Organogenesis Holdings (ORGO) Risk Factors

Sponsors of products for which the FDA has approved a BLA are obligated by the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, to carry out clinical trials of the products in pediatric populations, unless those requirements are waived. In 2012, we obtained FDA approval of a BLA for an oral tissue-engineered product to be marketed under the trade name Gintuit. Although Gintuit was not intended to be used in pediatric populations, the FDA imposed a requirement to conduct a pediatric study following approval. We originally planned to complete these studies within the timeframes established in the Gintuit approval letter. However, in 2014, we made a business decision to suspend commercialization of Gintuit; all manufacturing, commercial and clinical activities for the product were discontinued. At that time, we informed the FDA of this decision and requested suspension of the pediatric study requirement, at which time the FDA placed Gintuit on its discontinued products list. Notwithstanding our request that the pediatric study requirement be suspended, we were notified by the FDA on June 29, 2017 that the FDA had determined that we had not complied with our PREA obligations. We responded and submitted a formal request for an extension for the pediatric study requirement for Gintuit. However, on October 5, 2017, the FDA advised that our request had been denied. Although we believe that we are not currently subject to penalties for noncompliance because Gintuit is not on the market and there is accordingly no foreseeable use of the product in pediatric populations, the product could be viewed as misbranded and subject to seizure or other enforcement action if marketing is resumed without completion of the required pediatric study.

The failure by us or one of our suppliers to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, the FDA or other governmental authorities: -   imposing fines and penalties on us;-   preventing us from manufacturing or selling our products;-   delaying or denying pending applications for approval or clearance of our products or of new uses or modifications to our existing products, or withdrawing or suspending current approvals or clearances;-   ordering or requesting a recall of our products;-   issuing warning letters;-   imposing operating restrictions, including a partial or total shutdown of production or investigation of any or all of our products;-   refusing to permit to import or export of our products;-   detaining or seizing our products;-   obtaining injunctions preventing us from manufacturing or distributing any or all of our products;-   commencing criminal prosecutions or seeking civil penalties; and -   requiring changes in our advertising and promotion practices. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could also result in civil actions against us by private parties (e.g., under the federal Lanham Act and/or state unfair competition laws), and other unanticipated negative consequences. If any of these actions were to occur it could harm our reputation and cause our product sales to suffer and may prevent us from generating revenue.

Both before and after a product is commercially released, we have ongoing responsibilities under regulations promulgated by the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, and similar U.S. and foreign regulations governing product labeling and advertising, distribution, sale and marketing of our products. Manufacturers of medical devices and biological products are permitted to promote products solely for the uses and indications set forth in the approved or cleared product labeling. A number of enforcement actions have been taken against manufacturers that promote products for "off-label" uses (i.e., uses that are not described in the approved or cleared labeling), including actions alleging that claims submitted to government healthcare programs for reimbursement of products that were promoted for "off-label" uses are fraudulent in violation of the Federal False Claims Act or other federal and state statutes and that the submission of those claims was caused by off-label promotion. The failure to comply with prohibitions on "off-label" promotion can result in significant monetary penalties, revocation or suspension of a company's business license, suspension of sales of certain products, product recalls, civil or criminal sanctions, exclusion from participating in federal healthcare programs, or other enforcement actions. In the United States, allegations of such wrongful conduct could also result in a corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. government that imposes significant administrative obligations and costs.

