significantly higher” survival rate, but “survival without major morbidities remains low at 22 and 23 weeks.”

The Dobbs ruling is not expected until this summer, when the Court tends to release its major decisions. Even if the Court maintains the viability standard set forth in Casey, recent medical advances may warrant more consideration about where to draw this line.

Build Back Better Act: A Request for Transparency of a Clearly Visible Issue

December 10, 2021
Food and Drug Law, Health Law, Healthcare

Sara Pistilli, MJLST Staffer

On November 19, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to pass the “Build Back Better Act” which includes several provisions aimed at ever-rising healthcare prices. In trying to combat this concern, Congress included mandatory reporting provisions for pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) who bill Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs. PBMs will be required to provide reports every six months that include data on copays, dispensed drugs, rebates, and total out of pocket spending for patients. Speaker Nancy Pelosi states these provisions are aimed at “providing transparency regarding drug costs in private health plans” but is transparency helpful or even necessary when the effects PBMs have on healthcare costs are well known?

What is a PBM?

PBMs are third-party administrators that manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of both private and public healthcare payers. They have significant power to manipulate the healthcare market by acting as middlemen between payers (insurance companies), drug manufacturers, and dispensers (pharmacies). Originally, PBMs were meant to lower healthcare costs by streamlining transactions and attempting to create fair payment systems for dispensing pharmacies.Instead, PBMs have secretly contributed to increasing healthcare costs by inflating drug costs while concurrently decreasing pharmacy reimbursement rates leading to huge windfall profits for PBMs at the patients’ expense.

How do PBMs make millions in profits each year?

While some patients pay cash for medications, most are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurers. PBMs are paid by these insurers to determine how much a healthcare plan pays for a medication and in turn, how much the pharmacy gets reimbursed for the dispensed medication. For example, Bob receives a new prescription from his doctor for drug A. The pharmacy buys a bottle of drug A for $7. When Bob comes to pick up his prescription for drug A, his health insurer’s PBM pays $8 to reimburse the pharmacy, allowing them to gain a profit of $1. Concurrently, the PBM bills the health insurer $18 for the price of drug A, allowing them to make $10 in profit on Bob’s prescription. This practice, called spread pricing, results in PBMs making millions of dollars in profits each year.

BBBPicture1

Picture: “The Secret Drug Pricing System Middlemen Use to Rake in Millions

How does PBM spread pricing increase healthcare costs for patients?

PBM spread pricing affects healthcare costs in two distinct ways: increased insurance premiums and decreased access to care. As PBMs continue to inflate the cost of prescription drugs, insurers are billed more and more by their PBMs. These expenses directly fall on the shoulders of the government and the healthcare companies, who represent the public and private payer sector. In turn, to keep up with increased billing, public and private payers turn to their beneficiaries to help them pay the PBMs via increased healthcare plan premiums, decreased coverage, and larger copays. Concurrently, as the PBMs reimburse pharmacies less and less for medication dispensing, pharmacies, especially independent ones, try to operate on thinner profit margins. Over time, the low reimbursement rates culminate in decreased clinical services or, in the worst case, pharmacies closing permanently.

What does the Build Back Better Act do to help?

