News & Analysis as of

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) HRSA Appeals

McDermott Will & Schulte

This Week in 340B: February 18 – 24, 2025

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...more

Foley Hoag LLP

D.C. Circuit Holds 340B Program Does Not Prohibit Drug Manufacturers from Imposing Contract Pharmacy Restrictions

Foley Hoag LLP on

On May 21, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) issued its decision in United Therapeutics Corporation v. Carole Johnson, et al./Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Carole...more

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

Whither Insurance Coverage for Preventive Health Services? District Court Decision Striking Down Affordable Care Act’s Preventive...

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP on

On May 15, 2023, the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed a district-court ruling that struck down a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As a result of the stay, the ACA’s health insurance coverage requirements for...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

The Future of the 340B Program: 2023 Key Decisions

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Critical decisions are pending before courts and legislators in 2023 that promise to shape the future of the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program), which provides discounts on outpatient drugs for certain health care...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Genesis Opinion Provides Opportunity for District Court to Determine Definition of “Patient” for 340B Covered Entities

A federal district court likely will determine the 340B program definition of “patient” following a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Genesis Healthcare v. Becerra. The issue was whether the...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

HRSA Filings in Genesis Shed Light on Definition of “Patient” for 340B Covered Entities

A recent case before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the issue of which persons qualify as “patients” of a 340B program participating entity (covered entity). Court-ordered filings in ongoing...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Government Appeals Decisions in 340B Contract Pharmacy Litigation

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

On December 28, 2021, the federal government submitted notices to appeal three federal district court decisions related to the use of contract pharmacies under the federal 340B drug pricing program. The appeals are the latest...more

Hogan Lovells

United States Supreme Court recognizes employer religious freedoms in two recent decisions

Hogan Lovells on

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court Rules that Employers May Use Religious and Moral Exemptions for Requirement to Provide Health Plan Coverage for...

On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more

Fisher Phillips

Supreme Court Upholds Rules Expanding Exemptions To ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Upholds Exemption to ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more

Franczek P.C.

SCOTUS Gives Religious Exemptions Wide Berth in Two Key Employment Rulings

Franczek P.C. on

On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more

Burr & Forman

New Supreme Court Ruling Allows Religious Employers to Exempt Birth Control from Health Care Coverage

Burr & Forman on

This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

Religious exemption carries in U.S. Supreme Court decision on preventive reproductive care

Bricker Graydon LLP on

Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania

On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more

K&L Gates LLP

K&L Gates Triage: Recent Developments Impacting Drug Pricing and the 340B Program: Part 2

K&L Gates LLP on

In Part Two of this two-part series on recent developments in pharmacy law and the 340B drug pricing program, Richard Church and Ryan Severson discuss several recent developments related to the 340B drug pricing program,...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide