/>iFind 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: Other; Contract Pharmacy; HRSA Audit Process; GPO Prohibition
- In a case against the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, the government filed a reply in support of its partial motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a covered entity challenging the government’s decision to allow a manufacturer’s audit, the government filed a motion to dismiss.
- In a case by a covered entity against the government, the court granted the covered entity motion for leave to file a response to the intervenors’ amicus brief.
- A drug manufacturer filed a complaint challenging a Hawaii state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
- In a case challenging HRSA’s policy limiting the circumstances in which covered entities can use their group purchasing arrangements to purchase non-340B drugs, the plaintiff filed a combined reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.
- In three cases challenging state laws in Tennessee, South Dakota, and Nebraska governing contract pharmacy arrangements:
- Tennessee: The defendant filed a response in opposition re motion for preliminary injunction.
- South Dakota: The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- Nebraska: The defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s brief in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss.