Egregious billing practices by PBMs have been in the spotlight for several years now. In 2018, Ohio’s Department of Medicaid released a report showing that PBMs charged the state of Ohio $224 million in hidden spread pricing. The audit results led to Ohio terminating all PBM contracts with the Department of Medicaid and converting to a single-PBM system where spread pricing could be monitored better. Another report, this time in Utah, showed that PBM’s received $1.5 million from spread pricing in 2018. Similarly in 2019, a Kentucky report found that PBMs retained $123 million in spread pricing in that state. Several states have enacted laws targeting PBM spread pricing as the federal government continues to skirt around the issue. For example, Louisiana prohibits all PBMs from using spread pricing unless a PBM provides written notice of the practice to the health insurer and the policy holder. Louisiana also enacted a law stating that PBMs could not reimburse pharmacies at a lower rate than they do their affiliated pharmacies. This directly targets suspicions that CVS Caremark reimburses CVS pharmacies more to eliminate competition and steer patients towards filling their medications at CVS pharmacies. Like Louisiana, Maine enacted a law stating that PBMs could not participate in spread pricing without proper notice to the state. On October 1st, 2021, North Carolina’s Senate Bill 257 will take effect. This bill requires PBMs to apply for business licenses with the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, subjecting them to more spread pricing regulations and threats of restitution to pharmacies they reimburse unfairly. While the states’ efforts are not perfect solutions, they are necessary efforts to regulate PBMs more. The federal government’s efforts to increase transparency is unnecessary due to the public recognition of PBM spread pricing. Every state audit that shows gross spread pricing is transparent enough to alert the federal government that PBMs pose a widespread problem to our healthcare system without greater restrictions. PBMs need to be controlled directly through regulations targeted towards preventing and prohibiting spread pricing, rather than asked to report every six months just how much they profit off their deceptive billing practices.

Kids’ Choice? COVID-19 Shots

November 10, 2021
COVID-19, Food and Drug Law, Public Health

Carly Michaud, MJLST Staffer

At the end of October, the CDC broadened the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines by adding booster shots for people with specific risk factors who have already been vaccinated, and the long-awaited authorization of shots for children ages 5-11. But with eligibility expanding, the fights over public-school vaccine mandates are sure to increase in intensity. The ultimate question is who has the final say on the health and safety of children in public school: the educators, the parents, or perhaps the students themselves. In addition to the rights of public schools and parents to make decisions around childhood vaccinations, states and public health experts have started to endorse legal processes for teens to consent to vaccination without parental consent.

School Authority

School districts can issue and enforce vaccine mandates through a delegation of state police powers. Through the doctrine of parens patriae, the state holds the power to intervene to protect citizens, including children when the parent is not adequately assuring their health and safety. However, in comparison to the broadness of parens patriae, schools have traditionally had a duty to protect children via the doctrine of in loco parentis, which gives the school the authority of the parents while the child is attending. Schools districts retain authority because of the need to protect the health of children and staff at their facility.

All states have some required vaccinations for children attending public schools, including MMR, Tdap, and varicella (aka. Chickenpox). MMR and Tdap are both combination vaccines protecting against measles, mumps, rubella, (MMR) and diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (Tdap). Vaccination mandates are a common public health measure taken particularly for those who are considered medically vulnerable populations and those who work with those populations. Children are considered medically vulnerable due to a variety of factors, including  psychological development, behavioral development, and significantly more daily person-to-person social contacts, making them unique from adults.

Mandatory vaccination has been a common public health practice since the turn of the 20th century and the widespread development and availability of vaccines. In 1905 the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate enforced by a municipal Board of Health in Massachusetts as a reasonable exercise of state police power. As vaccine availability grew the Supreme Court also affirmed the applicability of vaccine mandates for school children in Zucht v. King. This doctrine has remained well-settled even to the present day, as mere days ago the Supreme Court denied injunctive relief to stop a state level vaccine mandate for health care workers.

Parent/Guardian Authority

The parent or guardian is automatically assumed to care for their child and have a right to do so in the way the parent or guardian sees fit, which is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s fundamental rights of parents. The state has been deferential to parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, however that deference has not extended to unvaccinated children attending schools without a legally approved exception. Despite the legal control parents have over their children, school districts are able to use their authority to compel students attending their facility to be vaccinated against certain diseases.

Self-Authorizing?

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more jurisdictions in the United States have given children ages 11 or 12 and older the ability to consent to vaccinations without parental consent. Ethicists have affirmed this policy noting that as children develop autonomy, it is reasonable to rely on their ability to consent to high benefit and low risk health decisions. This policy has been in place in a variety of states and municipalities for numerous years for other vaccines and medical decisions. Now it is being utilized by teens for COVID-19 vaccines.

