Federal health officials are “trying to muscle an obligation” on drug manufacturers to honor 340B contract pharmacy arrangements “that simply is not there,” United Therapeutics (UT) said Tuesday in papers filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C.
Nothing in the 340B statute empowers the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) “to compel manufacturers to sell or ship drugs to every ‘contract pharmacy’ that a covered entity might choose to identify,” UT told U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in a Aug. 31 brief in its lawsuit challenging HRSA’s finding in May that the company’s 340B policies broke the law and resulted in overcharges that had to be repaid. HRSA has threatened to impose civil monetary penalties on UT and five other companies with comparable 340B contract pharmacy policies if the companies do not back down.
Federal health officials are “trying to muscle an obligation” on drug manufacturers to honor 340B contract pharmacy arrangements “that simply is not there,” United Therapeutics (UT) said Tuesday in papers filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C.
Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content
If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
