HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS
HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS
Exploring Critical Business and Legal Issues across the Healthcare and Life Sciences Industries
HEALTH & LIFE SCIENCES NEWS
Exploring Critical Business and Legal Issues across the Healthcare and Life Sciences Industries
340B
Subscribe to 340B's Posts

This Week in 340B: March 5 – 12, 2024

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



read more

This Week in 340B: February 27 – March 4, 2024

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 a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, four proposed amici moved for leave to file amicus briefs in support of defendant state attorney general’s cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • In a qui tam False Claims Act action, the Court issued an order scheduling the trial and referring the case to private mediation.
  • 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 Dismiss.



read more

This Week in 340B: February 21 – 26, 2024

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; ADR Rule; Other

  • In six cases related to the Medicare payment cuts, the court ordered the cases stayed until March 3, 2024.
  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion to intervene, an opposed motion for leave to file cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The state attorney general filed a cross motion for summary judgment and corresponding memorandum of law.
  • In a separate case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, state attorney general filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant pharmaceutical company’s motion to dismiss the second complaint.
  • In a case challenging the New York Department of Health’s 340B Carveout plan, the attorneys for both sides filed a stipulation of discontinuance as to one of the plaintiffs.
  • In a qui tam False Claims [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

This Week in 340B: February 14 – 20, 2024

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

  • In six similar cases alleging improper cuts to Medicare payment rates for 340B drugs under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System, the parties filed joint status reports.
  • In two similar cases alleging improper cuts to Medicare payment rates for 340B drugs under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal.
  • In two related cases regarding a state law governing Medicare payment cuts, both plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases.
  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed an Ex Parte Motion to extend deadlines.
  • In the same case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed a reply in support of its motion to intervene.(Contract Pharmacy)



read more

This Week in 340B: February 7 – 13, 2024

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 two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed a reply in support of defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
  • In the same two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed a reply in support of intervenor-defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
  • In a separate case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical company filed an opposition to intervenor-defendant state primary care association’s motion to intervene.
  • In a case challenging the New York Department of Health’s 340B Carveout plan, the Plaintiff’s submitted a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss and in further support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • A 340B Covered Entity filed a breach of contract claim against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, alleging that the company has failed to reimburse the covered entity after using rates based on the [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

This Week in 340B: January 31 – February 7, 2024

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; Other

  • In a qui tam False Claims Act action alleging that defendants failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the plaintiff-relator submitted a memorandum in opposition to the defendants’ renewed request for judicial notice and an omnibus opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the oral argument for defendant’s motion to dismiss was set for March 5, 2024.
  • In a separate case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint, ordered the clerk to close the case, and issued a judgment in favor of Defendant pharmaceutical companies.



read more

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

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: 340B Covered Entities; Contract Pharmacy

  • In a qui tam False Claims Act action alleging that defendants failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B Covered Entities, the parties filed a joint stipulation, which the court approved.
  • In two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, two plaintiff pharmaceutical companies filed combined replies in support of their motions for summary judgment and in opposition to cross motions for summary judgment.
  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a proposed intervenor filed an opposed motion to intervene, and the court set forth a notice of motion setting for both the parties and the proposed intervenor.



read more

This Week in 340B: January 9 – 16, 2024

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

  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical company filed a motion for summary judgment.  
  • Two cases related to the Medicare payment cuts were stayed until February 19, 2024.



read more

This Week in 340B: December 21, 2023 – January 8, 2024

We’re back from the holidays with updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country as we move into 2024. 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, HRSA Audit Process

  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant pharmaceutical companies filed a reply memorandum of law in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff state attorney general’s second complaint.
  • In two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, four amici moved for leave to file amicus briefs in support of defendant state attorney general’s cross-motions for summary judgment. In both cases, the court granted the motions for leave, and the amici then filed their amicus briefs with the courts.
  • In another case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the parties filed and the court granted a joint motion to stay pending the ruling in a related case
  • In response to the final rule published on November 2, 2023, detailing a remedy for underpayment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

This Week in 340B: December 6 – 20, 2023

This weekly series provides brief summaries 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.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy

  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, plaintiff pharmaceutical company and defendant state attorney general jointly filed a motion to set briefing schedule, whereby both parties agreed to proceed directly to cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant state attorney general filed: (1) a cross motion for summary judgment, (2) a statement of material fact to accompany the cross-motion for summary judgment, (3) a combined memorandum in opposition to motion for summary judgment and in support of cross motion for summary judgment, (4) a response to plaintiff pharmaceutical company’s statement of material facts. In the same case, a state primary care association joined as an intervenor-defendant and filed the following: (1) a cross motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff pharmaceutical company’s claims and in opposition to plaintiff pharmaceutical company’s motion and opposition, (2) a memorandum of law in support of intervenor-defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on all claims and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on preemption claims, (3) a statement of material facts in support of intervenor-defendant’s cross motion, and [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Chambers 2021 Top Ranked
U.S. News Law Firm of the Year 2022 Health Care Law
LEgal 500 EMEA top tier firm 2021
Legal 500 USA top tier firm