340B Archives | HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS

This Week in 340B: September 9 – 15, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Sep 17, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; Other

In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Tennessee, the defendant filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
In a case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Utah, the defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority.
In four cases challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) audit process, the defendant filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ emergency motions for stay or injunction pending appeal, and the plaintiffs filed a joint reply to the opposition.
In two cases challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Nebraska, plaintiffs filed a response to defendant’s supplemental brief.
In one case challenging a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Missouri, amici filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental amicus brief in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: September 2 – 8, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David and Deepika Raj | Sep 11, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Other

In three cases challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) audit process, the plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to stay the lower court’s order granting the government’s motion to dismiss pending appeal.
In two cases challenging a Nebraska law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a brief in opposition to the amended complaint.
In one case challenging a Missouri law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint, proposed intervenors filed a motion to intervene, and intervenors filed a brief in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
In a case challenging an Arkansas state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the drug manufacturer filed a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the court denied in part and granted in part the insurance company’s motion to dismiss.

This Week in 340B: August 26 – September 1, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Jae Hyun Lee, Margaret Houtz, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Sep 3, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Rebate Model; Contract Pharmacy

In six appealed cases related to rebate models, plaintiff-appellants filed their reply briefs.
In a case challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and the defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a Utah bill governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the defendant filed a response to the plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority.
In a case challenging a Missouri state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants.
In a case challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a reply brief to its motion for preliminary injunction.
A drug manufacturer filed two separate lawsuits in Hawaii and Tennessee to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements.

This Week in 340B: August 19 – 25, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Aug 27, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

In one case challenging a Utah bill, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority and the government filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority.
In two cases challenging a Nebraska bill, the court granted the government’s unopposed motion to consolidate the cases. In one case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
In one case challenging a Missouri bill, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In a case challenging an Arkansas state law, the drug manufacturer filed a sealed motion for summary judgment.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the insurance company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
In four cases challenging Oregon, Maine, and Oklahoma state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Oklahoma: In one case, the defendant filed a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and in another case, the plaintiff filed [...]
  
  Continue Reading

HRSA issues 340B rebate model pilot program guidance, requests comments

by Emily Jane Cook | Aug 13, 2025 | 340B

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued a notice announcing the application process for the 340B rebate model pilot program and requesting public comment. The notice sets the parameters of 340B rebate models that HRSA will be willing to review and approve. Approved 340B rebate models may be implemented as early as January 1, 2026.

While participation in the 340B rebate model pilot program is voluntary for manufacturers, participation appears to be mandatory for 340B covered entities with regard to the 340B rebate models that HRSA approves. HRSA indicated that it may modify or expand the pilot in future years.

The guidance is materially more favorable to 340B covered entities than the 340B rebate models that certain drug manufacturers proposed or attempted to implement in late 2024. The pilot will limit 340B rebate models to drugs that have been selected for the Medicare drug price negotiation program (MDPNP) and appears to further limit 340B rebate models to drugs that are billed to patients’ prescription drug benefit plans. However, the notice explicitly states that the 340B rebate model plans will apply to drugs selected for the MDPNP, regardless of payor – in other words, they will not be limited to Medicare Part D.

Stakeholders should carefully review the 340B rebate models described in the notice and consider submitting comments to HRSA. HRSA will accept comments through August 30, 2025.

Summary of the notice

Manufacturers that would like to participate in the pilot must submit applications describing their [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: August 5 – 11, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj, Kelsey Reinhardt and Nadine Tejadilla | Aug 13, 2025 | 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.

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

In a case challenging Medicare payment cuts, the action was dismissed with prejudice.
In five appealed cases related to rebate models, amici and intervenors filed briefs in support of the government.
In a case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the insurance company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
In another case by a covered entity against an insurance company alleging breach of contract, the covered entity filed a response in opposition to the insurance company’s motion to dismiss.
In a case by a covered entity challenging the government’s decision to allow a manufacturer’s audit, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and granted the drug manufacturer’s motion to file an amicus brief.
In a case challenging 2022 Medicare payment rates for 340B drugs, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion to [...]

Continue Reading

This Week in 340B: July 29 – August 4, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Reuben Bank, Matthew David, Margaret Houtz, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Nadine Tejadilla | Aug 6, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Rebate Model; Contract Pharmacy

In five appealed cases related to rebate models, the defendant-appellees filed their briefs.
In a case against the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the court denied the government’s partial motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a Nebraska state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a brief opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a preliminary injunction.
Three drug manufacturers and one trade association of drug manufacturers each filed four separate complaints to challenge state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Oregon, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

This Week in 340B: July 22 – 28, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Margaret Houtz and Kelsey Reinhardt | Jul 30, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

In four cases challenging Oklahoma, Colorado, and Tennessee state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Oklahoma: In two cases, defendant filed its answer and in one of those cases, plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
- Colorado: In one case, plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
- Tennessee: In one case, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction, and the defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss.

This Week in 340B: July 15 – 21, 2025

by Emily Jane Cook, Matthew David, Jae Hyun Lee, Deepika Raj and Kelsey Reinhardt | Jul 23, 2025 | 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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Rebate Model; Other

In two cases challenging a Nebraska state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed briefs requesting the court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In a case challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, amici filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
In three appealed cases related to rebate models:
- In two cases, the court granted the plaintiff-appellant drug manufacturers’ motion to dismiss the cross-appeals.
- In one case, the court granted the plaintiff-appellant drug manufacturer’s motion to consolidate.
In a case by a covered entity against the government, the government filed an answer to the covered entity’s complaint.

CMS CY 2026 proposed rules: 340B in PFS and OPPS

by Emily Jane Cook | Jul 23, 2025 | 340B

On July 15, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the CY 2026 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) proposed rule. The proposed rule includes a provision that would increase the reduction in OPPS payment rates to offset the lump sum payments previously paid to 340B hospitals from 0.5% to 2% and would accelerate the period of the reductions from 16 years to six years. This payment reduction would apply to most items and services and most hospitals paid under OPPS. The reduction is not limited to 340B hospitals. CMS also proposes to reduce payments under OPPS for drug administration at most off-campus hospital outpatient departments not already subject to site-neutral payments to the rate paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), representing an approximately 65% reduction in payments.

CMS is accepting comments on this proposal through September 13, 2025.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2025 and is available here. Refer to pp. 33631-35 for information about the OPPS payment reduction to account for the 340B budget neutrality adjustment, pp. 33685-93 for information about the application of site neutral payments to hospital outpatient drug administration services and pp. 33653-54 and pp. 33832-33 for information about the hospital drug acquisition cost survey.

Reduction in OPPS payment rates for most items and services

The proposed OPPS payment reductions to recoup a portion of the 340B lump sum payments are the result of the prior 340B payment cuts being implemented in a “budget-neutral” manner. [...]

Continue Reading

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS