United Therapeutics told a judge on Friday that the government’s position that the company's 340B contract pharmacies are illegal “contravenes the plain text” of the 340B statute.

United Therapeutics Fleshes Out its 340B Contract Pharmacy Legal Arguments

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) conclusion “is also invalid because it rests on no valid legal or factual foundation,” and is arbitrary and capricious on multiple grounds, UT said in a July 17 motion for summary judgement. The government’s response is due by Aug. 10.

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.

Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content

If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
If you are not yet a paid subscriber, please Subscribe now.
For questions about subscriptions or technical assistance, please contact Reshma Eggleston at reshma.eggleston@340breport.com.
« Read Previous Read Next »
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
×

*Sign up for news summaries and alerts from 340B Report

Site Footer