HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: October 1 – 7, 2024

by Emily Jane Cook, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Oct 9, 2024 | 340B

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+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

In an appealed action alleging that various drug manufacturers failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the 340B Covered Entity plaintiff filed its reply brief.
In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- LA: The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
- MO: The defendants filed a motion to transfer in one case and a motion to dismiss in a separate case. In a third case, amici filed a brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
- AR: The court denied the intervenor’s motion to dismiss.
- MN: In two cases, a group of amici filed an amici curiae brief in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

This Week in 340B: September 24 – 30, 2024

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Patrick Moore and Deepika Raj | Oct 2, 2024 | 340B

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+.

Issues at Stake: HRSA; Contract Pharmacy

In a case challenging HRSA’s policy prohibiting all manufacturer conditions on 340B transactions, the parties filed a joint status report.
In six cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Louisiana, Missouri, and Maryland:
- LA: The court ruled on motions for summary judgement.
- MO: Proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss with suggestions in support of each motion. In a second case, plaintiff filed suggestions in opposition to reassign or transfer the case to a different forum.
- MD: The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for expedited discovery, and a notice of appeal of the court’s decision to deny their motion for preliminary injunction.

This Week in 340B: September 17 – 23, 2024

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Patrick Moore, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 25, 2024 | 340B

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+.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

In four DC district court cases challenging HRSA’s position on contract pharmacy arrangements, the court entered its final judgment.
In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Missouri:
- WV: Defendants filed amended answers to complaints.
- MD: The plaintiff filed a memorandum opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- MN: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
- MO: Amici filed an amicus brief in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss in one case. In a second case, proposed intervenors filed a motion in support of its motion to intervene in the case. In the same case, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

This Week in 340B: September 10 – 16, 2024

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Patrick Moore, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 18, 2024 | 340B

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+.

Issues at Stake: ADR Rule; Medicare Payment; Contract Pharmacy; Other

In a case concerning the ADR Rule, the parties filed a joint status report.
In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the court set trial for April 2026.
In an antitrust case filed by a Covered Entity against a group of drug manufacturers, the manufacturers filed a joint brief of defendant-appellees.
In a breach of contract claim filed by a complainant, the court issued a formal mandate for final judgment.
In 12 cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, and Kansas:
1. WV: Defendants in three cases filed notices of supplemental authority. In one of those cases, plaintiffs filed a response.
2. MD: Defendants filed a memorandum opposing plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery.
3. MS: Plaintiffs in each of two cases filed their opening briefs in the Fifth [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 3 – 9, 2024

by Emily Jane Cook, Bryan Frederick, Margaret Houtz, Patrick Moore, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 11, 2024 | 340B

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+.

Issues at Stake: Medicare Payment; HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy

In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the Medicare Advantage plans filed its answer to the Covered Entity’s first amended complaint.
A 340B Covered Entity filed a complaint against HRSA challenging HRSA’s decision to approve a manufacturer’s request to audit the Covered Entity.
In seven cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Minnesota, Maryland, and Missouri:
- WV: Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
- MS: The court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings.
- MN: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
- AR:
  ○ The intervenor filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
  ○ An amicus filed a brief in support of the petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari
  before the US Supreme Court.
- MD: The defendants [...]
  
  Continue Reading