The American Medical Association is in favor of autonomous teen vaccination as it “maximize[s] immunization opportunities for children” and is already the standard for teens who are effectively independent due to homelessness, unaccompanied status, or military service. This policy also offers protection for teens who do not want to inform a parent of their desire to receive specific preventable or immediate medical care. Many of these laws exist to allow teenagers to choose to receive contraception and the HPV vaccine.

While teens are able to make some health decisions for themselves, the majority of children in the United States are between the ages of 0 and 11. The most recent authorization applies to children in the age 5-11 group, who are still reliant on school vaccine mandates to protect their health and stop the spread of COVID-19 in schools.

Vaccine mandates in schools protect the health of students, faculty and the larger community from the spread of disease. In the case of COVID-19, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been approved for children ages 5-11 and is over 90% effective, and for children ages 12-15 and has the same efficacy as the original vaccine for adults. (Children ages 16-18 were included in the original Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s vaccine, which is over 95% effective). It is vital schools maintain the power to require student vaccinations to prevent the unnecessary death of students and teachers from a lack of vaccine access and acceptance.

You Wouldn’t 3D Print Tylenol, Would You?

October 12, 2021
3-D Printing, Administrative Law, Biotechnology, Ethics, Food and Drug Law, Health Law, Healthcare, Medical Devices

By Mason Medeiros, MJLST Staffer

3D printing has the potential to change the medical field. As improvements are made to 3D printing systems and new uses are allocated, medical device manufacturers are using them to improve products and better provide for consumers. This is commonly seen through consumer use of 3D-printed prosthetic limbs and orthopedic implants. Many researchers are also using 3D printing technology to generate organs for transplant surgeries. By utilizing the technology, manufacturers can lower costs while making products tailored to the needs of the consumer. This concept can also be applied to the creation of drugs. By utilizing 3D printing, drug manufacturers and hospitals can generate medication that is tailored to the individual metabolic needs of the consumer, making the medicine safer and more effective. This potential, however, is limited by FDA regulations.

3D-printed drugs have the potential to make pill and tablet-based drugs safer and more effective for consumers. Currently, when a person picks up their prescription the drug comes in a set dose (for example, Tylenol tablets commonly come in doses of 325 or 500 mg per tablet). Because the pills come in these doses, it limits the amount that can be taken to multiples of these numbers. While this will create a safe and effective response in most people, what if your drug metabolism requires a different dose to create maximum effectiveness?

Drug metabolism is the process where drugs are chemically transformed into a substance that is easier to excrete from the body. This process primarily happens in the kidney and is influenced by various factors such as genetics, age, concurrent medications, and certain health conditions. The rate of drug metabolism can have a major impact on the safety and efficacy of drugs. If drugs are metabolized too slowly it can increase the risk of side effects, but if they are metabolized too quickly the drug will not be as effective. 3D printing the drugs can help minimize these problems by printing drugs with doses that match an individual’s metabolic needs, or by printing drugs in structures that affect the speed that the tablet dissolves. These individualized tablets could be printed at the pharmacy and provided straight to the consumer. However, doing so will force pharmacies and drug companies to deal with additional regulatory hurdles.

Pharmacies that 3D print drugs will be forced to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Procedures (CGMPs) as determined by the FDA. See 21 C.F.R. § 211 (2020). CGMPs are designed to ensure that drugs are manufactured safely to protect the health of consumers. Each pharmacy will need to ensure that the printers’ design conforms to the CGMPs, periodically test samples of the drugs for safety and efficacy, and conform to various other regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 211.65, 211.110 (2020). These additional safety precautions will place a larger strain on pharmacies and potentially harm the other services that they provide.

