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; Other

– A healthcare improvement company filed suit against HRSA to challenge HRSA’s policy limiting the circumstances in which covered entities can use their group purchasing arrangements to purchase non-340B drugs.

– A covered entity filed suit against an insurance company alleging that the insurance company failed to reimburse the covered entity for amounts it paid the covered entity using the unlawful Medicare rate of ASP minus 22.5%.

– In a contract pharmacy case, a drug manufacturer filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

– In eleven cases challenging proposed state laws governing contract pharmacy arrangements in Mississippi, West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas:

• MS: The plaintiff filed a rebuttal in support of its motion for preliminary injunction.
• WV:

– In two cases, the parties filed joint motions for stays of deadlines.

– In two other cases, plaintiffs filed responses to defendants’ notices of supplemental authority.

• MO:

– In one case, proposed amici filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief. In the same case, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion for transfer.

– In a second case, plaintiff withdrew its objection to proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene. In the same case, defendants filed reply suggestions in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss.

• KS: In four cases previously consolidated, defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, a motion for summary judgment.