BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair BILL NO: AB 1668 --------------------------------------------------------------- |AUTHOR: |Calderon | |---------------+-----------------------------------------------| |VERSION: |March 7, 2016 | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |HEARING DATE: |June 22, 2016 | | | --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- |CONSULTANT: |Melanie Moreno | --------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT : Investigational drugs, biological products, and devices SUMMARY :1) Permits a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device to make available an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient, as defined. Prohibits this bill from requiring that a manufacturer make available an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient. Existing state law: 1)Establishes the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law), which regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of drugs and devices, administered by the Department of Public Health (DPH). 2)Prohibits, under the Sherman Law, the sale, delivery, or giving away of a new drug or device unless it is either: a) A new drug or new device for which DPH has approved a new drug or device application, and has not withdrawn, terminated, or suspended that approval; or, b) A new drug, and a new drug application has been approved for it by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pursuant to federal law, or it is a new device for which a premarket approval application has been approved, and that approval has not been withdrawn, terminated, or suspended under the FDA. 3)Establishes the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act which prescribes various protections for AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 2 of ? subjects of medical experimentation relating to a bill of rights; informed consent procedures and documentation; and, the provision of specified disclosures, including the right for a subject to give or withdraw consent freely and without duress. Imposes penalties for violations of these protections. 4)Requires health plans and insurers to provide an external, independent review process to examine plan's coverage denials of experimental or investigational therapies for individual enrollees who have a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition and who meet other specified criteria. 5)Requires health plans and insurers to provide coverage for all routine patient care costs relative to the treatment of an enrollee or insured diagnosed with cancer and accepted in an FDA-approved cancer clinical trial, Phase I-IV, if the enrollee's treating physician, recommends participation in the clinical trial after determining such participation has a meaningful potential to benefit the enrollee or insured. Existing federal law: 1)Establishes the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which grants authority to the FDA to oversee the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. 2)Prohibits any new drug from being introduced into interstate commerce unless an application has been approved by the FDA. 3)Under regulation: a) Requires clinical trial sponsors to submit an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA for clinical investigation of a new drug or new indication of an approved drug, with certain exceptions; b) Requires review and approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) before a clinical study can be initiated under an IND; c) Defines an IRB as an appropriately constituted group that has been designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects, to ensure that a clinical trial is ethical and that the rights of study participants are protected; and, d) Authorizes an IRB to approve, require modifications in, or disapprove research, or to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 3 of ? 4)Establishes the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), which provides leadership in the protection of the rights, welfare, and well-being of subjects involved in research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). OHRP helps ensure this by providing clarification and guidance, developing educational programs and materials, maintaining regulatory oversight, and providing advice on ethical and regulatory issues in biomedical and social-behavioral research. This bill: 1)Permits a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device to make available an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient, as defined. Prohibits this bill from requiring that a manufacturer make available an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient. 2)Defines "investigational drug, biological product, or device" as a drug, biological product, or device that has successfully completed phase one of a clinical trial approved by the FDA, but has not been approved for general use by the USDA and remains under investigation in a clinical trial approved by the FDA. 3)Defines "eligible patient" as a person who: a) Has a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition. Defines "immediately life-threatening disease or condition" as a stage of disease in which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will occur within a matter of months; b) Has considered all other treatment options currently approved by the FDA; c) Has not been accepted to participate in the nearest clinical trial to his or her home for the immediately life-threatening disease or condition within one week of completion of the clinical trial application process, or, in the treating physician's medical judgment, it is unreasonable for the patient to participate in that clinical trial due to the patient's current condition and stage of disease; d) Has received a recommendation from his or her primary physician and a consulting physician, as defined, for an investigational drug, biological AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 4 of ? product, or device. Defines "consulting physician" as a physician and surgeon or an osteopathic physician and surgeon who: i. Examines the qualified individual and his or her relevant medical records; ii. Confirms, in writing, the primary physician's diagnosis and prognosis; and, iii. Verifies, in the opinion of the consulting physician, that the eligible patient is competent, acting voluntarily, and has made an informed decision. e) Has given written informed consent for the use of the investigational drug, biological product, or device, or, if he or she lacks the capacity to consent, his or her legally authorized representative has given written informed consent on his or her behalf. Defines "written informed consent" as a written document