Additionally, the original drug developers will be financially burdened. When pharmacies 3D print the medication, they will become a new manufacturing location. Additionally, utilizing 3D printing technology will lead to a change in the manufacturing process. These changes will require the original drug developer to update their New Drug Application (NDA) that declared the product as safe and effective for use. Updating the NDA will be a costly process that will further be complicated by the vast number of new manufacturing locations that will be present. Because each pharmacy that decides to 3D print the medicine on-site will be a manufacturer, and because it is unlikely that all pharmacies will adopt 3D printing at the same time, drug developers will constantly need to update their NDA to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. Although these regulatory hurdles seem daunting, the FDA can take steps to mitigate the work needed by the pharmacies and manufacturers.

The FDA should implement a regulatory exception for pharmacies that 3D print drugs. The exemption should allow pharmacies to avoid some CGMPs for manufacturing and allow pharmacies to proceed without being registered as a manufacturer for each drug they are printing. One possibility is to categorize 3D-printed drugs as a type of compounded drug. This will allow pharmacies that 3D print drugs to act under section 503A of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. Under this section, the pharmacies would not need to comply with CGMPs or premarket approval requirements. The pharmacies, however, will need to comply with the section 503A requirements such as having the printing be performed by a licensed pharmacist in a state-licensed pharmacy or by a licensed physician, limiting the interstate distribution of the drugs to 5%, only printing from bulk drugs manufactured by FDA licensed establishments and only printing drugs “based on the receipt of a valid prescription for an individualized patient”. Although this solution limits the situations where 3D prints drugs can be made, it will allow the pharmacies to avoid the additional time and cost that would otherwise be required while helping ensure the safety of the drugs.

This solution would be beneficial for the pharmacies wishing to 3D print drugs, but it comes with some drawbacks. One of the main drawbacks is that there is no adverse event reporting requirement under section 503A. This will likely make it harder to hold pharmacies accountable for dangerous mistakes. Another issue is that pharmacies registered as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act will not be able to avoid conforming to CGMPs unless they withdraw their registration. This issue, however, could be solved by an additional exemption from CGMPs for 3D-printed drugs. Even with these drawbacks, including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs proposes a relatively simple way to ease the burden on pharmacies that wish to utilize this new technology.

3D printing drugs has the opportunity to change the medical drug industry. The 3D-printed drugs can be specialized for the individual needs of the patient, making them safer and more effective for each person. For this to occur, however, the FDA needs to create an exemption for these pharmacies by including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs.

I’ve Been Shot! Give Me a Donut!: Linking Vaccine Verification Apps to Existing State Immunization Registries

April 18, 2021
COVID-19, Data, Healthcare, Human Rights Law, Privacy, Public Health

Ian Colby, MJLST Staffer

The gold rush for vaccination appointments is in full swing. After Governor Walz and many other governors announced an acceleration of vaccine eligibility in their states, the newly eligible desperately sought vaccinations to help the world achieve herd immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (“COVID”) and get back to normal life.

The organization administering a person’s initial dose typically gives the recipient an approximately 4” x 3” card that provides the vaccine manufacturer, the date and location of inoculation, and the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) logo. The CDC website does not specify what, exactly, this card is for. Likely reasons include informing the patient about the healthcare they just received, a reminder card for a second dose, or providing batch numbers in case a manufacturing issue arises. Maybe they did it for the ‘Gram. However, regardless of the CDC’s reason for the card, many news outlets have latched onto the most likely future use for them: as a passport to get the post-pandemic party started.

Airlines, sports venues, schools, and donut shops are desperate to return to safe mass gatherings and close contact, without needing to enforce as many protective measures. These organizations, in the short-term, will likely seek assurance of a person’s vaccination status. Aside from the equitable and scientific issues with requiring this assurance, these business will likely get “proof” with these CDC vaccination cards. The cardboard and ink security of these cards rivals social security cards in the “high importance – zero protection” category. Warnings of scammers providing blank CDC cards or stealing the vaccinated person’s name and birthdate hit the web last week (No scammers needed: you can get Missouri’s PDF to print one for free).

