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.

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 eight Medicare payment cut cases, the court approved the parties’ motion to consolidate the cases and the parties’ proposed briefing schedule.
• In a case challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103, the court filed the initial scheduling order for the case.
• In an appeal before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103 that was decided in the state’s favor, the plaintiff-appellant filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
• In an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a qui tam False Claims Act action, the appellant-relator filed a motion to extend the time to submit its opening brief.
• In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare Advantage plans filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss and a reply in support of their motion to stay discovery. Additionally, the court in this case ordered [...]
  
  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; Other

• In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical companies filed a combined opposition to defendant’s motions for summary judgment and reply in support Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
• In eight Medicare payment cut cases, the parties filed joint status reports requesting additional briefing on the sufficiency of payment and the consolidation of similarly situated cases. The court in each case granted the requests.
• In a qui tam False Claims Act action, the plaintiff-relator filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• In a case challenging Arkansas’ Act 1103, the court granted the defendant’s motion to transfer the case to a different judge.
• In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the 340B Covered Entity filed its opposition to the Medicare Advantage plan defendants’ motion to stay discovery.

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 Cuts; Other

• In six cases related to Medicare payment cuts, the Court ordered the cases stayed for an additional 30 days.
• In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted intervenor-defendant’s motion to intervene.
• In the same case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed a proposed answer in intervention to plaintiff pharmaceutical companies’ first amended complaint.
• 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 its cross-motion for summary judgment and a memorandum in opposition to the covered entity plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
• On March 12, 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in a case challenging a state law requiring drug manufacturers to sell 340B drugs for dispensing through contract pharmacy agreements, affirming the decision of the district [...]
  
  Continue Reading