that has been approved by the primary physician's IRB or an accredited independent IRB, is signed by an eligible patient, or his or her legally authorized representative when the patient lacks the capacity to consent, and attested to by the patient's primary physician and a witness that, at a minimum: i. Explains the currently approved products and treatments for the disease or condition from which the patient suffers; ii. Attests to the fact that the patient, or his or her legally authorized representative, concurs with the primary physician in believing that all currently approved and conventionally recognized treatments are unlikely to prolong the patient's life; iii. Clearly identifies the specific proposed investigational drug, biological product, or device that the patient is seeking to use; iv. Describes the potentially best and worst outcomes of using the investigational drug, biological product, or device and describes the most likely outcome, as specified; v. Clearly states that the patient's health plan or insurer, if any, and health care AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 5 of ? provider are not obligated to pay for the investigational drug, biological product, or device or any care or treatments consequent to use of the investigational drug, biological product, or device; vi. Clearly states that the patient's eligibility for hospice care may be withdrawn if the patient begins curative treatment and that care may be reinstated if the curative treatment ends and the patient meets hospice eligibility requirements; vii. Clearly states that in-home health care may be denied if treatment begins; and, viii. States that the patient understands that he or she is liable for all expenses consequent to the use of the investigational drug, biological product, or device, and that this liability extends to the patient's estate, except as otherwise provided in the patient's health benefit plan or a contract between the patient and the manufacturer of the drug, biological product, or device. 4)Permits a manufacturer to provide an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient without receiving compensation and to require an eligible patient to pay the costs of or associated with the manufacture of the investigational drug, biological product, or device. 5)Prohibits this bill from expanding or otherwise affecting coverage provided by health plans or insurers, the Medi-Cal program, or county organized health systems. 6)Specifies that this bill does not require a health plan or insurer to provide coverage for the cost of any investigational drug, biological product, or device, or the costs of services related to the use of an investigational drug, biological product, or device under this bill, but permits one to provide such coverage. 7)Prohibits an investigational drug, biological product, or device from being offered if a clinical trial for that investigational drug, biological product, or device is closed due to the lack of efficacy or for toxicity. Requires the manufacturer and the patient's primary physician, if notice is AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 6 of ? given for an investigational drug, biological product, or device taken by a patient outside of a clinical trial, to notify the patient of the information from the safety committee of the clinical trial. 8)Prohibits the heirs of an eligible patient, if he/she dies while being treated by an investigational drug, biological product, or device made available pursuant to this bill, from being liable for any outstanding debt related to the treatment or lack of insurance for the treatment. 9)Prohibits a state regulatory board from revoking, failing to renew, or taking any other disciplinary action against a physician's license based solely on the physician's recommendation to an eligible patient regarding, or prescription for or treatment with, an investigational drug, biological product, or device if the recommendation or prescription is consistent with protocol approved by the physician's IRB or an accredited independent institutional review board. 10)Requires the physician's IRB or an accredited institutional review board to biannually report to DPH, the Medical Board of California (MBC), and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California (OMBC): a) The number of requests made for an investigational drug, biological product, or device; b) The status of the requests made; c) The duration of the treatment; d) The costs of the treatment paid by eligible patients; e) The success or failure of the investigational drug, biological product, or device in treating the immediately life-threatening disease or condition from which the patient suffers; and, f) Any adverse event for each investigational drug, biological product, or device. 11)Prohibits a state agency from altering any recommendation made to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding a health care provider's certification to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program based solely on the recommendation from an individual health care provider that a patient have access to an investigational drug, AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 7 of ? biological product, or device. 12)Makes a violation of this bill not subject to the Sherman Law. 13)Specifies that this bill does not create a private cause of action, and that actions taken pursuant to this bill do not serve as a basis for a civil, criminal, or disciplinary claim or cause of action, including, but not limited to, product liability, medical negligence, or wrongful death, against a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device, or against any other person or entity involved in the care of an eligible patient for harm done to the eligible patient or his or her heirs resulting from the investigational drug, biological product, or device, or the use or nonuse thereof, if the manufacturer or other person or entity has complied with the terms of this article in relation to the eligible patient, unless there was a failure to exercise reasonable care. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)Minor and absorbable costs to DPH, the Medical Board of California, and Osteopathic Medical Board of California to receive and review biannually reports from institutional review boards on the requests for treatment with an investigational product (various funds). 