Hospital groups want to intervene in opposition to three more drug manufacturers' lawsuits against the federal government over 340B contract pharmacy requirements.

Hospitals Want Role in Three More Pharma Lawsuits Over 340B Contract Pharmacy

Hospital groups that recently filed a motion to intervene in opposition to drug manufacturer Eli Lilly’s lawsuit against the federal government over 340B contract pharmacy requirements also are trying to intervene in similar suits against the government by manufacturers AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

The six groups—American Hospital Association (AHA), 340B Health, America’s Essential Hospitals, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Children’s Hospital Association (CHA), and ASHP (American Society of Health-System Pharmacists)—on Friday jointly filed a motion to intervene in AstraZeneca’s lawsuit in federal district court in Delaware. On Tuesday, they similarly filed motions in federal court in New Jersey in Sanofi’s and Novo Nordisk’s lawsuits. Lilly’s case is being heard in Indianapolis.

All four hospital group motions are similar. In each case, the manufacturer is suing to stop the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) from enforcing a Dec. 30 advisory opinion that drug companies that participate in 340B must offer 340B pricing on covered outpatient drugs dispensed by contract pharmacies. The hospital groups say they should be allowed to participate in the four cases because HHS “cannot adequately defend” 340B hospitals’ interests, and so far, has done nothing to stop manufacturers from denying hospitals the 340B discounts to which they are entitled.

Lilly, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca also seek in their lawsuits to stop HHS from implementing a 340B program rule establishing a new 340B administrative dispute resolution (ADR) system. Novo Nordisk has not challenged the ADR system in its suit. The hospital groups, in their motions in the Lilly, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca cases, say that their interest in the cases relates only to the manufacturers’ claims regarding the HHS advisory opinion, and not to claims regarding the ADR system.

In the Lilly lawsuit, Ryan White Clinics for 340B Access (RWC-340B) and the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) have asked the court to let them file briefs arguing why the court should not grant Lilly’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop the ADR process. RWC-340B and NACHC have not yet filed similar motions in the Sanofi and AstraZeneca lawsuits.

Editor at Large | Website | + posts