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+Consulting.
Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Medicare Payment; Other
- In two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed a reply in support of defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- In the same two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed a reply in support of intervenor-defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
- In a separate case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical company filed an opposition to intervenor-defendant state primary care association’s motion to intervene.
- In a case challenging the New York Department of Health’s 340B Carveout plan, the Plaintiff’s submitted a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss and in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
- A 340B Covered Entity filed a breach of contract claim against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, alleging that the company has failed to reimburse the covered entity after using rates based on the illegal HHS Medicare payment cuts to 340B drugs that were in place from 2018 to 2022.
