Opko Health (OPK) Risk Factors

We, our approved or cleared products, and the manufacturers of our products are subject to continual review. Our approved or cleared products may only be promoted for their indicated uses. Marketing, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, and promotion for our approved products will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. We train our marketing and sales force against promoting our products for uses outside of the cleared or approved indications for use, known as "off-label uses." If the FDA determines that our promotional materials or training constitute promotion of unsupported claims or an off-label use, it could request that we modify our training or promotional materials or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they consider our business activities to constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, and the curtailment of our operations. We and the manufacturers of our products are also required to comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMP") regulations or the FDA's QSR regulations, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation. Moreover, device manufacturers are required to report adverse events by filing Medical Device Reports with the FDA, which reports are publicly available. Further, regulatory agencies must approve manufacturing facilities before they can be used to manufacture our products, and these facilities are subject to ongoing regulatory inspection. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements of the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, or if previously unknown problems with our products, manufacturers, or manufacturing processes are discovered, we could be subject to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions. Furthermore, any limitation on indicated uses for a product or product candidate or our ability to manufacture and promote a product or product candidate could significantly and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may change their policies and additional regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay marketing approval or clearance of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we would likely not be permitted to market our products or product candidates and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would materially impair our ability to generate anticipated revenues.

The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing, and distribution of drug products, diagnostic products, or medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. In general, we are not permitted to market our product candidates in the U.S. until we receive approval of a BLA, an approval of an NDA, a clearance letter under the premarket notification process, or 510(k) process, or an approval of a PMA from the FDA. To date, we have only submitted one NDA which was approved in June 2016, and one BLA which was approved for filing in January 2021. We have received FDA approval for our 4Kscore test for use in men age 45 and older who have not had a prior prostate biopsy or are biopsy negative and have an age-specific abnormal total PSA and/or abnormal digital rectal exam, but we have not received marketing approval or clearance from FDA for any of our other diagnostic product candidates that we currently plan to market. Obtaining approval of a NDA or PMA can be a lengthy, expensive, and uncertain process. With respect to medical devices, while the FDA reviews and clears a premarket notification in as little as three months, there is no guarantee that our products will qualify for this more expeditious regulatory process, which is reserved for Class I and II devices, nor is there any assurance that even if a device is reviewed under the 510(k) process that the FDA will review it expeditiously or determine that the device is substantially equivalent to a lawfully marketed non-PMA device. If the FDA fails to make this finding, then we cannot market the device. In lieu of acting on a premarket notification, the FDA may seek additional information or additional data which would further delay our ability to market the product. Furthermore, we are not permitted to make changes to a device approved through the PMA or 510(k) which affects the safety or efficacy of the device without first submitting a supplement application to the PMA and obtaining FDA approval or cleared premarket notification for that supplement. In some cases, the FDA may require clinical trials to support a supplement application. In addition, failure to comply with FDA, non-U.S. regulatory authorities, or other applicable U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory requirements may, either before or after product approval or clearance, if any, subject our company to administrative or judicially imposed sanctions, including, but not limited to the following: ? restrictions on the products, manufacturers, or manufacturing process;? adverse inspectional observations (Form 483), warning letters, or non-warning letters incorporating inspectional observations;? civil and criminal penalties;? injunctions;? suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals or clearances;? product seizures, detentions, or import bans;? voluntary or mandatory product recalls and publicity requirements;? total or partial suspension of production;? imposition of restrictions on operations, including costly new manufacturing requirements; and ? refusal to approve or clear pending NDAs or supplements to approved NDAs, applications or pre-market notifications. Regulatory approval of an NDA or NDA supplement, BLA, PMA, PMA supplement or clearance pursuant to a pre-market notification is not guaranteed, and the approval or clearance process, as the case may be, is expensive and may, especially in the case of an NDA or PMA application, take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the drug and medical device approval and clearance process. Failure can occur at any stage, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon clinical trials or to repeat or perform additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. The number of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for FDA approval or clearance varies depending on the drug or medical device candidate, the disease or condition that the drug or medical device candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular drug or medical device candidate. The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval or clearance of a drug or medical device candidate for many reasons, including: ? a drug candidate may not be deemed safe or effective;? a medical device candidate may not be deemed to be substantially equivalent to a lawfully marketed non-PMA device, in the case of a premarket notification;? the FDA may not find the data from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials sufficient;? the FDA may not approve our or our third-party manufacturer's processes or facilities; or ? the FDA may change its approval or clearance policies or adopt new regulations. Beyond these risks, there is also a possibility that our licensees or collaborators could decide to discontinue a study at any time for commercial, scientific or other reasons.

