Category: Judicial

A federal district court in South Carolina ordered 340B Report late yesterday to destroy and not release information from more than 9,000 pages of documents that the federal government filed in a public database Thursday in a community health center’s

Brand drug manufacturers have asked a federal appeals court to overturn a judge’s ruling last month that Arkansas’s novel 340B anti-discrimination law is not preempted by the 340B statute nor by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and

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

A federal district judge ruled yesterday that Arkansas’s novel 340B anti-discrimination law is not preempted by the 340B statute nor by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies requirements.

U.S. Senior District Judge Billy Roy Wilson’s

California-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) last week refiled its lawsuit against Delaware-based federally contracted 340B prime vendor Apexus, setting forth facts that AHF argued gives a federal district court in California jurisdiction over the case.

AHF, based in Los Angeles,

AIDS Healthcare Foundation sued Apexus, the federally contracted 340B prime vendor, on Friday for allegedly failing and refusing to negotiate sub-ceiling 340B discounts on HIV/AIDS prescription drugs pursuant to its agreement with the government.

An Apexus spokesperson yesterday said it

Federal health officials last week defended their plan to wait until next year to say how they will reimburse 340B hospitals for illegal Medicare Part B drug payment cuts in place for the past five years after hospital groups told

On Tuesday we reported about oral arguments before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia in AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi’s lawsuits challenging federal agency findings that the companies’ conditions on 340B covered entities’ use of contract pharmacies violate the 340B statute.