throbber
Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 47
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and
`TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 20-11548
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................ii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 4
`A. Medicare Part D Created the Need for Charitable Assistance. ............................ 5
`B.
`The Alleged Charitable Support........................................................................ 8
`1.
`Teva’s Copaxone Treats Multiple Sclerosis, A Life-Altering
`Disease. ................................................................................................ 8
`Teva’s Shared Solutions Program Helps Copaxone Patients
`Investigate Benefits and Refers Patients to Third-Party Patient
`Assistance Hubs.................................................................................... 9
`The Charitable Foundations, CDF and TAF, Operated Independently of
`Teva. ..............................................................................................................10
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................13
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................15
`A.
`The Government Fails to Allege a Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. .......15
`1.
`The Government Fails to Allege That Teva Had the Requisite
`Intent to Induce or Reward Medicare Purchases. ...................................15
`a.
`The Government Must Allege Facts That Plausibly Show
`that Teva Controlled the Charities’ Use of Their Funds. .............15
`The Government’s Factual Allegations Demonstrate that
`Teva Did Not Have Control Over The Charities.........................19
`The Government’s Reliance On Teva’s Alleged Usage of
`Data Is Unavailing and Is Inconsistent With DOJ Policy. ...........21
`The Government Fails to Allege That Teva Improperly Induced
`Doctors or Patients to Use Copaxone. ...................................................25
`The Government Fails to Allege That Teva Improperly Rewarded
`Patients for Using Copaxone. ...............................................................28
`The Government Fails to Allege a Violation of the False Claims Act. ...............30
`The Government Fails to Allege a Conspiracy to Violate the False Claims
`Act. ................................................................................................................34
`The Government’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Should Be Dismissed. .................35
`Teva’s Communications with TAF and CDF are Protected Under the First
`Amendment as “Charitable Solicitations.”........................................................37
`CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................38
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 47
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009).......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital, Inc.,
`No. 11 Civ. 0505, 2011 WL 2610661 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2011) ......................................... 20
`
`Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants,
`140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ...................................................................................................... 39
`
`Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox,
`492 U.S. 469 (1989).......................................................................................................... 38
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Clifton v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
`114 F.3d 1309 (1st Cir. 1997)............................................................................................ 39
`
`Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motocycle Assocs., Inc.,
`692 N.E.2d 964 (Ma. 1998) ............................................................................................... 38
`
`Decovich v. Anthem Life Ins. Co.,
`744 F. App’x 466 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................9
`
`g., United States ex rel. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. BASF Corp.,
`285 F. Supp. 3d 44, 56 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d, 929 F.3d 721 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ....................... 36
`
`Guilfoile v. Shields,
`913 F.3d 178 (1st Cir. 2019)............................................................................. 15, 26, 31, 32
`
`Hagerty ex rel. United States v. Cyberonics, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Hanlester Network v. Shalala,
`51 F.3d 1390 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`Humana Inc. v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC,
`No. CV1906926DSFMRW, 2020 WL 3041309 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020 ........................ 7, 19
`
`Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys.,
`630 F. App’x 394 (6th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 7, 22
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Koufos v. US Bank, N.A.,
`939 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass 2013) ................................................................................... 37
`
`Lawton ex rel. United States v. Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd.,
`842 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ 14, 15
`
`Lyman v. Baker,
`954 F.3d 351 (1st Cir. 2020).............................................................................................. 13
`
`Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc.,
`552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 37
`
`N. Heel Corp. v. Compo Indus., Inc.,
`851 F.2d 456 (1st Cir. 1988)................................................................................................7
`
`R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,
`505 U.S. 377 (1992).......................................................................................................... 39
`
`Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N. C., Inc.,
`487 U.S. 781 (1988).......................................................................................................... 38
`
`Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011).......................................................................................................... 39
`
`Speet v. Schuette,
`726 F.3d 867 (6th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 38
`
`Taylor v. Moskow,
`No. CIV.A. 13-12675-FDS, 2014 WL 2573990 (D. Mass. June 6, 2014) ............................ 37
`
`United States el rel. Strunck v. Mallinckrodt Ard LLC,
`No. 12-175, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10191 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2020) ............................ passim
`
`United States ex rel. Atkinson v. Pa. Shipbuilding Co.,
`No. 94-7316, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14532 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2004) ................................. 34
`
`United States ex rel. Booker v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`847 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 31, 33
`
`United States ex rel. Brown v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`No. CV 05-6795, 2017 WL 1344365 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2017) ........................................... 28
`
`United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of America, Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 32, 33
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`United States ex rel. D’Agostino v. EV3, Inc.,
`153 F. Supp. 3d 519, 530 (D. Mass. 2015), aff’d sub nom. D’Agostino v. ev3,
`Inc., 845 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016).......................................................................................... 14
`
`United States ex rel. Emerson Park v. Legacy Heart Care, LLC,
`No. 3:16-CV-0803-S, 2019 WL 4450371 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2019) (N.D.