In order to successfully operate our laboratory business and offer certain of our diagnostic tests and LDTs, we must maintain our CLIA certification and comply with all the CLIA requirements. CLIA is designed to ensure the quality and reliability of clinical laboratories by mandating specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration and participation in proficiency testing, patient test management, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. The sanction for failure to comply with CLIA requirements may be suspension, revocation or limitation of a laboratory's CLIA certificate, which is necessary to conduct business, as well as significant fines and/or criminal penalties. Laboratories must undergo on-site surveys at least every two years, which may be conducted by the Federal CLIA program or by a private CMS approved accrediting agency such as CAP, among others. Our laboratories are also subject to regulation of laboratory operations under state clinical laboratory laws as will be any new CLIA-certified laboratory that we establish or acquire. State clinical laboratory laws may require that laboratories and/or laboratory personnel meet certain qualifications, specify certain quality controls or require maintenance of certain records. Certain states, such as California, Florida, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, require that laboratories obtain licenses to test specimens from patients residing in those states and additional states may require similar licenses in the future. If we are unable to obtain and maintain licenses from states where required, we will not be able to process any samples from patients located in those states. Only Washington and New York States are exempt under CLIA, as these states have established laboratory quality standards at least as stringent as CLIA's. Potential sanctions for violation of these statutes and regulations include significant fines and the suspension or loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations. If we fail to comply with CLIA requirements, HHS or state agencies could require us to cease diagnostic testing. Even if it were possible for us to bring our laboratories back into compliance after failure to comply with such requirements, we could incur significant expenses and potentially lose revenues in doing so. Moreover, new interpretations of current regulations or future changes in regulations under CLIA may make it difficult or impossible for us to comply with the CLIA classification, which would significantly harm our business and materially adversely affect our financial condition.

We intend to seek approval to market certain of our products and product candidates in both the U.S. and in non-U.S. jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more non-U.S. jurisdictions, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions relating to our product. In some countries, particularly countries of the European Union, each of which has developed its own rules and regulations, pricing is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a drug or medical device candidate. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product and product candidates to other available products. If reimbursement of our products and product candidates is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, we may be unable to generate revenues and achieve or sustain profitability, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We intend to market certain of our products and product candidates in non-U.S. markets. In order to market our products and product candidates in the European Union and many other non-U.S. jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. We have had limited interactions with non-U.S. regulatory authorities, the approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval or clearance. Approval or clearance by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more non-U.S. regulatory authority does not ensure approval by other regulatory authorities in other countries or by the FDA. The non-U.S. regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval or clearance. We may not obtain non-U.S. regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for non-U.S. regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products and product candidates in any market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In the U.S., there have been a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives, at both the federal and state government levels, to change the healthcare system in ways that, if approved, could affect our ability to sell our products and provide our laboratory services profitably. As such, we cannot assure you that reimbursement payments under governmental and private third party payor programs will remain at levels comparable to present levels or will be sufficient to cover the costs allocable to patients eligible for reimbursement under these programs. Any changes that lower reimbursement rates under Medicare, Medicaid or private payor programs could negatively affect our business. Most significantly, on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law both the Affordable Care Act and the reconciliation law known as Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (the "Reconciliation Act") and, combined we refer to both Acts as the "2010 Health Care Reform Legislation." The constitutionality of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation was confirmed on June 28, 2012 by the Supreme Court of the U. S. It is uncertain whether any efforts to amend the Affordable Care Act will be successful or enacted into law, and if enacted, what the impact might be on our business. It is also uncertain how the current administration intends to alter 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation, if at all including whether regulatory changes to the implementation of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation will restrict patient access to affordable insurance or other third-party payor sources and impact their access to novel, biosimilar and complex generic products. In addition, litigation may prevent some or all of the legislation from taking effect. We cannot assure you as to the ultimate content, timing, or effect of changes, nor is it possible at this time to estimate the impact of any such potential legislation. To enhance compliance with applicable health care laws, and mitigate potential liability in the event of noncompliance, regulatory authorities, such as the U. S. Health and Human Services Department Office of Inspector General (the "OIG"), have recommended the adoption and implementation of a comprehensive health care compliance program that generally contains the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. In addition, certain states, such as New York, require that certain health care providers have a compliance program that generally adheres to the standards set forth in a model compliance program. Also, under the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, requires suppliers, such as us, to adopt, as a condition of Medicare participation, compliance programs that meet a core set of requirements. While we have adopted U.S. healthcare compliance and ethics programs that generally incorporate the OIG's recommendations and train our employees in such compliance, having such a program can be no assurance that we will avoid any compliance issues.

