Category: Judicial

President Biden has nominated current White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) General Counsel Sam Bagenstos to be the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) General Counsel—a post that has had a growing role in defending the 340B

Regulations establishing a binding administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for the 340B program were rushed into place last December to defeat lawsuits, are fatally flawed legally and constitutionally, and should be struck down, the main U.S. trade association for drug

The clerk of the federal district court in Wilmington, Del., confirmed this morning that a judge did not rule that drug manufacturer AstraZeneca is not required to deliver 340B discounts drugs to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies. There were

CORRECTION Thursday, Aug. 5, 2021, 8:15 p.m.—Earlier today, we misdescribed Novo Nordisk’s 340B contract pharmacy policy. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, Novo Nordisk stopped facilitating bill to/ship to distribution of 340B product to hospital contract pharmacies. We incorrectly said Novo

An upstate New York health center has sued the nation’s four major insulin manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to stop offering 340B pricing when covered entities use contract pharmacies.

Mosaic Health’s July 30 lawsuit claims that insulin manufacturers’ Sanofi, Eli

Attorneys for the government and drug manufacturer Eli Lilly dueled over the legality of 340B contract pharmacy requirements during a hearing before a federal district judge in Indianapolis today.

Stakeholders are watching the Lilly case closely because, given how far

AstraZeneca and the federal government have filed a new round of briefs in the drug manufacturer’s 340B contract pharmacy lawsuit, this round focused on the government’s May 17 letter telling the company its contract pharmacy actions are illegal.

In a

A federal district judge will hold a joint hearing in October on drug makers’ Novartis and United Therapeutics’ (UT) lawsuits challenging the government’s findings in May that the two companies’ 340B contract pharmacy policies are unlawful.

In a short unpublished

The government’s position that United Therapeutics’ (UT) restrictions on 340B contract pharmacies are illegal “contravenes the plain text” of the 340B statute, the drug company told a federal district judge on Friday.

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA)

The law firm representing United Therapeutics (UT) in its 340B contract pharmacy lawsuit against the federal government has filed its own related lawsuit against the government.

In a July 13 complaint filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C.,