Our operations are subject to various federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws. These laws may constrain our operations, including the financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products. U.S. federal and state laws that affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to: -   the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind in return for, the purchase, recommendation, leasing or furnishing of an item or service reimbursable under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;-   federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government payers that are false or fraudulent;-   Section 242 of HIPAA codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1347, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit a person from knowingly and willfully executing a scheme or from making false or fraudulent statements to defraud any healthcare benefit program (i.e., public or private);-   federal transparency laws, including the so-called federal "sunshine" law, which requires the tracking and disclosure to the federal government by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers of payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals as well as ownership and investment interests that are held by physicians and their immediate family members; and -   state law equivalents of each of these federal laws, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payer, including commercial insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical and medical device companies to comply with their industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government or otherwise restrict certain payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws that require drug and medical device manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; state laws that prohibit giving gifts to licensed healthcare professionals; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts in certain circumstances, such as specific disease states. In particular, activities and arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, waste and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of activities or other arrangements related to the development, marketing or promotion of products, including pricing and discounting of products, provision of customer incentives, provision of reimbursement support, other customer support services, provision of sales commissions or other incentives to employees and independent contractors and other interactions with healthcare practitioners, other healthcare providers and patients. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrow scope of the statutory or regulatory exceptions and safe harbors available, our business activities could be challenged under one or more of these laws. Relationships between medical product manufacturers and health care providers are an area of heightened scrutiny by the government. We engage in various activities, including the conduct of speaker programs to educate physicians, the provision of reimbursement advice and support to customers, and the provision of customer and patient support services, that have been the subject of government scrutiny and enforcement action within the medical device industry. Government expectations and industry best practices for compliance continue to evolve and past activities may not always be consistent with current industry best practices. Further, there is a lack of government guidance as to whether various industry practices comply with these laws, and government interpretations of these laws continue to evolve, all of which create compliance uncertainties. Any non-compliance could result in regulatory sanctions, criminal or civil liability and serious harm to our reputation. Although we have a comprehensive compliance program designed to ensure that our employees' and commercial partners' activities and interactions with healthcare professionals and patients are appropriate, ethical, and consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, policies and standards, it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in preventing such conduct, mitigating risks, or reducing the chance of governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If a government entity opens an investigation into possible violations of any of these laws (which may include the issuance of subpoenas), we would have to expend significant resources to defend ourselves against the allegations. Allegations that we, our officers, or our employees violated any one of these laws can be made by individuals called "whistleblowers" who may be our employees, customers, competitors or other parties. Government policy is to encourage individuals to become whistleblowers and file a complaint in federal court alleging wrongful conduct. The government is required to investigate all of these complaints and decide whether to intervene. If the government intervenes and we are required to pay money back to the government, the whistleblower, as a reward, is awarded a percentage. If the government declines to intervene, the whistleblower may proceed on her own and, if she is successful, she will receive a percentage of any judgment or settlement amount the company is required to pay. The government may also initiate an investigation on its own. If any such actions are instituted against us, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines, and other sanctions that may materially impair our ability to run a profitable business. In particular, if our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or if we agree to settle with the government without admitting to any wrongful conduct or if we are found to be in violation of any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we, our officers and employees may be subject to sanctions, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations and the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As biological products and medical devices, many of the products that we market require regulatory approvals or clearances from the FDA, or from similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States, before they may legally be distributed in commerce. In particular, such products may require FDA approval of Biologics License Applications, or BLAs, under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (the "PHSA"), Premarket Approval, or PMA, submissions under Section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, or may require clearance under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Although we believe that we have all necessary regulatory approvals or clearances legally required for the products that we currently market, the introduction of new or modified products may require us to secure new approvals or clearances. Additionally, the FDA may take the position that some of the products that we currently market without premarket approval or clearance in fact require such approval or clearance. The process of obtaining an approved BLA or PMA requires the expenditure of substantial time, effort and financial resources and may take years to complete. Although obtaining clearance under section 510(k) is somewhat less burdensome, it is also associated with significant costs and resource commitments. The fee for filing a BLA, PMA or 510(k) notification, and the annual user fees for any establishment that manufactures biologics or medical devices, as well as product fees applicable to each approved product are substantial. There are also significant costs associated with conducting clinical trials to support approvals that cannot necessarily be estimated with any accuracy until investigational plans have been developed. Moreover, data obtained from clinical activities may show a lack of safety or efficacy or may be inconclusive or susceptible to varying interpretations, any of which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. Even product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the required safety profile or meet the efficacy endpoints despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. We cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even with positive clinical trial results, there may be other barriers to approval or clearance, and the FDA may not grant approval or clearance on a timely basis, or at all. Even if the FDA clears or approves our products, the clinical data submitted to the FDA may not be sufficient for payers to cover and/or adequately reimburse our customers for use of our products. Additionally, the FDA may limit the indications for use in an approval or clearance, or place other conditions on an approval, that could restrict the commercial application of the products.

