AHF
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) last week refiled its lawsuit against federally contracted 340B prime vendor Apexus

Provider of HIV/AIDS Care Refiles Suit Against 340B Prime Vendor

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, sued Apexus Nov. 18 alleging that the prime vendor had failed to negotiate sub-ceiling 340B discounts on HIV/AIDS prescription drugs pursuant to its agreement with the federal government.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles dismissed the case on Nov. 21 on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that AHF had not established that a federal court could hear the case on the grounds that the parties were citizens of different states. It gave AHF until Dec. 7 to amend its complaint against Apexus.

In its amended complaint, AHF sought to establish that its own operations are based in California and that Apexus is domiciled in Delaware and in Texas.

AHF, the nation’s largest provider of HIV/AIDS medical care, claims that Apexus’ alleged failure to negotiate sub-ceiling 340B discounts on HIV/AIDS drugs cost it millions of dollars and hurt its ability to deliver safety-net healthcare. AHF asked the court for compensatory damages, and to order Apexus to fulfill is contractual obligations “fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.”

Apexus said in a statement to 340B Report “we serve all 340B participants equitably” and
“all participants have access to prime vendor discounts.”

The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the other party to the prime vendor contract, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Contributor | + posts