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: Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; Rebate Model; Other

• In one Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) audit process case, the government filed a memorandum in support of the government’s motion to dismiss.
• In a case by a drug manufacture challenging a state law, the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the parties filed a joint motion for an amended protective order.
  In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, the government filed a response to a motion to strike the government’s motion for summary judgment.
  In a suit by a 340B covered entity against HRSA, the covered entity filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
• In an appealed case challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the appellees filed their opening brief.
• A 340B covered entity filed a complaint against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s decision to allow a manufacturer’s audit.
• In five cases against HRSA alleging that HRSA unlawfully refused to approve drug manufacturers’ proposed rebate models:
  • In four such cases, drug manufacturers filed a joint opposition to a motion to intervene and the intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene.
  • In one such case, the intervenors filed a reply in support of their motion to intervene.
  • In one such case, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.

Nadine Tejadilla also contributed to this article.