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; Drug Manufacturer; Other

• In two related cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical companies filed responses to defendant state attorney general’s notices of supplemental authority.
• All plaintiffs in one Medicare payment cut case voluntarily dismissed the case.
• In a case challenging the New York Department of Health’s 340B Carveout plan, the Defendants filed a memorandum of law in further support of their cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.
• In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare Advantage plan defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery.
• A drug manufacturer filed suit against a state agency alleging, among other things, that a certain state law requiring manufacturers to make 340B drugs available to any and all pharmacies entering into a contractual relationship with a covered entity is preempted by federal law.