Search

Innovative health technologies are not well regulated under current pathways, leading regulators to adopt contextual, life-cycle regulatory models, which authorize drugs based on earlier clinical evidence subject to the conduct of post-market trials that confirm clinical benefit and safety. In this paper, we evaluate all drugs authorized in Canada under the Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) policy from 1998 to 2021 to analyze its function, identify challenges and areas for improvement, and make recommendations to inform Health Canada's regulatory reforms. We analyzed a sample of 148 drugs authorized between 1998 and 2021, including characteristics about the pre- and post-market clinical trials, finding that most NOC/c authorizations are based on one, single-arm clinical trial using a surrogate endpoint. Post-market trials are more likely to be randomized, Phase III trials but mostly use surrogate endpoints. Based on our findings, we recommend increasing decision-making transparency throughout the regulatory process, developing comprehensive eligibility criteria for selecting appropriate health technologies, modernizing pre-market evidence requirements, adopting a more active role in designing post-market trials, and utilizing automatic expiry, stronger penalties, and ongoing disclosure of the status of post-market trials to promote compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 25 years, Congress and the FDA have determined the safest and most beneficial way to regulate the use of mifepristone (Mifeprex), the medication that accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States. The Dobbs decision has renewed the importance of those scientific determinations, especially FDA's decisions implementing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) provisions of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), that mifepristone may be taken by patients outside the presence of any healthcare provider (often through telemedicine prescription and shipment across state lines). Now that Dobbs has been decided, state officials have indicated that they will seek to enforce state statutes which conflict with FDA's regimen for the proper use of mifepristone, by banning its use entirely, prohibiting telemedicine prescription, or imposing other requirements which FDA has specifically considered and now rejected as contrary to the congressional mandate that FDA-approved drugs be as accessible as safety considerations allow. Litigation has already been filed to invalidate such statutes on the grounds that they are preempted by the doctrine that state law which conflicts with, or undermines the purposes of, FDA actions with respect to approved drugs are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This article examines the Supreme Court caselaw and FDA actions which will dictate the outcome of that litigation. Part I details the statutory basis for FDA preemption of conflicting state law and the four decisions by the Supreme Court over the last 13 years (Levine, Mensing, Bartlett and Albrecht) which enunciate the governing legal standards for FDA preemption. We pay particular attention to the opinions of Justice Alito and the other conservative justices, which hold that such FDA preemption should be robust to ensure that there is one consistent, national policy for the distribution and regulation of drugs, under the science-based decisions of the FDA, rather than the 'parochialism' of differing state standards. Part II details FDA's comprehensive program for the balanced, though appropriately restricted, use of mifepristone, and the 22 years of FDA actions that brought that about. It then catalogs the state statutes limiting the use of the drug which, in material ways, conflict with those FDA determinations. Part III outlines the arguments made in one early lawsuit seeking preemption of the statutes of one state (Mississippi)–a law suit which previews the wider litigation to come. It then sets forth the strong arguments for FDA preemption of each type of state restriction and responses to the 'defenses' of those statutes that have been offered in an effort to avoid FDA preemption under the Supremacy Clause. That review shows that a straight-forward application of the FDCA and the Supreme Court caselaw should result in the preemption of the state restrictions that squarely conflict with the relatively free access to abortion medications which FDA has mandated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drugs are increasingly authorized based on less mature evidence, leaving payors faced with significant clinical and cost-effectiveness uncertainties. As a result, payors must often choose between reimbursing a drug that may not turn out to be cost-effective (or may even be unsafe) or delaying the reimbursement of a drug that is cost-effective and offers clinical benefit to patients. Novel reimbursement decision models and frameworks, such as managed access agreements (MAAs), may address this decision challenge. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the legal limitations, considerations, and implications for adopting MAAs in Canadian jurisdictions. We begin with an overview of current drug reimbursement processes in Canada, terminology and definitions of the different types of MAAs, and select international experiences with MAAs. We discuss the legal barriers to MAA governance frameworks, design and implementation considerations, and legal and policy implications of MAAs. Finally, we provide recommendations to guide policy development for implementing MAAs in Canada, based on existing literature, international experience, and our legal analysis. We conclude that legal and policy barriers likely prevent the adoption of a pan-Canadian MAA governance framework. More feasible is a quasi-federal or provincial approach, building on existing infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision's anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare—considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion—arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]