2)Costs of $380,000 in the first year of implementation, and $200,000 ongoing to Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) (Managed Care Fund). First year costs are higher because of probable additional legal analysis and processing Public Records Act (PRA) requests for experimental procedures previously authorized or rejected by health plans. Ongoing costs are related to patient and provider inquiries to the DMHC's Help Center. DMHC indicates any of the investigational and/or experimental Independent Medical Review (IMR) requests require thorough analysis to determine if literature and studies on the treatments are available, and to review clinical trials, if completed or available. 3)The California Department of Insurance may, similarly to DMHC, experience unknown costs related to IMR requests, PRA requests, or other requests for other assistance to the extent AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 8 of ? these requests increase. (Insurance Fund). PRIOR VOTES : ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Assembly Floor: |77 - 2 | |------------------------------------+----------------------------| |Assembly Appropriations Committee: |20 - 0 | |------------------------------------+----------------------------| |Assembly Health Committee: |18 - 0 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS : 1)Author's statement. According to the author, AB 1668 seeks to allow terminally ill patients the right to pursue non-FDA approved medications in hopes of saving their lives. Terminally ill patients often do not have the luxury of waiting for the FDA to grant compassionate use or participating in the lengthy process of clinical trials. AB 1668 gives terminally ill patients a chance to try potentially life-saving treatments after all other options have been exhausted. AB 1668 removes barriers for patients and doctors who believe an investigational drug or device could be their last hope for survival, while also protecting physicians, hospitals, and manufacturers from retribution. 2)Background. According to an April 9, 2015 Health Policy Brief on the issue of right-to-try laws in Health Affairs, under current federal regulations, patients with serious or life-threatening illness have two primary options to access experimental therapies that may treat their condition but that have not yet been approved by the FDA: participate as a human subject in a clinical trial or, for patients who cannot be enrolled in that trial (because of their medical status or geographic location, for example), apply to the FDA for access to the experimental drug under the expanded access (also known as compassionate use) program. 3)Clinical trials. According to the Health Affairs brief, clinical testing of an experimental drug is typically a three-phase process. Phase I trials are small (20 to 80 patients) and are used primarily to evaluate safety and dosing ranges, usually in healthy volunteers. Phase II trials are AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 9 of ? larger (typically 100 to 300 patients) and are designed to show early evidence of efficacy in the patients that the drug is intended to treat. Phase III trials may include hundreds or thousands of patients and are used to demonstrate that the drug is effective compared to a control (such as a placebo or a comparator drug). Typically, a manufacturer submits an application to the FDA for marketing approval once a drug has successfully completed Phase III trials. Any drug company wishing to conduct a clinical trial must first submit an IND application to the FDA, which allows the company to manufacture the drug and ship it across state lines for use in the trial. The drug may be only administered to patients who are formally enrolled in that clinical trial. The study population for that trial may be limited based on any number of factors, including specific diagnosis, age, stage of illness, or comorbidities. 4)Expanded access program. According to the Health Affairs brief, the expanded access program is an attempt at flexibility in the regulatory process and to allow patients with no other treatment options a chance to try therapies they may not otherwise have access to. The program allows patients who meet certain eligibility requirements to receive an experimental therapy outside of the formal clinical research process. An application for expanded access can be submitted by either the drug manufacturer or a licensed physician. There are three categories of expanded access: treatment, single patient, and intermediate, which are further split into two subcategories. One is "expanded access INDs," through which the manufacturer submits a separate IND for a patient or group of patients, and the other is "expanded access protocols," whereby the manufacturer amends the protocol under an existing IND to include the patient (or patients) seeking access. Under treatment INDs, a relatively large group of patients (hundreds or thousands) are permitted to access an experimental drug, provided that the sponsor is actively pursuing FDA approval and is in later stages of testing (or has already submitted trial results to the FDA for review). According to an article published in the January 15, 2015 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the FDA has permitted almost all expanded access requests regardless of category. The FDA estimated that by 2006, approximately 100,000 patients had obtained expanded access to experimental drugs. Between 2010 and 2013, the FDA imposed clinical holds on only two of the 2,472 individual, non-emergency protocols, on one of 66 intermediate-size AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 10 of ? requests, and on none of the 41 widespread expanded-access protocols it received. The Health Affairs brief states that critics of the expanded access program have argued that the application process is unnecessarily burdensome and lengthy (it is estimated that the IND application requires about 100 hours to complete), which discourages doctors and manufacturers from applying. An IRB review adds an additional layer of paperwork and potential delay. These requirements were put in place in response to highly publicized incidents of harm caused by unsafe drugs. In the past decade, there have been several attempts made at the federal and judicial levels to further relax restrictions on the administration of experimental therapies to terminally ill patients. One, led by the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA in 2003 requesting that it make experimental therapies available to terminally ill patients, provided that the drug had passed Phase I testing. Following several years of litigation, the DC Court of Appeals ruled against the Abigail Alliance, stating that terminally ill patients have no constitutional right to access experimental therapies. The US Supreme Court subsequently declined to review the case. Several bills have been introduced in the US Congress that aim to relax FDA restrictions on access to experimental therapies. The most recent of these (HR 4475, the Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act of 2014) failed to make it out of committee. 