`Texas 2019)...................................................................................................................... 26
`
`United States ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester,
`565 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 34
`
`United States ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharm. Co.,
`737 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2013).............................................................................................. 14
`
`United States ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi U.S. Servs. Inc.,
`No. CV 02-2964, 2020 WL 4260797 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2020) ........................................ 7, 22
`
`United States ex rel. Goodman v. Arriva Med., LLC,
`No. 3:13-CV-0760, 2020 WL 3840446 (M.D. Tenn. July 8, 2020)................................ 29, 30
`
`United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sols., Inc.,
`880 F. 3d 89 (3d Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 27, 32, 33, 34
`
`United States ex rel. McGee v. IBM Corp.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 643, 666 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ............................................................................ 35
`
`United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.,
`No. 09-22253-CIV, 2012 WL 2871264 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2012)........................................ 28
`
`United States ex rel. Ruscher v. Omnicare, Inc.,
`663 F. App’x 368 (5th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 15
`
`United States ex rel. Vitale v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
`381 F. Supp. 3d 647 (D.S.C. 2019) .............................................................................. 27, 29
`
`United States v. Celgene Corp.,
`226 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2016).............................................................. passim
`
`United States v. Job Res. For Disabled,
`No. 97 C 3904, 2000 WL 562444 (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2000) .................................................. 36
`
`United States v. Krikheli,
`461 F. App’x 7 (2d Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`United States v. McClatchey,
`217 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`United States v. Medtronic,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 259, 268, 271 (D. Mass. 2016).................................................................. 26
`
`United States v. Regeneron,
`No. 1:20-cv-11217-FDS, ECF No. 24 ................................................................................ 27
`
`United States v. Regeneron,
`No. 20-cv-11217 ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`United States v. Toyobo Co.,
`811 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2011) ..................................................................................... 35
`
`Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar,
`575 U.S. 433 (2015).......................................................................................................... 38
`
`STATUTES
`
`26 U.S.C. § 6104 .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(1)............................................................................................................ 23
`
`31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)............................................................................................................ 14
`
`31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) .......................................................................................................... 14, 34
`
`31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 .................................................................................................. passim
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a........................................................................................................ 16, 30
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b ............................................................................................ 15, 16, 31, 32
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`26 C.F.R. § 301.6104.............................................................................................................. 23
`
`42 C.F.R. § 423.104..................................................................................................................6
`
`70 Fed. Reg. 70623............................................................................................................. 8, 37
`
`70 Fed. Reg. 70623, 70626 (Nov. 22, 2005)...................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 47
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`70 Fed. Reg. 70624....................................................................................................... 8, 18, 20
`
`70 Fed. Reg. 70627.................................................................................................. 7, 18, 22, 37
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 31120 (May 30, 2014) ................................................................................ 8, 9, 18
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 31122................................................................................................................. 18
`
`70 Fed. Rg. 70625 .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`FDA Drug Safety Information, Copaxone,
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2020/020622s110lbl.pdf ..................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)................................................................................................ 13, 25, 32, 34
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) .................................................................................................................9
`
`https://tafcares.org/donors/how-are-donations-used.................................................................. 23
`
`https://tafcares.org/donors/how-we-help-2/ .............................................................................. 12
`
`https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/in-
`depth/personalized-therapy-for-multiple-sclerosis/art-20095758 ...........................................9
`
`https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/symptoms-
`causes/syc-20350269 ..........................................................................................................9
`
`https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-part-d/costs-for-medicare-drug-
`coverage/costs-in-the-coverage-gap ................................................................................... 23
`
`https://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/qa/can-drugs-that-slow-the-
`progression-of-multiple-sclerosis-ms-cure-it ........................................................................9
`
`Medicare.gov, https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-part-d/costs-for-
`medicare-drug-coverage......................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 47
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Complaint is premised on the Defendants’1 donations to two charitable foundations’
`
`Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”) disease state funds. Those funds helped patients afford medically
`
`necessary medication to treat their MS. The government contends that, because Teva allegedly
`
`wanted its charitable donations to be used, in whole or in part, to help MS patients afford Teva’s
`
`MS medication Copaxone, those donations violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and the
`
`False Claims Act (“FCA”). The government’s theory is fatally flawed for a number of reasons.
`
`Accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed.
