Find this 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, a subscription product from McDermott+.
Issues at Stake: Medicare Payment; HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy
- In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare Advantage plans filed its answer to the Covered Entity’s first amended complaint.
- A 340B Covered Entity filed a complaint against HRSA challenging HRSA’s decision to approve a manufacturer’s request to audit the Covered Entity.
- In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Minnesota, Maryland, and Missouri:
- WV: Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
- MS: The court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings.
- MN: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
- AR:
○ The intervenor filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
○ An amicus filed a brief in support of the petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari
before the US Supreme Court. - MD: The defendants filed a memorandum of law opposing the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and the court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion.
- MO: Plaintiff filed a memorandum describing its opposition to third-party litigants to intervene in this case. In the same case, the defendant filed a memorandum in support of the motion for transfer venue.