Reimbursement levels for health care services are subject to continuous and often unexpected changes in policies, and we face a variety of efforts by government payors to reduce utilization and reimbursement for diagnostic testing services. Changes in governmental reimbursement may result from statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive rate adjustments, administrative rulings, competitive bidding initiatives, and other policy changes. The U.S. Congress has considered, at least yearly in conjunction with budgetary legislation, changes to one or both of the Medicare fee schedules under which we receive reimbursement, which include the physician fee schedule for anatomical pathology services, and the clinical laboratory fee schedule for our clinical laboratory services. For example, currently there is no copayment or coinsurance required for clinical laboratory services, although there is for our services that are paid under the physician fee schedule. However, Congress has periodically considered imposing a 20 percent coinsurance on laboratory services. If enacted, this would require us to attempt to collect this amount from patients, although in many cases the costs of collection would exceed the amount actually received. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") pays laboratories on the basis of a fee schedule that is reviewed and re-calculated on an annual basis. CMS may change the fee schedule upward or downward on billing codes that we submit for reimbursement on a regular basis. Our revenue and business may be adversely affected if the reimbursement rates associated with such codes are reduced. Even when reimbursement rates are not reduced, policy changes add to our costs by increasing the complexity and volume of administrative requirements. Medicaid reimbursement, which varies by state, is also subject to administrative and billing requirements and budget pressures. In recent years, state budget pressures have caused states to consider several policy changes that may impact our financial condition and results of operations, such as delaying payments, reducing reimbursement, restricting coverage eligibility and service coverage, and imposing taxes on our services. Third party payors are increasingly challenging established prices, and new products that are more expensive than existing treatments may have difficulty finding ready acceptance unless there is a clear therapeutic benefit. On April 1, 2014, the PAMA was enacted into law. Under PAMA, Medicare payment for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests is established by calculating a weighted mean of private payor rates. Effective January 1, 2018, clinical laboratory fee schedule rates are based on weighted median private payor rates as required by PAMA. Even though the permitted annual decrease are capped through 2023, the cap does not apply to new tests or new advanced diagnostic tests. We cannot assure you that any of our products will be considered cost effective, or that reimbursement will be available or sufficient to allow us to sell them competitively and profitably. The federal government is faced with significant economic decisions in the coming years. Some solutions being offered in the government could substantially change the way laboratory testing is reimbursed by government entities. We cannot be certain what or how any such government changes may affect our business.