Following approval or clearance, some types of changes to the approved or cleared product, such as adding new indications or additional labeling claims or introducing manufacturing changes, are subject to FDA review and approval, which may require to further nonclinical or clinical testing. The costs and other resource burdens associated with obtaining new regulatory approvals or clearances for existing or future products may limit the resources available to us to fully exploit our technologies or may otherwise limit our ability to carry out other business activities. Depending on the nature of the change, we may determine that the change may be carried out without obtaining premarket approval or clearance. The FDA or another regulatory body could disagree with our conclusion and require such premarket approval or clearance, which would disrupt the marketing of these products, potentially expose us to regulatory sanctions, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain of the products that we manufacture, process and distribute are, or are derived from, human cells or tissues, including amniotic tissue. The FDA has specific regulations governing human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps. In particular, HCT/Ps that meet certain criteria set forth in the FDA's regulations at 21 C.F.R. § 1271.10 are regulated solely under Section 361 of the PHSA, so-called "Section 361 HCT/Ps", and are not subject to any premarket clearance or approval requirements. They are also subject to less stringent post-market regulatory requirements than products regulated under Section 351 of the PHSA and/or under Sections 505, 510 or 515 of the FDCA. The Company has believed that certain of our HCT/Ps, including our products derived from amniotic membrane, qualify for regulation as Section 361 HCT/Ps. However, the regulatory classification of an HCT/P as a Section 361 HCT/P depends in part on the purposes for which the product is intended and in part on the processing to which an HCT/P is subject. On November 16, 2017, the FDA issued a final guidance document entitled, "Regulatory Considerations for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Minimal Manipulation and Homologous Use", or 361 HCT/P Guidance, which provides FDA's current thinking on how to apply the existing regulatory criteria for regulation as a Section 361 HCT/P. These include, in addition to other requirements, requirements that an HCT/P be both minimally manipulated and intended for homologous use. In general, "minimal manipulation" is a standard referring to the degree to which the original characteristics of an HCT/P have been altered by processing and "homologous use" refers to the requirement that an HCT/P perform the same basic function in the donor as in the recipient. In light of the 361 HCT/P Guidance, it may be necessary to revise our labeling and marketing claims for our amniotic membrane products, including our Affinity and NuShield products, to clarify that they are intended as wound coverings, to ensure that they meet the homologous use requirement and therefore continue to qualify as Section 361 HCT/Ps. To the extent that any cell- or tissue-based product that we distribute is deemed not to be an HCT/P or a Section 361 HCT/P, it will be subject to premarket clearance or approval requirements, as well as additional, more stringent post-market regulatory requirements. Further, it may be necessary to obtain FDA approval of a BLA for NuCel and ReNu because those products may be deemed to be more than minimally manipulated, not for homologous use, or otherwise not regulated as Section 361 HCT/Ps. In the event NuCel and ReNu are deemed not to be Section 361 HCT/Ps, compliance with applicable pre- and post-market regulatory requirements will involve significant time and substantial costs. We may also be required to suspend sales of NuCel and ReNu until FDA approval is obtained. Thus, any action by the FDA to apply the principles set forth in the 361 HCT/P Guidance to the HCT/Ps that we distribute could have adverse consequences for us and make it more difficult or expensive for us to conduct our business. The 361 HCT/P Guidance indicates that the FDA is providing a 36-month enforcement grace period to allow time for distributors of HCT/Ps to make any regulatory submissions and obtain any premarket approvals necessary to comply with the guidance. If we are unable to obtain BLA approvals for NuCel and ReNu within the 36-month time period, we may be required to suspend sales of those products until FDA approval is obtained. The ability to obtain approval for the uses for which the product is currently marketed cannot be assured. We cannot guarantee that the FDA will not take enforcement action during the 36-month grace period. Moreover, even for those products that will remain regulated as Section 361 HCT/Ps, increasing regulatory scrutiny within the industry in which we operate could lead to heightened requirements, compliance with which could be costly. The costs and other resource burdens associated with any of these regulatory outcomes may limit the resources available to us to fully exploit our technologies or may otherwise limit our ability to carry out other business activities.