With so little security, but with a business-need to reopen the economy to vaccinated folks, businesses and governments have turned to digital vaccine passports. Generically named “digital health passes,” these apps will allow a person to show proof of their vaccination status securely. They “provide a path to reviving the economy and getting Americans back to work and play” according to a New York Times article. “For any such certificate or passport to work, it is going to need two things – access to a country’s official records of vaccinations and a secure method of identifying an individual and linking them to their health record.”

A variety of sources have undertaken development of these digital health passes, both governments and private firms. Israel already provides a nationwide digital proof of vaccination known as a Green Pass. Denmark followed suit with the Coronapas. In addition, a number of private companies and nonprofits are vying to become the preeminent vaccine status app for the world’s smartphones. While governments, such as Israel, have preexisting authority to access immunization and identification records, private firms do not. Private firms would require authorization to access your medical records.

So, in the United States, who would run these apps? Not the U.S. federal government. The Biden Administration unequivocally denied that it would ever require vaccine status checks, and would not keep a vaccination database. The federal government does not need to, though. Most states already manage a digital vaccination database, pursuant to laws authorizing them. Every other state, which doesn’t directly authorize them, still maintains a digital database anyway. These immunization information systems (“IIS”) provide quick access to a person’s vaccination status. A state’s resident can make a request for their vaccination status on myriad vaccinations for free and receive the results via email. Texas and Florida, who made big hubbubs about restricting any use of vaccine passports, both have registries to provide proof of vaccination. So does New York, who has already published an app, known as the Excelsior Pass, that does this for the COVID vaccine. The State’s app pulls information from New York’s immunization registry, providing a quick, simple yes-no result for those requiring proof. The app uses IBM’s blockchain technology, which is “designed to enable the secure verification of health credentials such as test results and vaccination records without the need to share underlying medical and personal information.”

With so many options, consumers of vaccine status apps could become overwhelmed. A vaccinated person may need to download innumerable apps to enter myriad activities. “Fake” apps could ask for additional medical information from the unwary. Private app developers may try to justify continued use of the app after the need for COVID vaccination proof passes.

In this competitive atmosphere, apps that partner with state governments likely provide the best form of digital vaccination verification. These apps have direct approval from the states that are required by law to maintain these vaccination records. They provide some authority to avoid scams. And cooperation to achieve state standardization of these apps may facilitate greater use. States seeking to reopen their economies should authorize digital interfaces with their pre-existing immunization registries. Now that the gold rush for vaccinations has started, the gold rush for vaccine passports is something to keep an eye on.

 

You Gotta Fight for Your Right to Repair

April 4, 2021
Administrative Law, Business Law, Ethics, Public Health

Christopher Cerny, MJLST Staffer

Last spring, as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic hit critical heights, many states faced a daunting reality. The demand for ventilators, an “external set of lungs” designed to breathe for a patient too weak or compromised to breathe on their own, skyrocketed. Hospitals across the United States and countries around the globe clamored for more of the life saving devices. In March and April of 2020, the increasing need for this equipment forced doctors in Washington State, New York, Italy, and around the world to make heartbreaking decisions to prioritize the scarce supply. With this emergency equipment operating at maximum capacity, any downtime meant another potential life lost. But biomeds, hospital technicians who maintain these crucial medical devices, were frequently unable to troubleshoot or repair out-of-service ventilators to return them to the frontlines. This failure to fix the much-needed equipment was not due to lack of time or training. Instead, it was because many manufacturers restrict access to repair materials, such as manuals, parts, or diagnostic equipment. According to one survey released in February 2021, 76% of biomeds said that manufacturers denied them access to parts or service manuals in the previous three months and 80% said they have equipment that cannot be serviced due to manufacturers’ restrictions to service keys, parts, or materials.