`
`The government does not, and cannot, allege that Teva had control of the charities’ use of
`
`donated funds, much less the right to require the charities to use Teva’s donations for Copaxone.
`
`On the contrary, the funds to which Teva donated supported a number of MS products, and the
`
`charities retained control over the use of those. That ultimate independence over how the funds
`
`were dispensed is fatal to the government’s case. It “severs the nexus” of Teva’s donations
`
`under the AKS.
`
`The government also does not allege that any physician was influenced to prescribe
`
`Copaxone, or any patient to use it, because of these donations. Indeed, the government fails to
`
`identify a single patient who was prescribed Copaxone for any reason other than, in his or her
`
`physician’s judgment, it was a medically necessary treatment for their MS.
`
`Despite spending considerable time in the Complaint hypothesizing about the potential
`
`impact of charitable contributions on drug pricing, the Complaint does not identify a single
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The Defendants are Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) and Teva Neuroscience, Inc. (“Teva
`Neuroscience”) (collectively, “Teva” or the “Company”).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 47
`
`
`
`comparable lower priced treatment, much less a comparable treatment that was not also
`
`supported by manufacturer charitable contributions. Instead, the Complaint sets forth the
`
`unfortunate but unremarkable proposition that the Medicare Part D structure shifts significant
`
`cost burdens onto seniors, many of whom cannot afford much of their medication regimen
`
`without help. That pharmaceutical companies assist in addressing this burden in a manner that
`
`can also benefit their own products does not convert charitable contributions into criminal acts.
`
`Taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss only, the government’s factual
`
`allegations in this case establish nothing more than that Teva hoped and expected that its
`
`charitable donations would help Copaxone patients pay for their medication, and Teva took steps
`
`to maximize the chances that would happen. But, that does not create an intent to induce
`
`sufficient to establish an anti-kickback violation. If that were the case, no pharmaceutical
`
`company could donate to a fund that, even in part, supported its own products without running
`
`afoul of the AKS. There has to be something more. To violate the AKS, a donation must be
`
`contingent on the charity’s agreement to recommend or otherwise promote the donor or its
`
`product. There is no such agreement alleged here.
`
`Guidance and opinions from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of
`
`Inspector General (“OIG”) have consistently reinforced the fundamental proposition that
`
`pharmaceutical companies can donate to funds that support their products. And OIG is certainly
`
`well aware that for-profit pharmaceutical manufacturers “hope and expect” that their donations
`
`will “in whole or in part” support their own products. To conclude otherwise is to engage in a
`
`fiction that no court should countenance. Yet, taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s
`
`theory necessarily converts that hope and expectation into an intent to induce that is violative of
`
`the AKS. If the government were correct, then any such donation would violate the AKS
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 47
`
`
`
`irrespective of the safeguards followed—and the OIG’s guidance would be tantamount to
`
`counselling in favor of criminality. For that reason, the government cannot satisfy the requisite
`
`intent to induce necessary to state a claim.
`
`The Complaint fails to satisfy several other elements of the AKS. Teva’s donations did
`
`not “induce” or “reward” prescriptions under the AKS. There is no allegation that Teva
`
`marketed its donations or otherwise “induced” prescribers or patients in the initial selection of
`
`Copaxone as a treatment. The donations that patients received occurred after the prescribing
`
`decision and with no attribution to Teva (or any of the other manufactures whose pooled
`
`contributions went into the charities). Indeed, the Civil Monetary Penalties Law specifically
`
`exempts “remuneration which promotes access to care and poses a low risk of harm to patients
`
`and Federal health care programs.” That principle is instructive here. Teva’s donations both
`
`promote access to care and pose a low risk of harm to Federal health care programs because the
`
`donations were made to charities that retained the ultimate discretion in how to distribute their
`
`funds.
`
`The government’s FCA claim also fails because the government has not identified a
`
`single claim that resulted from a Teva donation, which is required to satisfy the statutory
`
`causation requirement that a false claim “result from” a violation of the AKS. The Complaint
`
`and accompanying exhibits reflect that: 1) other manufacturers contributed to the charities; 2)
`
`their pooled donations were not attributed to Teva or marketed to patients or prescribers to
`
`influence which medications were selected; and 3) the foundations ultimately disposed of the
`
`pooled funds they received from Teva and other manufacturers in the manner they deemed
`
`appropriate. The temporal connection between donations and patient funding alleged by the
`
`government is insufficient as a matter of law.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 11 of 47
`
`
`
`
`The government has failed to state a claim for conspiracy to violate the FCA because it
`
`has alleged no facts to show a “meeting of the minds” to defraud the government involving either
`
`charity, CDF or TAF. And none of the facts alleged undermine the ultimate independence that
`
`the charities ultimately had, and exercised, over the distribution of Teva’s (and other
`
`manufacturers’) donations.