5)Other states. Over the past year, the issue of access to experimental therapies has been debated at the state level, in part due to efforts of the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank that appears to be the source of this bill. In February 2014, the Institute released a policy paper that outlines the major critiques of the FDA's expanded access program and proposes model legislation for states to adopt. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), legislation related to right-to-try have been introduced in 30 states. Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, and Missouri have laws on the subject. 6)FDA action. According to a June 2, 1016 statement from the Commissioner, the FDA has finalized its efforts to streamline the process used by physicians to request the expanded access program, which was prompted due to reports that navigating that process can be challenging and time consuming. According AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 11 of ? to the FDA statement, in order to make things simpler for physicians and reduce the amount of time they spend filling out a request for access to an investigational drug, the FDA released the final Individual Patient Expanded Access Investigational New Drug Application, which is much shorter than the form previously used and should take about 45 minutes for a physician to complete. The FDA also released step-by-step instructions on how to complete it. 7)NEJM article. The authors of the January 2015 NEJM article mentioned above call right-to-try laws misguided, and call for a more pragmatic approach. They suggest that states work collaboratively with the FDA to make expanded access more practical when it is appropriate. For example, since the FDA has acknowledged that gaining approval from an IRB can pose a barrier, states could partner with the FDA to fund multicenter IRBs that focus specifically on expanded-access requests. Such multicenter panels would conduct full reviews, but their subject-matter expertise and limited dockets would translate into faster review times. Practical obstacles to enhancing expanded access programs, including administrative burdens and industry costs, would also be best tackled by the states in partnership with the FDA. For example, a manufacturer's reluctance to provide product because of financial concerns could be addressed by permitting companies to charge amounts closer to the likely post approval cost of drugs. 8)Double referral. This bill is double referred. Should it pass out of this committee, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Business and Professions and Economic Development. 9)Previous legislation. SB 149 (Stone of 2015) and AB 159 (Calderon of 2015) were substantially similar to this bill, and enacts the Right to Try Act, permitting a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device to make available an investigational drug, biological product, or device to an eligible patient, as defined. SB 149 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 159 was vetoed by the Governor, who stated, "Patients with life threatening conditions should be able to try experimental drugs, and the [FDA's] compassionate use program allows this to happen. The proposed changes to this program will streamline access to these drugs. Before authorizing an alternative state pathway, we should give this federal AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 12 of ? expedited process a chance to work." SB 715 (Anderson of 2015), would have permitted a manufacturer of a drug, biological product, or device that has not yet received federal or state approval to market to make the product available to eligible patients with terminal illnesses, as specified. SB 715 was set for hearing in this Committee, but withdrawn at the request of the author. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning of 2015), would have permitted a qualified adult with capacity to make medical decisions, who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease to receive a prescription for an aid in dying drug if certain conditions are met. SB 128 was set for hearing in the Assembly Health Committee, but withdrawn at the request of the author. AB X2 15 (Eggman, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2015-16 Second Extraordinary Session) is substantially similar to SB 128. 10)Support. The National Association of Social Workers writes that approval for the FDA's expanded access program can take several months and terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other options are unable to wait months to gain access to potentially life-saving investigation drugs and devices. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors states that seriously ill patients, who have exhausted their options to find a cure and who have identified physicians and a pharmaceutical company willing to assist them, deserve the right to experimental treatments that could improve their health conditions for prolonging their lives. The ALS Association Golden West Chapter states that they support and advocate for expanded access to experimental treatments for people living with ALS. 11)Opposition. The Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc cite the difficulty of identifying a terminally-ill patient, the danger a "right to try" policy outside the context of a clinical trial would present to adult clinical trial enrollment and the lack of an informed consent process to protect patients seeking investigational drugs as reasons for establishing their oppose position on the bill. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA) maintain that this bill does nothing to address the real barriers to "compassionate use" revealed in a recent article AB 1668 (Calderon) Page 13 of ? in the NEJM article specifically stating that nothing in this legislation impacts the availability of drugs to terminally ill patients unless the manufacturer of the drugs allow it to be used in advance of FDA approval. The CNA goes on to state instead of taking on the cost of drugs and challenging drug manufacturers that charge excessive prices for all drugs sold in California, this bill reinforces the status quo for investigational drug costs. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION : Support: (sponsor) ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) Association Golden West Chapter County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors National Association of Social Workers California Chapter Oppose: California Nurses Association Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc. -- END --