We are subject to extensive federal and state laws and regulations relating to the submission of claims for payment for clinical laboratory services, including those that relate to coverage of our services under Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental health care programs, the amounts that may be billed for our services and to whom claims for services may be submitted. These rules may also affect us in light of the practice management products that we market, to the extent that these products are considered to affect the manner in which our customers submit their own claims for services. Submission of our claims is particularly complex because we provide both anatomic pathology services and clinical laboratory tests, which generally are paid using different reimbursement principles. The clinical laboratory tests are often paid under a clinical laboratory fee schedule, and the anatomic pathology services are often paid under a physician fee schedule. Our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could result in our inability to receive payment for our services or result in attempts by third-party payors, such as Medicare and Medicaid, to recover payments from us that have already been made. Submission of claims in violation of certain statutory or regulatory requirements can result in penalties, including substantial civil money penalties for each item or service billed to Medicare in violation of the legal requirement, and exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Government authorities may also assert that violations of laws and regulations related to submission or causing the submission of claims violate the FCA or other laws related to fraud and abuse, including submission of claims for services that were not medically necessary. Under the FCA, whistleblower or qui tam provisions allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought by private individuals has increased dramatically and we may be subject to such suits. Violations of the FCA could result in enormous economic liability. The FCA provides that all damages are trebled, and each false claim submitted is subject to a penalty of up to $21,916. For example, we could be subject to FCA liability if it was determined that the services we provided were not medically necessary and not reimbursable, particularly if it were asserted that we contributed to the physician's referrals of unnecessary services to us. It is also possible that the government could attempt to hold us liable under fraud and abuse laws for improper claims submitted by an entity for services that we performed if we were found to have knowingly participated in the arrangement that resulted in submission of the improper claims.

There have been changing laws, regulations, and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act, regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and rules promulgated by the Nasdaq Global Select Market and the other national securities exchanges. These new or changed laws, regulations, and standards are subject to varying interpretations in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. As a result, our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations, and standards are likely to continue to result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. Our board members, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified board members and executive officers, which could harm our business. If our efforts to comply with new or changed laws, regulations, and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies, we could be subject to liability under applicable laws or our reputation may be harmed, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a "listed drug" which, in turn can be relied upon by potential competitors in support of an approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or 505(b)(2) application. U.S. laws and other applicable policies provide incentives to manufacturers to create modified, non-infringing versions of a drug to facilitate the approval of an ANDA or other application for a generic substitute. These manufacturers might only be required to conduct a relatively inexpensive study to show that their product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and conditions of use, or labeling, as our product or product candidate and that the generic product is bioequivalent to ours, meaning it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as our product or product candidate. These generic equivalents, which must meet the same quality standards as branded pharmaceuticals, would be significantly less costly than ours to bring to market and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of sales of any branded product is typically lost to the generic product. Accordingly, competition from generic equivalents to our products or product candidates would materially adversely impact our revenues, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on the investments that we have made in our products and product candidates.

