A federal district court’s ruling last October that federal law requires drug manufacturers to deliver 340B purchased drugs to contract pharmacies conflicts with two other courts’ conclusions, “upsets the delicate statutory balance Congress struck, and raises serious constitutional problems,” drug manufacturer Eli Lilly told a federal appeals court last week.
U.S. Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana found last fall that Congress’ omission of any mention in the 340B statute of where 340B drugs are to be delivered means manufacturers may not unilaterally condition 340B pricing to locations of their choosing, as Lilly did. “The fairest and most reasonable interpretation of the 340B statute would not authorize drug manufacturers to impose unilateral restrictions on the distribution of the drugs that ‘would frustrate Congress’ manifest purpose’ in enacting the statute,” Barker wrote.
A federal district court’s ruling last October that federal law requires drug manufacturers to deliver 340B purchased drugs to contract pharmacies conflicts with two other courts’ conclusions, “upsets the delicate statutory balance Congress struck, and raises serious constitutional problems,” drug manufacturer Eli Lilly told a federal appeals court last week.
Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content
If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
