United States: A Blow Against False Claims Act Liability For Off-Label Promotion

Last Updated: June 3 2016
Article by Eric Alexander

Recently, we noted that one of the first decisions we wrote a post about had been affirmed by the Second Circuit. Of the district court decision, we had penned "It is nice to see a judge with a proper understanding of how drug labels, FDA, and cockamamie theories about off-label marketing should fit together. We would like to see more of the judges handling product liability cases with similar issues follow the lead of the judges handling FCA cases and dismiss complaints premised on nonsensical interpretations of labels and regulations." In discussing U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 14-4774, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8974 (2d Cir. May 17, 2016), we could be lazy and swap in "a panel" for "a judge" in the preceding quote. That would be true, but it would be incomplete. A few weeks after the district court's decision in Polansky, the Second Circuit decided U.S. v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012), where it vacated the conviction (conspiracy to sell a misbranded drug under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(1)) of a sales representative for promoting a prescription drug for off-label use. Then, a few months before the Polansky appeal was argued, the Southern District of New York enjoined the FDA from prohibiting a manufacturer's truthful off-label promotion concerning a (generic) prescription drug. Next, a few months later, FDA reached a well-publicized settlement with that manufacturer, preserving that "Amarin may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use" of its drug without risking prosecution for misbranding. While there are still decisions like Neurontin out there and many cases still seek to impose liability under the FCA or other statutes for truthful off-label promotion, the off-label landscape has clearly changed.

With that in mind, we turn back to Polansky. For eight years and through multiple amended complaints, the plaintiff pursued a FCA claim that Pfizer's promotion of Lipitor for use within the approved indications was actually off-label—and therefore allegedly led to false claims for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement—because of references in the label to the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines. We will be blunt—shocking to our readers, we know—this was always a dubious claim because any common sense reading of the label does not come close to supporting the contention that the Guidelines narrowed what was "on-label" compared to the five indications that were approved and described in the label.

The NCEP Guidelines, which came out of NIH and were expressly not intended to trump clinical judgment, set out an algorithm for recommendations for the general type of treatment (e.g., just lifestyle modifications) depending on risk categories derived from lab results and clinical history. 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8974, **7-9. The Indications section in the pre-Physician Labeling Rule label referenced the Guidelines in conjunction with stating that lipid-altering agents should be used only when response to diet and other lifestyle modifications "has been inadequate" and included a summary of the Guidelines. Id. at **10-11. When PLR changes went into effect in 2009, the reference and summary were omitted, which suggested something about the relative importance of these references. Id. at *9. Both before and after PLR, the Dosage section of the label had a cite to the Guidelines when stating, for one subcategory of patients, that "The starting does and maintenance doses of Lipitor should be individualized according to patient characteristics such as goal of therapy and response." Id. at *11.

Putting the Guidelines and label in their proper perspective, the Second Circuit adopted the lower court's analysis that the label left how to apply the recommendations in the Guidelines up to the clinical judgment of the prescriber and "Once the doctor's clinical judgment is introduced as the determinative factor in the decision making process, it must be apparent that this data serves as a recommendation, not a limitation or prohibition." Id. at *14. Thus, there was no "off-label" defined by the references to the Guidelines.

That is the holding of the case and, like we said at the start, it does a good job of seeing nonsensical allegations for what they are. There are dicta, though, that draws our attention. The court is "skeptical" and "dubious" of basing FCA violations, though an implied certification theory, for this fact pattern—which we think applies to most off-label use:

The physician is permitted to issue off-label prescriptions; the patient follows the physician's advice, and likely does not know whether the use is off-label; and the script does not inform the pharmacy at which the prescription will be filled whether the use is on label or off.

Id. at *17. The strong language—again, just dicta—continues:

"The False Claims Act, even in its broadest application, was never intended to be used as a back-door regulatory regime to restrict practices that the relevant federal and state agencies have chosen not to prohibit through their regulatory authority." Polansky II, 914 F. Supp. 2d at 266. It is the FDA's role to decide what ought to go into a label, and to say what the label means, and to regulate compliance. We agree with Judge Cogan that there is an important distinction between marketing a drug for a purpose obviously not contemplated by the label (such as, with respect to Lipitor, "to promote hair growth or cure cancer") and marketing a drug for its FDA-approved purpose to a patient population that is neither specified nor excluded in the label. Id. at 265. An FCA relator alleging off-label marketing might be able to satisfy Rule 9(b) and surmount the impediment of implied certification in a case in which it would be obvious to anyone that the use promoted is one that is not approved; but this is emphatically not such a case.

Id. at **18-19 (citations in original).