As stated above, in light of the 361 HCT/P Guidance, the FDA may determine that the types of cell- and tissue-based products that we distribute-and in particular, products derived from allografts consisting of human skin or amniotic tissue-are subject to premarket clearance or approval requirements. Should the FDA make such a determination, products of this type, including future products that we seek to introduce, will be much more costly to commercialize, as we will likely have to carry out preclinical work in animals and/or clinical trials in humans to support approval. Such preclinical work and clinical trials are expensive and time-consuming with no guarantee of success. In addition, these products will be subject to more stringent post-market regulatory requirements than those that currently apply, including but not limited to more stringent restrictions on advertising and promotion of these products, as well as more extensive adverse event reporting. In the future, we may also wish to market our existing HCT/P products for new intended uses that may render them ineligible for regulation as Section 361 HCT/Ps and cause them to require premarket clearance or approval under the medical device or biological product provisions of the FDCA and/or PHSA instead. Compliance with these requirements will involve significant time and substantial costs and could limit the resources available to us to fully exploit our technologies, including limiting our ability to introduce new allograft-derived products. Additionally, the FDA may not grant the necessary clearances or approvals.

Under Medicare, our PuraPly AM and PuraPly products had pass-through reimbursement status through December 31, 2018 when used in the hospital outpatient and ASC setting. Hospitals and ASCs that use products with "pass-through" status receive a separate payment for the product in addition to the bundled payment, known as a "pass through" payment, resulting in a higher total reimbursement for procedures that use these products. "Pass through" status is typically granted for a two to three year period in order to encourage the development of innovative medical devices, drugs and biologics. As of January 1, 2018, PuraPly AM and PuraPly transitioned to the "bundled" payment structure applicable to other skin substitutes, which provides for a two-tiered payment system in the hospital outpatient and ASC setting and results in a single payment to the provider that covers both the application of the product and the product itself. Under the Appropriations Act, the pass-through status of certain products, including PuraPly AM and PuraPly, was restored effective October 1, 2018 and they will retain that status through September 30, 2020. As a result of the transition to the bundled payment structure, total Medicare reimbursement for procedures using our PuraPly AM and PuraPly products decreased substantially during the first nine months of 2018. This reduction in reimbursement resulted in a substantial decrease in revenue from our PuraPly AM and PuraPly products, which are key products in our portfolio, during the first nine months of 2018 and had a negative effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Although Medicare resumed making pass through payments for PuraPly AM and PuraPly products in the outpatient hospital and ASC setting on October 1, 2018 pursuant to the Appropriations Act, all other skin substitute products, including all of our other products, remain in the bundled payment structure. Legislation could be enacted in the future to repeal the provisions of the Appropriations Act that relate to pass-through status and terminate or shorten the period during which pass-through will apply to PuraPly AM and PuraPly and per the existing terms of the Appropriations Act, PuraPly AM and PuraPly will transition back into the bundled payment structure on October 1, 2020. The loss of the pass-through payment status may result in lower revenue for PuraPly AM and PuraPly which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, Medicare has signaled that it may revise its two-tiered bundled payment policy for skin substitutes. Medicare solicited comments in calendar year 2019 related to proposed updates and policy changes under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System. Medicare specifically solicited comments on whether it should eliminate with the two-tiered bundle policy and establish a single bundle for all products. Based on the statements made in the proposed rule, it is possible that Medicare will revise its payment policy in calendar year 2021 or calendar year 2022. Any revised policy could result in decreased reimbursement for our products which could decrease utilization and reduce our revenues. Moreover, any new policy could result in a financial incentive for hospitals and ASCs to use our competitor's products, thereby reducing our market share and revenue.