Manufacturing or design defects, unanticipated use of our products, or inadequate disclosure of risks relating to the use of our products could lead to injury or other adverse events. These events could lead to recalls or safety alerts relating to our products (either voluntary or required by governmental authorities) and could result, in certain cases, in the removal of a product from the market. Any recall could result in significant costs as well as negative publicity that could reduce demand for our products. Personal injuries relating to the use of our products can also result in product liability claims being brought against us. In some circumstances, such adverse events could also cause delays in new product approvals. We are committed to providing high quality products to our customers, and we plan to meet this commitment by working diligently to continue implementing updated and improved quality systems and concepts throughout our organization. We cannot assure you that we will not have quality control issues in the future, which may result in warning letters and citations from the FDA. If we receive any warning letters from the FDA in the future, there can be no assurances regarding the length of time or cost it will take us to resolve such quality issues to our satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the FDA. If our remedial actions are not satisfactory to the FDA, we may have to devote additional financial and human resources to our efforts, and the FDA may take further regulatory actions against us including, but not limited to, assessing civil monetary penalties or imposing a consent decree on us, which could result in further regulatory constraints, including the governance of our quality system by a third party. Our inability to resolve these issues or the taking of further regulatory action by the FDA may weaken our competitive position and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We manufacture pharmaceutical products in Ireland, Mexico, Spain, and Israel. Any quality control issues at our facilities may weaken our competitive position and have a material adverse effect on our business results of operations and financial condition. As a medical device manufacturer, we are required to register with the FDA and are subject to periodic inspection by the FDA for compliance with its Quality System Regulation ("QSR") requirements, which require manufacturers of medical devices to adhere to certain regulations, including testing, quality control and documentation procedures. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements is subject to continual review and is monitored rigorously through periodic inspections by the FDA. In addition, most international jurisdictions have adopted regulatory approval and periodic renewal requirements for medical devices, and we must comply with these requirements in order to market our products in these jurisdictions. In the European Community, we are required to maintain certain ISO certifications in order to sell our products and must undergo periodic inspections by notified bodies to obtain and maintain these certifications. Further, some emerging markets rely on the FDA's Certificate for Foreign Government ("CFG") in lieu of their own regulatory approval requirements. Our failure, or our manufacturers' failure to meet QSR, ISO, or any other regulatory requirements or industry standards could delay production of our products and lead to fines, difficulties in obtaining regulatory clearances, recalls or other consequences, which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and our financial condition.

On October 21, 2019, we and Pfizer announced that the global phase 3 trial evaluating Somatrogon (hGH-CTP) dosed once-weekly in pre-pubertal children with GHD met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to daily Genotropin (somatropin) for injection, as measured by annual height velocity at 12 months. In addition, change in height standard deviation scores at six and 12 months, key secondary endpoints, were higher in the hGH-CTP dosed once-weekly cohort in comparison to the Genotropin (somatropin) dosed once-daily cohort. hGH-CTP was generally well tolerated in this study and comparable to Genotropin (somatropin) dosed once-daily with respect to the types, numbers and severity of the adverse events observed between the treatment arms. Although the primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were met and the safety profile for hGH-CTP was consistent with that observed with those treated with Genotropin (somatropin), further testing and analysis, other clinical trials or patient use may undermine those determinations or unexpected side effects may arise. We previously announced topline data from an earlier phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled study of hGH-CTP in adults with GHD. Although there was no statistically significant difference between hGH-CTP and placebo on the primary endpoint of change in trunk fat mass from baseline to 26 weeks, after unblinding the study, we identified an exceptional value of trunk fat mass reduction in the placebo group that may have affected the primary outcome. We completed post-hoc sensitivity analyses for the adult study to evaluate the influence of outliers on the primary endpoint results using multiple statistical approaches. Analyses that excluded outliers showed a statistically significant difference between hGH-CTP and placebo on the change in trunk fat mass. Additional analyses that did not exclude outliers showed mixed results. There can be no assurance that the FDA or regulatory agencies in other countries will consider the sensitivity analysis or consider the product for approval for adults with GHD. In June 2023, the FDA approved  NGENLA (Somatrogon (hGH-CTP)) for the treatment of pediatric GHD in the United States. However, there can be no assurance that NGENLA (Somatrogon (hGH-CTP)) for the treatment of pediatric GHD will be commercially successful in the United States or that we will obtain marketing approval for the adult indication. Before it can be marketed, Somatrogon (hGH-CTP) for the adult indication must be approved by the FDA or similar foreign governmental agencies. The process for obtaining FDA marketing approval is both time-consuming and costly, with no certainty of a successful outcome. If we are unable to successfully commercialize NGENLA (Somatrogon (hGH-CTP)) to treat pediatric GHD and/or receive regulatory approval for hGH-CTP to treat adults with GHD, our business could be significantly adversely impacted. NGENLA has been approved in over 50 territories for the long-term treatment of pediatric patients with growth disturbance. NGENLA may nevertheless fail to be successfully commercialized in these territories which would adversely impact our anticipated milestone payments under the Restated Pfizer Agreement and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.