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. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.
Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy, Rebate Model, HRSA Audit Process
- In two cases challenging a Nebraska state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- In two cases challenging a North Dakota state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, an amicus brief was filed in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Colorado state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs and defendants each filed a brief regarding the court’s jurisdiction.
- In one case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging an Oklahoma state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion to stay discovery and for protective order.
- In a case against HRSA challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, an intervenor filed an opposed motion to intervene as a defendant.
- A trade association representing 340B covered entity hospitals hospitals, healthcare systems, networks and other care providers and a number of its members filed a complaint against the government arguing that the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