We operate in an industry characterized by extensive intellectual property litigation. Defending intellectual property litigation is expensive and complex, takes significant time and diverts management's attention from other business concerns, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. We have in the past been subject to claims that our products or technology violate a third party's intellectual property rights, and we may be subject to such assertions in the future. Any pending or future intellectual property litigation may result in significant damage awards, including treble damages under certain circumstances, and injunctions that could prevent the manufacture and sale of affected products or could force us to seek a license and/or make significant royalty or other payments in order to continue selling the affected products. Such licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. We have in the past and may in the future choose to settle disputes involving third party intellectual property by taking a license. Such licenses or other settlements may involve, for example, upfront payments, yearly maintenance fees and royalties. At any given time, we are involved as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a number of intellectual property actions, the outcomes of which may not be known for prolonged periods of time. A successful claim of patent or other intellectual property infringement or misappropriation against us could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some of our employees were previously employed at other medical device, pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. We may also hire additional employees who are currently employed at other medical device, pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including our competitors. Additionally, consultants or other independent agents with which we may contract may be or have been in a contractual arrangement with one or more of our competitors. Although no claims are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that we, our employees, or our independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of these former employers or competitors. In addition, we have been and may in the future be subject to claims that we caused an employee to breach the terms of his or her non-competition or non-solicitation agreement. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management. If we fail to defend such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. There can be no assurance that this type of litigation will not continue, and any future litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire additional direct sales representatives, or other personnel. A loss of key personnel or their work product could hamper or prevent our ability to market existing or new products, which could severely harm our business.

Competitors may infringe or misappropriate the patents or other intellectual property that we own or license. In response, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us, such as alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent that we own or license is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent's claims narrowly or conclude that there is no infringement. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to the patents or patent applications that we own or license. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the invention or attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality and assignment of inventions agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Despite our efforts, agreements may be breached and security measures may fail, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach or failure. In addition, our trade secrets and know-how may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Moreover, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in the patents and intellectual property that we own or license. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements obligating them to assign such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own; our licensors may face similar obstacles. We could be subject to ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against any claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, we may have to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property, which could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and other fees on patents and patent applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and similar foreign agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and patent applications. We rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to foreign patent agencies. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and various foreign patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process. We employ law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The manufacturing, marketing and processing of our products involve an inherent risk that our products or processes may not meet manufacturing specifications, applicable regulatory requirements or quality standards. In that event, we may voluntarily implement a recall or market withdrawal or may be required to do so by a regulatory authority. A recall or market withdrawal of one of our products would be costly and would divert management resources. A recall or withdrawal of one of our products, or a similar product processed by another entity, also could impair sales of our products as a result of confusion concerning the scope of the recall or withdrawal, or as a result of the damage to our reputation for quality and safety.

Our products are manufactured using technically complex processes requiring specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. The complexity of these processes, as well as strict company and government standards for the manufacture and storage of our products, subjects us to production risks. In addition to ongoing production risks, process deviations or unanticipated effects of approved process changes may result in non-compliance with regulatory requirements including stability requirements or specifications. Most of our products must be stored and transported within a specified temperature range. For example, if environmental conditions deviate from that range, our products' remaining shelf-lives could be impaired or their safety and efficacy could be adversely affected, making them unsuitable for use. These deviations may go undetected. The occurrence of actual or suspected production and distribution problems can lead to lost inventories, and in some cases recalls, with consequential reputational damage and the risk of product liability. The investigation and remediation of any identified problems can cause production delays and result in substantial additional expenses. Production of our Affinity product, for example, was suspended in the first quarter of 2019 due to production issues at one of our suppliers. Although our supplier has implemented certain corrective measures, we have determined that the current process does not meet our production standards. As a result, we identified an alternate supplier, and were only able to resume commercial-scale production in the second quarter of 2020. This disruption in supply resulted in reduced Affinity revenue. Although we were able to partially offset the lost Affinity revenue by increasing production of our other products, there can be no assurance that we will be able to do so in the event of any future suspensions or failures in the storage or manufacturing of Affinity, Dermagraft (including in connection with the expected suspension of manufacturing of Dermagraft in the fourth quarter of 2021) or our other products. Any future failure in the storage or manufacture of our products or loss in supply could result in a loss of our market share and negatively affect our revenues and operations.