`
`The government’s claim for unjust enrichment fails as well. The government’s FCA
`
`claims confirm it has an adequate legal remedy. Where the government cannot make out the
`
`statutory elements under the AKS and the FCA, the Court should not permit it to seek relief
`
`beyond what Congress has declared to be unlawful. In any event, the government’s unjust
`
`enrichment claims fail for the same reasons that its FCA claims fail.
`
`Finally, through this enforcement action, the government chills speech protected by the
`
`First Amendment. The government’s positon is that what converts a legal donation into a crime
`
`is speech and speech alone—the alleged sharing of information relating to donations. However,
`
`communications between a donor, like Teva, and a charitable foundation, are unquestionably
`
`speech incident to charitable giving. The government’s effective restriction on pharmaceutical
`
`companies’ speech, while not restricting identical speech made by others, runs afoul of the First
`
`Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Under principles of constitutional avoidance, the
`
`Court should resolve any doubts in favor of dismissing this action.
`
`At its core, the government’s theory conflates donations to charities pooled with other
`
`manufacturers to help patients afford their necessary medication, with kickbacks to providers or
`
`patients to influence drug choice. This case is an overreach by DOJ, based on a flawed legal
`
`theory, and should be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 12 of 47
`
`
`
`
`A. Medicare Part D Created the Need for Charitable Assistance.
`
`In 2006, Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage went into effect. The program,
`
`however, has a significant shortcoming: it does not subsidize the full cost of prescription drugs.
`
`(Compl. ¶¶ 16-21.) Instead, large gaps in coverage remain, leaving seniors with a considerable
`
`burden in affording their drugs.
`
`After a Part D beneficiary meets an annual deductible ($250 in 2006), he or she is
`
`responsible for a 25 percent co-pay on prescription drugs up until an “initial coverage limit”
`
`($2,250 in 2006). (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Once the “initial coverage limit” is reached, there is a
`
`“coverage gap”—also known as the Medicare “donut hole.” In that gap, patients are responsible
`
`for a high percentage of their brand name prescription drugs (e.g., 100 percent through 2010).
`
`(Id. ¶ 20.) Medicare beneficiaries must then pay fully out of pocket until an “annual out-of-
`
`pocket threshold” is met for the coverage year ($3,600 in 2006). (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.)2 The financial
`
`thresholds (i.e., the premiums, annual deductible, initial coverage limit, and out-of-pocket
`
`threshold) have increased each year since 2006. (Id. ¶ 21.) In 2020, the initial coverage limit is
`
`$4,020, the out-of-pocket threshold is $6,350, and an annual deductible can reach $435. 42
`
`C.F.R. § 423.104.3
`
`As a result, many retirees cannot afford the medication they need, despite having
`
`Medicare Part D coverage. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2005, people with insurance
`
`
`
` 2
`
` When in the “donut hole,” Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay 100 percent of the costs of brand
`name prescription drugs from 2006 to 2010, 50 percent in 2011 and 2012, 47.5 percent in 2013 and 2014,
`and 45 percent in 2015 and 2016. (Compl. ¶ 20.)
`
`3 See also Costs for Medicare drug coverage, Medicare.gov, https://www.medicare.gov/drug-coverage-
`part-d/costs-for-medicare-drug-coverage.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 13 of 47
`
`
`
`were finding it increasingly difficult to afford treatment. (Compl. Ex. 7.) This was particularly
`
`acute with newer biological medications that “are proteins grown in cells, which is a complex,
`
`expensive process” and the companies that developed them took the position that pricing was
`
`necessary to “recoup development costs and invest in research.” (Id.) Indeed, the
`
`“biotechnology revolution” had “created hundreds of drugs for chronic, life threatening
`
`illnesses.” (Id.) These drugs are often “a real miracle” for patients suffering from life-altering
`
`disorders. (Id.) Thus, pharmaceutical company donations to patient assistance charities had
`
`begun to provide an important safety net. As one Medicare beneficiary explained to the WSJ: “I
`
`feel grateful every day for [the PAP] and the companies that support them.” (Id.)
`
`In response to the Medicare Part D coverage gap, pharmaceutical companies faced a
`
`dilemma. If they stepped in to help patients afford their medication through direct subsidies,
`
`they risked incurring the draconian penalties of the AKS and FCA. The solution was to continue
`
`the charitable giving that, as the WSJ article cited in the Complaint recognizes, long predated
`
`Medicare Part D. (Id.)
