Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation.
Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Rebate Model; Other
- In one Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) audit process case, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss.
- In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, the government filed a motion for summary judgment.
- In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B covered entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, defendants’ filed an amended answer and defenses to plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and plaintiff filed a response in opposition to defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s claims spreadsheet.
- In several cases challenging HRSA’s policy prohibiting all manufacturer conditions on 340B transactions, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a stipulated protective order.
- In a case challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia, the court granted plaintiff’s third motion for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion to consolidate.
- In a case challenging HRSA’s policy prohibiting manufacturer rebate models, three intervenors filed a motion to intervene.
- In a case against HRSA alleging that HRSA prevented a 340B covered entity from accessing the 340B Program, the court granted the covered entity’s unopposed motion to stay all deadlines.
- A drug manufacturer filed suit against HRSA to challenge certain of HRSA’s eligibility determinations.
[View source.]
