Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, a group of states as plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the dismissal of certain claims on the basis of the public disclosure bar.
• In a case challenging HRSA’s denial of a hospital’s request for retroactive 340B Disproportionate Share Hospital status, the federal government filed a motion to dismiss.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Vermont state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and granted the state government’s partial motion to dismiss, and the state government filed a motion to amend the court’s order.
• In a case brought by a trade association challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response.
• In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, a non-party filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene.
• In [...]
  
  Continue Reading

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the petitions for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
• In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the defendants filed replies in support of their renewed motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a reply in support of their renewed request for judicial notice.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the manufacturer filed an appeal.
• In a case brought by a trade association challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the trade association filed a motion for abeyance and administrative closure.
• In a case alleging that a health plan systematically underpaid hospitals by improperly discounting claims, the parties settled and dismissed the case.
• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law [...]
  
  Continue Reading

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a case brought by a drug manufacturer seeking judgment on its interpretation of the definition of “patient”, the intervenor-defendants filed a joint reply in support of motion to dismiss and the plaintiff filed a motion to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surreply in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
• The parties involved in an action brought by the State of Arkansas against a group of drug manufacturers alleging that the manufacturers’ restrictive 340B policies violate state law filed a joint motion to remove the case to federal court.
• In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a Utah state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed responses to the defendant’s notice of supplemental authority.
• In a combined case brought by drug manufacturers challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted American Hospital Association’s, 340B Health’s, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ motions for leave to file [...]
  
  Continue Reading