While the prohibition of repairs of life support equipment highlights the extreme danger this restriction creates, the situation is not unique to hospitals and emergency equipment. As technology becomes increasingly complex and proprietary, all manner of tech manufacturers are erecting more and more barriers that prevent owners and independent repair shops from working on their products. Tesla, for example, is adamant about restricting repairs to its vehicles. The electric vehicle auto maker will not provide parts or authorize repairs if performed at an uncertified, independent repair shop or end user. Tesla has gone so far as to block cars repaired outside of its network from using its Superchargers. Apple historically also prevented end users from performing their own repairs, utilizing specialized tools and restricting access to parts. John Deere requires farmers to comply with a software licensing agreement that is in appearance designed to protect the company’s proprietary software, but in practice prevents farmers from clearing error codes to start their farm equipment without an authorized technician.

In response to these obstructions to repair, the Right to Repair movement solidified around the simple proposition that end users and independent repair shops should be provided the same access to manuals and parts that many tech companies reserve solely to themselves or their subsidiaries. This proposition is catching on and the legislatures in twenty-five states are currently considering thirty-nine bills involving the right to repair. However, of the thirty-nine bills, only three address medical technology with the bulk of the proposals devoted to general consumer products—think appliances, iPads, and smart devices—and farm equipment.

Massachusetts is an early adopter of right to repair laws. Its legislature passed a law in 2012 specific to motor vehicles that, inter alia, standardized diagnostic and service information, mandated its accessibility by owners and independent or third-party repair shops, and established any violation of the provisions of the act as an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice. This past November, Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure that expanded the scope of the 2012 right to repair law and closed a loophole that could circumvent the requirements imposed in the earlier statute. Automakers lobbied in force to oppose the measure, spending in excess of $25 million in advertising and other efforts. Taking into account the money spent by both sides of the ballot measure, the right to repair initiative was the most expensive measure campaign in Massachusetts history. The European Union is also taking steps to broaden access to repair materials and information. The European Parliament passed a resolution aimed at facilitating a circular economy. Acknowledging the finite nature of many of the rare elements used in modern technology, the European Union is aiming to make technology last longer and to create a second-hand market for older models. The resolution expanding repair access is a part of that effort by ensuring the ease of repair to prolong the life of the technology and delay obsolescence.

Some manufacturers are making concessions in the face of the Right to Repair Movement. Apple, notoriously one of the most restrictive manufacturers, did an about face in 2019 and expanded access to “parts, tools, training, repair manuals and diagnostics” for independent repair businesses working on out of warranty iPhones. Tesla opened its repair platform to independent repair shops in the European Union after the EU Commission received complaints, but the access can be prohibitively expensive at €125 per hour for the use of diagnostics and programming software. However, these minimal efforts are stop-gap measures designed to slow the tide of legislation and resolutions aimed at broadening access to the materials needed to perform repairs to break the monopolistic hold manufacturers are trying to exert over routine fixes.

The Right to Repair movement is clearly gaining ground as the implications of this anticompetitive status quo in the repair and second-hand market was brought into stark relief by the strains imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which strained not only hospitals but agriculture, infrastructure, and day-to-day life. The impact of these restrictions on independent repair shops, farmers, consumers, patients, and do-it-yourselfers more than ever became an obvious impediment to health, safety, and a less extractive economy. And as shown in Massachusetts, voters are responding by expanding the right to repair, even in the face of expensive lobbying and advertising campaigns. Legislators should continue to bring additional bills, especially addressing the restrictions on repairs of emergency medical equipment and should enact the existing proposals in the twenty-five states currently considering them.

No, Dolphins Did Not Reappear in Venice Canals: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Environment

March 14, 2021
COVID-19, Environmental Law, Public Health

Drew Miller, MJLST Staffer

2020 was a strange, difficult year for billions of people as the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc across the globe. The virus has claimed the lives of over 2,500,000 people, but the effects of the pandemic extend well beyond the loss of life. In an effort to slow the spread of the virus, governments at every level around the world began to implement protective measures such as stay-at-home orders and travel bans as early as March 2020 in the United States—nearly a full year ago. The mass quarantine forced over 100,000 businesses to close their doors in the first two months—some temporarily, some permanently— which in turn led to a rise in unemployment and massive drops in stock markets such as the Dow Jones and the FTSE. These economic effects and their potential remedies have been debated endlessly by news organizations, politicians, and regular citizens alike. However, the environmental effects of the pandemic have not been covered as extensively. Reduced travel tendencies have provided the climate and environment a reprieve, but it will not last; if we are to continue down the road towards environmental sustainability, we must continue to push for reform despite the unique challenges presented by COVID-19.

