Do discount campaigns on prescription-only medicines (POMs) run by mail order pharmacies lure patients into consuming medicinal products? The European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case of Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (C-517/23) has held that they do not.

Following on from the AG Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, which we provided an update on earlier in the year, this case is the latest in a stream of cases on advertising practices involving DocMorris, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy that supplies medicines to end customers in Germany. The CJEU concluded that the discount campaigns regarding unspecified POMs do not fall within the definition of “advertising of medicinal products” (Article 86(1) Directive 2001/83) as the discount is implemented at the point of purchase of the POM.  The decision of which product to prescribe has already been taken by a doctor and all the patient is left to do is choose the dispensing pharmacy. As such, the Court held that the purpose of the discount campaign is not to encourage patients to purchase medicinal products. Rather, it is simply to attract them to a specific pharmacy.

The facts of the case are set out in our previous blog available here.

Continue Reading An update from the European Court of Justice on discount campaigns run by mail order pharmacies

The current EU regulatory landscape for biotechnology is widely viewed as insufficient to be able to exploit the full potential of such technologies. Regulatory hurdles exist at EU and Member State level, and this is thought to have driven investment into other regions.

To help tackle this problem, the introduction of a new EU Biotech Act (the Act) has been proposed by the Commission to encourage innovation in areas such as health technology assessment and clinical trials. A simpler regulatory landscape, with no reduction to safety standards, will be a central aim of the Act.

However, it was announced on 20 March 2025 that the Act has been delayed until the third quarter of 2026 (initially due in the last quarter of 2025). As such, it remains to be seen what shape the Act will take, including whether any changes will be limited to setting out general guidelines, or whether it will take the form of a binding legal instrument, imposing specific measures to which Member States and EU institutions must adhere. Various studies and papers have been developed following the announcement of the proposed Act, and it is hoped that as these are finalised, they will provide further insight into what we can expect.

Continue Reading EU Biotech Act– what we know so far

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during March and early April 2025 from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union.

The biggest change this month is that as of March 25, 2025, the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS Regulation) is now in force. This means that, as it is gradually implemented, companies will be able to request access to electronic health data for health care purposes, including for use in scientific research, and may be required to share certain health data that they hold. The implementation of the EHDS Regulation is likely to raise a number of questions, which future European Commission implementing regulations or guidelines may clarify.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – April 2025

On 11 April 2025, the MHRA announced  that the much anticipated changes to the clinical trial rules in the UK, the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (the new Regulations), have been signed into law.

In January, we posted a detailed blog on the upcoming changes to the UK law governing clinical trials, noting that this had been described as the “biggest overhaul of the clinical trial regulations in 20 years”, and is intended to cement the UK as a world-class destination for conducting international clinical trials, to “support [a] more streamlined and flexible regulation of clinical trials, removing unnecessary administrative burdens on trial sponsors, whilst protecting the interests of trial participants.”

The new Regulations will come into effect on 10 April 2026, following a 12 month roll out period. The MHRA states in its announcement that it is “committed to implementing a flexible and risk-proportionate regulation of clinical trials, which accelerates patient access to potentially life-saving medicines without compromising safety.”

Continue Reading Recent updates on reform of UK clinical trial landscape

The European Data Protection Body (EDPB) has published a study on how personal health data is and/or can be reused for scientific research in the EU under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The study highlights the related practical challenges due to divergent interpretations of the GDPR and national rules across EU Member States.

The key conclusions of the study are set out below:

Continue Reading European Data Protection Board publishes study on secondary use of personal health data for scientific research

 In our blog in December 2024, we provided an update on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) final rule, revising the regulatory definition of an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) to explicitly capture IVDs manufactured by laboratories (known as laboratory developed tests or LDTs). We noted that two cases had been filed challenging the FDA’s authority to regulate LDTs.

On March 31, 2025, the Eastern District of Texas granted the laboratory plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and vacated the FDA’s LDT Final Rule, ruling in favor of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP). The ruling was widely anticipated and is among the first challenges to FDA rulemaking decided post-Loper Bright. In rejecting the final rule, the court agreed with ACLA and AMP that laboratory-developed tests are services, not devices.

Read our Advisory for details on this ruling.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has published a report (the Report) setting out its members’ concerns regarding the operation of the 2024 Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access and Growth (VPAG).

VPAG is an agreement between the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), NHS England and ABPI, which came into effect on 1 January 2024.  It is the latest in a series of voluntary schemes, intended to manage NHS expenditure on branded health service medicines and operates by controlling prices, limiting profits and, importantly, by imposing a requirement for scheme members to make repayments to Government, reflecting NHS expenditure on medicines in excess of permitted growth and calculated as a percentage of eligible sales.  A key driver for changes introduced in VPAG was recognition that the level of repayments under the previous scheme had become unsustainably high (21.2% in 2023).  Therefore, while industry accepted what is described in the Report as an “exceptionally tough deal” this was in the expectation that the new scheme would, over time, bring repayment rates for newer medicines down to below 10%, consistent with the position up until 2021. However, while the repayment rate for newer medicines was set at 15.1% in the first year of VPAG, the rate for 2025 is 22.9% (with an additional 0.6% payable under an investment programme). The Report describes rates of this magnitude as “unsustainable”.

The Report analyses the reasons that repayment rates for newer medicines have ended up so much higher than predicted under VPAG, and calls for the Government to work with industry on its proposed solutions. It also sets out the consequences of requiring industry to pay such high repayments rates, including worse access to medicines for UK patients and lower investment by industry in the UK.

Continue Reading ABPI calls for changes to “unsustainable” medicines pricing scheme

On February 24, 2025, new rules came into force in the UK transforming the public procurement landscape. The new regime aims to provide a simplified and flexible framework for contracting authorities when conducting procurement processes, including the purchase of medicinal products by the National Health Service (NHS).

Under the new Act, a number of elements of the procurement processes have changed, and we set out the background in our previous post. For tenderers, the changes are mainly procedural, including the framework for the tender process and the timelines, rather than fundamental changes to how the procurement will operate. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of the new procedures. We set out some of the key aspects in our Advisory.

Continue Reading UK Public Procurement Landscape Transformed: What Does It Mean for Medicines?

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during February and early March 2025 from the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been the focus this month, with certain aspects of the EU AI Act now in force and key guidance being published by the European Commission. In addition, the much criticized AI Liability Directive has been withdrawn by the European Commission. In the UK, the UK government published its AI Action Plan setting out its proportionate, flexible regulatory approach towards AI, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) hosted an Innovation Showcase demonstrating how it is using digital technologies and AI throughout the regulatory lifecycle.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – March 2025

We recently published this Advisory for our US clients, but thought it may be a useful reminder for UK and EU teams given the number of updates in this area.

We are sure that you are aware that the European Union (EU) medical devices framework has been subject to significant changes over recent years. However, implementation of the new rules has been problematic since the beginning, as both the industry and the EU institutions, national authorities, and notified bodies have found it difficult to adapt to the stricter and demanding new legal requirements. There are ongoing delays in companies obtaining CE marks under the new regime, criticism that the rules are stifling innovation, and concerns about the impact on patients.

Given the calls for change, criticism, and ongoing consultations, this Advisory sets out the current status of developments and what is important to know when seeking to do business in the EU.

Continue Reading EU Medical Devices Legislation: What You Need To Know Given Latest Developments and Ongoing Challenges