`
`The federal government, in the form of the OIG, immediately recognized this dilemma as
`
`well. It issued the Special Advisory Bulletin on Patient Assistance Programs for Medicare Part
`
`D Enrollees that explicitly recognized the need for continued financial support by industry in the
`
`context of Medicare Part D. See 70 Fed. Reg. 70623, 70626 (Nov. 22, 2005) (“2005 OIG
`
`Guidance”). 4 The OIG acknowledged that “[p]atient assistance programs (PAPs) have long
`
`
`
` 4
`
` The Court may take judicial notice of agency guidance. See, e.g., N. Heel Corp. v. Compo Indus., Inc.,
`851 F.2d 456, 468 (1st Cir. 1988) (taking judicial notice of administrative agency regulations); Humana
`Inc. v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. CV1906926DSFMRW, 2020 WL 3041309, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9,
`2020) (taking judicial notice of the 2005 and 2014 OIG Special Advisory Bulletins).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 14 of 47
`
`
`
`provided important safety net assistance to patients of limited means who do not have insurance
`
`coverage for drugs, typically serving patients with chronic illnesses and high drug costs[,]” and
`
`that the passage of Medicare Part D did not obviate the need for this “important safety net.” Id.
`
`at 70626. Thus, the OIG observed “that pharmaceutical manufacturers can effectively contribute
`
`to the pharmaceutical safety net by making cash donations to independent, bona fide charitable
`
`assistance programs.” Id.
`
`While the OIG’s guidance is a policy document and not binding law,5 the guidance
`
`makes clear that, until recently, the government has never taken the position that a donation by a
`
`pharmaceutical company to an independent charity with the hope, expectation, or purpose that its
`
`donation be used, in whole or part, to support its products violates the AKS. There was and
`
`remains no proscription against a manufacturer donating to a fund that supported its own
`
`products. 2005 OIG Guidance, 70 Fed. Reg. at 70627. Indeed, even single drug funds (not at
`
`issue in this case) were not viewed as necessarily in violation of the AKS. See id. n.19. When
`
`the 2005 OIG Guidance was updated in 2014, it still did not proscribe donations by companies to
`
`funds that supported products including their own. See 79 Fed. Reg. 31120 (May 30, 2014)
`
`(“2014 OIG Guidance”).
`
`Consistent with the 2005 OIG Guidance, in advisory opinions, the OIG repeatedly
`
`approved arrangements in which pharmaceutical companies donated to charitable disease state
`
`
`
` 5
`
` See, e.g., Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., 630 F. App’x 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2015); United States
`ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi U.S. Servs. Inc., No. CV 02-2964, 2020 WL 4260797, at *8 (E.D. Pa. July 24,
`2020).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11548-NMG Document 23 Filed 10/19/20 Page 15 of 47
`
`
`
`funds that supported their own products. This included the charities at issue in this case: the
`
`Chronic Disease Fund (“CDF”) and The Assistance Fund (“TAF”). See OIG Adv. Op. No. 06-
`
`10 (Sept. 14, 2006) (“CDF Op.”), attached as Exhibit 1; OIG Adv. Op. No. 10-07 (May 26,
`
`2010) (“TAF Op.”), attached as Exhibit 2.6 Never once did the OIG find that a donor’s
`
`subjective intent with regard to the use of its funds to support its own products violated the AKS.
`
`That is because the involvement of an independent charity “sever[s] the nexus between the
`
`patient subsidies and the manufacturer.” 2005 OIG Guidance, 70 Fed. Reg. at 70624 n.3; accord
`
`CDF Op. 7 (“[CDF] awards assistance in a truly independent manner that severs any link
`
`between donors and beneficiaries.”); TAF Op. 6 (“[TAF] would award assistance in a truly
`
`independent manner that would sever any link between Donors and beneficiaries.”).7
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Charitable Support
`
`1.
`
`Teva’s Copaxone Treats Multiple Sclerosis, A Life-Altering Disease.
`
`Among the products that Teva sells is Copaxone. Copaxone is an injectable medicine
`
`
`
` 6
`
` Subsequently, OIG modified CDF’s advisory opinion (Not. of Mod. of OIG Adv. Op. No. 06-10 (Oct.
`26, 2015) and TAF’s advisory opinion (Nots. of Mod. of OIG Adv. Op. No. 10-07 (May 19, 2011) and
`(May 5, 2016)). These modified advisory opinions reflected the OIG’s continued approval of each
`charity’s patient assistance programs, per the charities’ certified information submission.
`
`7 See also CDF Op. n.8 (“This conclusion is consistent with the OIG’s November 2005 Special Advisory
`Bulletin on Patient Assistance Programs for Medicare Part D Enrollees (70 Fed. Reg.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket