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
- In a case challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103, the court approved the parties’ jointly stipulated protective order.
- In three separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument on the motions and cross-motions for summary judgment in all related pending cases.
- In three separate cases challenging HRSA’s position on contract pharmacy arrangements, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report proposing a schedule for further proceedings in light of the DC Circuit’s decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Johnson.
- In a separate case challenging HRSA’s position on contract pharmacy arrangements, the manufacturer submitted the DC Circuit’s decision in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Johnson as supplemental authority.
- In two consolidated contract pharmacy cases, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion.
- In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the 340B Covered Entity filed a first amended complaint.