Sales of almost all of our products depend partly on the ability of our customers to obtain reimbursement for the cost of our products under government health benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and from other global government authorities. Government health benefit programs and private health plans continuously seek to reduce healthcare costs. For example, in 2014, Medicare unexpectedly established a policy to stop making separate payment for our products in certain clinical settings. This policy required us to reduce prices for our products which caused significant reduction in our revenue. As of January 1, 2018, our PuraPly AM and PuraPly products no longer qualified for separate payments under Medicare and this change resulted in a reduction in our revenue as compared to prior periods. In March 2018, the United States Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, or the Appropriations Act. The Appropriations Act restored the pass-through status effective October 1, 2018 for drugs or biologicals whose period of pass-through payment status ended on December 31, 2018 and for which payment was packaged into a covered hospital outpatient service furnished beginning on January 1, 2018; PuraPly and PuraPly AM met these conditions. As a result, PuraPly and PuraPly AM were included in the "bundled" payment structure from January 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018 after which time Medicare resumed making pass-through payments to hospitals when they use PuraPly and PuraPly AM in the outpatient hospital setting and in ASCs. PuraPly and PuraPly AM will retain this "pass-through" reimbursement status through September 30, 2020. Other skin substitute products, including all of our other products, will remain in the bundled payment structure. Our success will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for the costs of such products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payers and we do not know whether such reimbursement will be available. For example, currently most private payers provide limited coverage for our PuraPly AM, PuraPly, Affinity and NuShield products and as a result there is limited use of these products for patients covered by private payers. The continuing efforts of government agencies, private health plans and other payers of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare may adversely affect: -   the availability of our products due to restricted coverage;-   the ability of our customers to pay for our products;-   our ability to maintain pricing so as to generate revenues or achieve or maintain profitability; and -   our ability to access capital. Payers are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by limiting both the breadth of coverage and the level of reimbursement, particularly for new therapeutic products generally or specifically for new therapeutic products that target an indication that is perceived to be well served by existing treatments. Specifically, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, enacted in 2010 contains provisions for Medicare demonstration programs that create financial incentives to treat patients with chronic wounds conservatively and not use our products. Furthermore, other than the PuraPly AM and PuraPly products through 2017, our products are not paid separately in the outpatient hospital setting which is our largest customer base. This payment policy has created incentives to use our competitors' products. Accordingly, even if coverage and reimbursement are provided, market acceptance of our products has been and will be adversely affected if access to coverage is administratively burdensome to obtain and/or use of our products is administratively burdensome or unprofitable for healthcare providers or less profitable than alternative treatments. In addition, reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and other third-party payers is usually adjusted yearly as a result of legislative, regulatory and policy changes as well as budgetary pressures. In fact, Medicare has signaled that it may discontinue its two-tier bundling policy because it solicited comments on alternatives in its calendar year 2020 rulemaking. Changes in the policy could occur as early as calendar year 2021 and could include the establishment of a single bundle for all products which could place our products at a significant competitive disadvantage. Possible reductions in, or eliminations of, coverage or reimbursement by third-party payers, or the denial of, or provision of uneconomical reimbursement for new products, as a result of these changes may affect our customers' revenue and ability to purchase our products. Any changes in the healthcare regulatory, payment or enforcement landscape relative to our customers' healthcare services also have the potential to significantly affect our operations and revenue. In addition, Medicare uses regional contractors called Medicare Administrative Contractors, or MACs, to process claims, develop coverage policies and make payments within designated geographic jurisdictions. While our products are currently covered by most MACs, we cannot be certain they will be in the future. While we cannot predict the outcome of current or future legislation, we anticipate, particularly given the recent focus on healthcare reform legislation, that governmental authorities will continue to introduce initiatives directed at lowering the total cost of healthcare and restricting coverage and reimbursement for our products. If we are not successful in obtaining adequate reimbursement for our products from third party payers, the market's acceptance of our products could be adversely affected. Inadequate reimbursement levels also likely would create downward price pressure on our products. Even if we do succeed in obtaining widespread reimbursement for our products, future changes in reimbursement policies could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.