Environmental Effects

In mid-March, 2020, scattered among an unremitting flood of bad news, some happy stories emerged. Swans and dolphins had returned to formerly desolate Venice canals. A group of elephants had sauntered through a village in Yunnan, China, gotten drunk off corn wine, and passed out in a tea garden. Wild boars were wandering through towns. The stories continued. These reports of the Earth healing and wildlife reclaiming space in a world without people went viral, and understandably so: they offered a spark of light in a dark and uncertain time. One tweet (since deleted) about fish, swans, and clear water in Venice canals amassed over 1,000,000 likes.

Unfortunately, the stories weren’t real. “The swans … regularly appear in the canals of Burano.” “The ‘Venetian’ dolphins were filmed at a port in Sardinia, in the Mediterranean Sea, hundreds of miles away.” The water was clearer because fewer boats were disturbing the sediment at the bottom. The elephants are a regular presence in the depicted village. If anything, allow these stories to serve as a reminder not to believe everything on the internet.

Moreover, the pandemic may have hurt wildlife more than it helped. Many governments pay for environmental conservation and enforcement initiatives with tourism revenue. As that revenue dried up and budgets were cut, those protections weakened. Financial distress caused by widespread unemployment further exacerbated the situation. In April, there were reports of increased falcon smuggling in Pakistan; in June, poaching of leopards and tigers in India; and in October, trafficking of rhino horns in South Africa and Botswana. The chaos of the pandemic also provided cover for illegal logging in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest, which rose more than 50% in the first three months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

Nevertheless, despite the absence of Venetian dolphins, the pandemic looked “okay” from an environmental perspective in 2020. Although there was an uptick in reliance on single-use plastics during lockdowns and increased generation of biomedical waste, pollution levels improved. Transportation, the most significant source of greenhouse gases in the United States, saw a 14.7% decline in emissions, and America’s greenhouse gas emissions from energy and industry plummeted more than 10 percent in 2020, reaching their lowest levels in at least three decades. According to a research group, the fall in emissions nationwide was the largest one-year decline since at least World War II. There were also reduced levels of water and noise pollution.

Policy Implications

Unfortunately, the pollution-related benefits of COVID-19 are likely only temporary. Emissions reductions and air quality improvements primarily resulted from reduced transportation. Consequently, as more people return to their typical travel habits, emissions and air quality are likely to bounce back to their pre-pandemic levels. As Corinne Le Quere, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia in Britain, stated, “We still have the same cars, the same roads, the same industries, same houses. So as soon as the restrictions are released, we go right back to where we were.”

In fact, emissions may bounce back to levels even higher than they were prior to the pandemic due to the dismantling of numerous climate and environmental policies worldwide. In the United States, nearly 100 environmental protection policies and regulations were reversed or rolled back during the Trump presidency. Citing economic concerns due to COVID, the Czech Prime Minister urged the European Union to abandon the Green New Deal and the European Automobile Manufacturers Association lobbied the European Commission to weaken vehicle emission standards.

COVID-19 has impacted just about every industry in the world, and its economic ramifications continue to present significant difficulties. However, the pandemic is, ultimately, temporary; rebuilding will be challenging, but just as the economy rebounded after the 2008 recession, so it will do again. The Earth may not be so resilient. If we are to achieve a healthier and more sustainable world, businesses and policymakers alike must not recoil from that effort even in the face of unexpected bumps in the road—instead, they must forge ahead.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | Report Web Accessibility Issues