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 the consolidated Medicare payment cut case, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum opposing the government’s motion to dismiss.
• In a case challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a pharmaceutical company filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
• In a separate case challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
• A drug manufacturer filed two separate complaints against two state attorneys general to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• A nonprofit organization filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the 340B Covered Entity plaintiff-appellant in a contract pharmacy case.
• In five separate cases challenging state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
  1. 1. Two plaintiffs filed separate motions for preliminary injunctions;
     2. Two state defendants filed answers to the plaintiffs’ complaints as well as oppositions to the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction;
     3. One state [...]
        
        Continue Reading

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 breach of contract claim related to payments for 340B drugs filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare Advantage plans filed a motion to dismiss.
• In a contract pharmacy case, the 340B Covered Entity plaintiff-appellant filed its opening appeal brief.
• A drug manufacturer filed a complaint against a state attorney general to challenge a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
• In two related cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed motions to consolidate the two cases.
• In another case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the parties filed a joint motion for a modified briefing schedule.

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 three related cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, pharmaceutical companies filed notices of supplemental authority. In two of the three cases, the state attorney general filed responses.
• In two new cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a pharmaceutical company filed complaints in federal court. In one of these cases, the pharmaceutical company additionally filed a motion for preliminary injunction, and a memorandum in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
• In a consolidated case addressing the Medicare 340B payment cuts, the government filed its opposition to the hospitals’ motion for summary judgement and a cross-motion to dismiss.
• A trade associating representing drug manufacturers filed claims against two separate states in two different federal courts challenging state laws addressing 340B contract pharmacy arrangements.
• A drug manufacturer filed a complaint against the federal government for failing to respond to a FOIA request involving contracts between 340B covered entities and contract [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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 [...]
  
  Continue Reading

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: Medicare Payment; Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In the consolidated Medicare payment cut case, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement.
• In an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a qui tam False Claims Act action, the case was released from the mediation program.
• In an appeal before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103, the court denied the plaintiff-appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.

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: Medicare Payment; Contract Pharmacy; Other

• In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the court ruled on a number of pending motions.
• In a case against HRSA filed by a group of 340B Covered Entities seeking relief from HRSA’s recent change in its policy on child sites, HRSA filed a reply memorandum in support of its cross-motion for summary judgement.
• In an appeal before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103 that was decided in the state’s favor, two parties filed briefs as amicus curiae in support of the appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc.
• In an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a qui tam False Claims Act action:
  1. The court scheduled the assessment conference with the circuit mediator.
  2. The court granted the appellant-relator’s motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief.