Alkermes (ALKS) Risk Factors

We participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the 340B program, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, FSS pricing program, and the Tricare program, and have obligations to report the average sales price for certain of our drugs to the Medicare program. Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. In the case of our Medicaid pricing data, if we become aware that our reporting for a prior quarter was incorrect, or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we are generally obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products under the 340B program and give rise to an obligation to refund entities participating in the 340B program for overcharges during past quarters impacted by a price recalculation. Civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false price or product information to the government, if we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our average sales price, if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis, or if we are found to have charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. CMS could also decide to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS to be incomplete or incorrect. Our failure to comply with our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and other governmental programs could negatively impact our financial results. CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective in April 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program under the Affordable Care Act. In December 2020, CMS issued a final regulation that modified prior Medicaid Drug Rebate Program regulations to permit reporting multiple best price figures with regard to value-based purchasing arrangements (beginning in 2022); and provided definitions for "line extension," "new formulation," and related terms, with the practical effect of expanding the scope of drugs considered to be line extensions that are subject to an alternative rebate formula (beginning in 2022). Regulatory and legislative changes, and judicial rulings relating to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and related policies (including coverage expansion), have increased and will continue to increase our costs and the complexity of compliance, have been and will continue to be time-consuming to implement, and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, particularly if CMS or another agency challenges the approach we take in our implementation. HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective in January 2019. Implementation of this regulation could affect our obligations and potential liability under the 340B program in ways we cannot anticipate. We are also required to report the 340B ceiling prices for our covered outpatient drugs to HRSA, which then publishes them to 340B covered entities. Any charge by HRSA that we have violated this regulation or other requirements of the program could negatively impact our financial results. Moreover, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution ("ADR") process under a final regulation effective January 2021 for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer engaged in overcharging, including claims that a manufacturer limited the ability of a covered entity to purchase the manufacturer's drugs at the 340B ceiling price, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that could be appealed only in federal court. This ADR regulation has been challenged in separate litigation instituted by PhRMA and by pharmaceutical manufacturers in multiple federal courts. Under the ADR final rule which became effective in January 2021, an ADR proceeding could potentially subject us to discovery by covered entities and other onerous procedural requirements and could result in additional liability. HRSA could also decide to terminate a manufacturer's agreement to participate in the 340B program for a violation of that agreement or other good cause shown, in which case the manufacturer's covered outpatient drugs may no longer be eligible for federal payment under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B program. In November 2022, HRSA issued a proposed rule to revise the ADR procedures contained in its January 2021 final regulation for disputes arising under the 340B drug pricing program between covered entities and manufacturers. Further, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would, among other things, further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting, and any additional future changes to the definition of average manufacturer price or the Medicaid rebate amount could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations. Additionally, certain pharmaceutical manufacturers are involved in ongoing litigation regarding their initiatives that restrict covered entities' ability to purchase products at the 340B program price for shipment through an unlimited number of contract pharmacies. Based on the outcome of litigation related to this topic or for other reasons, we may implement, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers have implemented, similar restrictions. The outcome of pending judicial proceedings and the potential impact on the way in which manufacturers extend discounts to covered entities through contract pharmacies remain uncertain and one or more negative legal rulings, or the passage of legislation in respect of this topic, may materially adversely impact our results of operations if we were to impose limitations on contract pharmacy arrangements. We have obligations to report the average sales price for certain of our drugs to the Medicare program. In addition, we are required to report the best price for our drugs, as defined under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, to CMS. Statutory or regulatory changes or changes in CMS guidance could affect the average sales price or best price calculations for our products and the resulting Medicare payment rate or rebates we owe to state Medicaid programs. Such changes could negatively impact our results of operations. Pursuant to applicable law, knowing provision of false information in connection with price reporting under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, FSS or Tricare programs can subject a manufacturer to civil monetary penalties. These program obligations also contain extensive disclosure and certification requirements. If we overcharge the government in connection with our arrangements with FSS or Tricare, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely is subject to the impacts of political events, which are inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may increase the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA and the SEC to timely review and process our submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Social media is increasingly being used as a means of corporate communications and for purposes of social networking and commentary. We are increasingly using social media tools to communicate certain information about our business, our employees, our company values and corporate responsibility initiatives, to support disease state education in our areas of focus, and to provide information about our products or development programs. Despite our efforts to monitor evolving social media guidance and to comply with applicable rules, regulations and regulatory guidance relating to social media, such practices are evolving and not always clear. There is a risk that the use of social media by us or our employees to communicate about our products or business may cause us to be found in violation of applicable requirements and could result in regulatory actions or legal claims against us related to off-label marketing or other prohibited activities. In addition, our employees may knowingly or inadvertently engage on social media in ways that may not comply with our social media policy or other legal, contractual or regulatory requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets and other intellectual property, or result in public disclosure of personal information of our employees, clinical trial patients, customers, and others. In addition, negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us or our products on any social media platforms could damage our reputation, brand image and goodwill. If such disclosures were to occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or that we may not be able to defend the Company or the public's legitimate interests due to restrictions on what we may say about our products or our business. Any of these events, if they were to occur, could cause us to incur liability, face overly restrictive regulatory actions or suffer reputational or other harm to our business.