Husch Blackwell attorney Molly Kurt recently addressed this question in a review of cases in which OFCCP has attempted to assert jurisdiction over hospitals as covered federal subcontractors. Most recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued UPMC Braddock et al. v. Harris, in which the district court affirmed the decision
Office of Inspector General Issues Updated Self-Disclosure Protocol
On April 17, 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) updated the OIG’s self-disclosure protocol (SDP). This update significantly revises the SDP first published in 1998, and supersedes the OIG’s related open letters to providers from 2006, 2008 and 2009. To date, the OIG has processed 235 settlements and monetary recoveries in excess of $280…
Branding 101: Selection of a Strong Trademark
Selecting a strong trademark is the key to being able to protect the trademark. As we discussed last week, the first and central step in branding is selecting your facility’s trademarks, which promote a provider’s reputation, helping it stand out among its competition. When choosing a name for a product or service, the inherent strength of mark should be considered, as this will affect many things going forward from the cost of a search to your ability to stop others from using similar names.
There are five categories of marks, each of which comes with its own level of legal protection. From least to most protected, they are:
- GENERIC: Names like “emergency room” or “doctors” – these cannot be trademarked.
- DESCRIPTIVE: Descriptive marks immediately provide information about the service or product. These types of marks can be protected but only if they have acquired distinctiveness through use in commerce. Descriptive marks include laudatory marks (“Best Dental”); geographic marks (“North Shore Hospital”); and surnames (“Williams Orthopedics”).
- SUGGESTIVE: These marks indirectly provide information about the goods and services requiring the consumer to make a mental step or connection to determine what the services are (“Service with a Heart” for a cardiac center; “Papoose” or “Joey” for pediatric services). Suggestive marks are immediately protectable; however the scope of that protection is not as broad as for arbitrary or fanciful marks.
- ARBITRARY: These marks, like “Apple” or “Amazon,” are real words but there is no connection between the words’ meaning and the services or products it is used for. These marks enjoy broad, strong protection.
- FANCIFUL: These marks are made-up words, like “Xerox,” “Google,” or “Viagra,” created specifically to be used to identify the source or origin of certain goods or services. These are the most strongly protected marks.
Hospitals and other healthcare facilities have traditionally been named with geographic designations or with the name of a famous person or in other ways that would be considered “descriptive.” These names, after long years of use are quite likely to have acquired “secondary meaning” so they are now protectable trademarks. Many such marks have become quite famous and will enjoy strong trademark protection despite their humble beginnings. Therefore, the hospital will have the ability to police and control use by competitors of similar names. However, it is unlikely that the hospital will be able to control all use of the descriptive elements of its name and trademark.
FDA Bars Generic “Copycat” OxyContin: Will Efforts to Limit Abuse of the Painkiller Also Limit Competition?
On April 16, in a win for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, the FDA issued a decision approving updated labeling for Purdue’s reformulated, abuse-resistant OxyContin tablets. The decision places drug makers on notice that the FDA will not accept or approve any abbreviated new drug applications (generics) that rely upon the agency’s December 1995 approval of Purdue’s original OxyContin formulation.
The FDA’s decision was issued just as Purdue was set to lose its patent on the original formulation of OxyContin. Loss of this patent would have opened the opioid-painkiller market to competition from generic drug makers. But now, going forward, new applications for generic “copycat” forms of the drug must meet Purdue’s approved, abuse-resistant standard, without infringing upon Purdue’s patent for reformulated OxyContin, which lasts until 2025.
Concern over abuse of the well-known painkiller was central to the FDA’s decision. The agency explained, in a press release accompanying its decision: Purdue’s “labeling indicates that the [reformulated] product has physical and chemical properties that are expected to make abuse via injection difficult and to reduce abuse via the intranasal route (snorting).” The press release further stated that: The original formulation of OxyContin “was abused, often following manipulation intended to defeat its extended-release properties. Such manipulation causes the drug to be released more rapidly, which increases the risk of serious adverse events, including overdose and death.”
According to the New York Times, the FDA’s decision was pushed by some state attorneys general, as well as pain treatment experts, who argued that the release of generic versions of OxyContin would feed street demand for the narcotic. Critics, however, have argued that the decision will result in higher prices for OxyContin, as the reformulated drug will not face generic competition.
Branding 101 for Healthcare Providers
“Branding” is one of the most popular buzz words in the advertising and marketing arena. But what does it mean to have a “brand” and what should you be willing to do to create and maintain your “brand”? In today’s technology-driven economy, even the local hospital and primary care physician’s office have to compete for business. …
Trying To Figure Out the New HIPAA Risk Assessments? Help is on the way!
If you have been struggling to figure out the risk assessment requirements of the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule, then you are in luck. Join us for a webinar! Husch Blackwell attorneys Pete Enko and Peter Sloan along with Director of Information Management Consulting Deb Juhnke will present the Who, What, When, How and Why…
HHS-OIG Advisory Bulletin on Gifts and Inducements
In August 2002, the United States Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) issued a Special Advisory Bulletin relating to offering gifts and inducements to beneficiaries of Title XIX (Medicaid) programs. Since the States operate their Medicaid programs under the direction of HHS-CMS, it has generally been considered in the health law community…
New Texas Medical Board Website Policy on Posting Charges Against Exonerated Physicians
The Texas Medical Board met on April 12 and decided to change their unwritten physician profile website policy. The board decided to remove from physician profiles any applications for temporary suspensions filed by board staff which were ultimately denied by the board’s temporary suspension panel in the physician’s favor. The new policy is good news…
New York Physician Believes More Patients Should Be Brought Back From the Dead
The head of ICU at the Stony Brook University Hospital on Long Island wants to change how medical professionals respond to cardiac arrest.
The Guardian is reporting that the British-trained physician, Sam Parnia, M.D., specializes in resurrection. His patients can be dead for several hours before he is able to resuscitate them and restore them…
New Device Provides Nurses Information Where They Need It, Right When They Need It
Nursing is a study in multi-tasking: multiple patients with multiple issues that require complex medication management. In addition, nurses have to manage massive amounts of information from both human and computer sources. This week, The Joint Commission called for hospitals to address “alarm fatigue.” According to The Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert, medical devices that issue too many audio and visual…