This follows more dicta in the form of a discussion of Caronia but not Amarin. After noting Caronia's recognition of the ability of doctors to prescribe approved drugs for unapproved uses and that there can be "public value from unapproved or off-label drug use," the court stated that "pharmaceutical manufacturers are generally prohibited from promoting off-label uses of their products if the off-label marketing is false or misleading, or if it evidences that a drug is intended for such off-label use and is therefore 'misbranded.'" Id. at *4. A footnote follows that repeats Caronia's holding that the First Amendment precludes criminalizing promotion of off-label use that is not false or misleading. The footnote then says that Caronia left open whether such promotion could still be improper if the "promotion speech provides evidence that a drug is intended for a use that is not included on a drug's FDA-approved label," citing an FDA regulation that requires "adequate labeling . . . which accords with such other uses" when the manufacturer should expect off-label use. (Are you still following us on our detour through the cites in a footnote?) This regulation is about ensuring adequate warnings and instructions for foreseeable use, not about prohibiting any version of truthful promotion about off-label use. But the First Amendment protections accepted in Caronia and Amarin would not protect much if criminal prosecution or quasi-criminal FCA cases could be based on the amorphous intent that a drug be used off-label rather than the content of the speech.

Let us carry this out a bit further with the basic facts of Polansky to see if liability makes sense in a post-Caronia world where truthful off-label promotion is protected speech. First, assume that there are patients who within one of the approved indications for Lipitor but were not within the Guideline's general recommendation for pharmacotherapy—like maybe someone with a bad lipid profile who had never tried to improve it with diet and exercise. Second, assume that the manufacturer had studies showing the drug was effective for the approved indications—as it would have needed to get them approved—and could truthfully represent these studies in its promotion of the drug. Third, consider that either a) the interplay between the Guideline's general recommendations for pharmacotherapy and the approved indications in the label did not come in marketing or b) the marketing accurately reflected the findings of the studies as they related to patients within and without the Guideline's general recommendations for pharmacotherapy. Fourth, assume that that the company knew that it was providing truthful information so that physicians could prescribe the drug to patients who were within one of the approved indications for Lipitor but may or may not have been within the Guideline's general recommendation for pharmacotherapy. Putting it together, there has been truthful promotion concerning the drug, what it was approved for, and what science says about its safe and effective use, but with the knowledge that its truthful promotion might result in prescriptions being written to patients who were not within the Guideline's general recommendation for pharmacotherapy (but were within one or more of the approved indications). That does not sound like a situation where any liability should attach, let alone treble damages and statutory fines (to say nothing of possible exclusion from reimbursement).

It seems to us that there are two types of off-label promotion that would be problematic. The first involves misrepresentation of the safety and/or efficacy of the drug when used in an off-label manner—that is, beyond an approved indication or contrary to a labeled contraindication. To be clear, we think it would be problematic to make misrepresentations of the safety and/or efficacy of the drug when used in an on-label manner. With causation—tough for a prescription drug, dodgy use of statistic notwithstanding—there might be False Claims Act Liability for this whether or not the use was off-label. Maybe it would be worse if the representations were directly contrary to the label, but that is a broader issue. "Sure it is contraindicated in patients with acute liver disease, but the Hornswaggle study showed it was safe in that population" and "the Hornswaggle study shows twice the rate of improvement in LDL as is described in the label" are both pretty bad if false. The second involves a misrepresentation about whether a particular use is on-label or off-label. Not only is a drug considered misbranded if its approval is misrepresented—although maybe not if the scope of the labeled contraindications are—but there are reasons to believe a misrepresentation that FDA has determined the drug is safe and effective for a particular use will carry some weight. This also might satisfy the FCA requirements of falsity and causation. Absent a direct misrepresentation about safety and efficacy or an indirect misrepresentation about safety and efficacy by implying a different FDA decision than has been made, we have a hard time seeing why FCA liability should even attach to off-label promotion. That should not be different if the drug company intended to provide truthful information about the scope of the approved indications and the science for and against unapproved indication, but did so with the knowledge that some off-label scripts would probably be written as a result of providing this truthful and non-misleading information to physicians who asked for it. In other words, intent should not matter in the absence of falsity.

Now, we are all for judicial restraint. We preach it regularly in the context of Erie predictions of expansions of state law, among other contexts. The Polansky court was certainly right to decide the issues it needed to decide to affirm the decision below and be clear that it was not going to address other issues. We think, however, that False Claims Act liability for promotion of off-label use, given the First Amendment, must be predicated on something that is actually false, not on truthful and non-misleading statements that are made with the knowledge that doctors may prescribe the drug off-label to some patients as an exercise of their medical judgment.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions