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.
Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Rebate Model; Other
- In one Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) audit process case, the government filed a motion to dismiss.
- In two HRSA audit process cases, the government filed reply briefs in further support of the government’s motion to dismiss.
- A drug manufacturer filed suit against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s disapproval of its proposed rebate model.
- A 340B covered entity filed suit against HRSA, alleging that HRSA prevented it from accessing the 340B Program.
- A 340B covered entity filed suit against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s determination that certain clinics were not eligible for the 340B program, and, in the same case, the court issued an administrative stay.
- In three cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri and West Virginia:
- MO: Defendants and intervenors separately filed reply suggestions in support of the motion to dismiss.
- WV: Plaintiffs in two separate cases filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to consolidate
Matt David, associate in McDermott’s Los Angeles office, also contributed to this blog post.
