Find the 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: Contract Pharmacy; Other
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied the petitions for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
- In a qui tam action arguing that private parties can bring suits to enforce the 340B Statute, the defendants filed replies in support of their renewed motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a reply in support of their renewed request for judicial notice.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the manufacturer filed an appeal.
- In a case brought by a trade association challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the trade association filed a motion for abeyance and administrative closure.
- In a case alleging that a health plan systematically underpaid hospitals by improperly discounting claims, the parties settled and dismissed the case.
- In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court granted the defendant-appellees’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
- In a consolidated case brought by a drug manufacturer and trade association for drug manufacturers challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment.
- In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, a third party filed a motion to intervene.
- In a case by a covered entity against a drug manufacturer challenging the manufacturer’s policy of requiring the submission of detailed claims-level data as a condition of continuing to purchase covered outpatient drugs at the 340B ceiling price, the drug manufacturer filed a motion in opposition to the covered entity’s motion for preliminary injunction.
