As we reported on deadline on Tuesday, a federal district court ruled this week that Arkansas’ novel 340B antidiscrimination law is not preempted by federal laws governing the 340B program, a decision that strikes down one of two legal arguments made by drug industry trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in its lawsuit challenging the law as illegal and unconstitutional.
In its Dec. 12 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas gave significant weight to the fact that the 340B statute is silent on the role of contract pharmacies in the 340B program and thus found no conflict with Arkansas Act 1103. The state law prohibits drug manufacturers from denying a pharmacy contracting with a 340B covered entity access to the manufacturer’s drugs or denying the pharmacy 340B pricing.
As we reported on deadline on Tuesday, a federal district court ruled this week that Arkansas’ novel 340B antidiscrimination law is not preempted by federal laws governing the 340B program, a decision that strikes down one of two legal arguments made by drug industry trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in its lawsuit challenging the law as illegal and unconstitutional.
Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content
If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
