Massachusetts Finalizes Regulations and Code of Conduct for Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Relationships with Health Care Practitioners
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.13.09
This week, Massachusetts approved regulations creating a new state-authored marketing code of conduct for interactions between health care practitioners and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. The regulations are effective on July 1, 2009.
The regulations require manufacturers to designate a compliance officer and establish compliance and training programs. The regulations also require manufacturers to adopt a code of conduct, which incorporates voluntary industry codes adopted by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Advanced Medical Technology Association. Notably, the state-mandated code of conduct incorporates requirements in addition to these two voluntary industry codes and explicitly restricts a broad variety of conduct, including a ban on providing items such as pens and mugs.
The subject of much debate among stakeholders, the new regulations also establish reporting requirements for certain payments made to "covered recipients," including mandating that manufacturers report certain payments exceeding a $50 threshold made to healthcare practitioners, hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacists and health benefit plan administrators. The $50 limit is not cumulative but calculated on an individual transactional basis. The law does provide for several disclosure exemptions, such as certain payments made in conjunction with research and clinical trials, demonstration or evaluation units, and rebates and discounts; however, several categories of indirect payments are not exempt, including charitable donations to universities or hospitals, sponsorship of continuing medical education, and third-party professional or scientific meetings or conferences. The first disclosure reports are due on July 1, 2010.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
