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; Medicare Payment Cuts; ADR Rule; Other

• In six cases related to the Medicare payment cuts, the court ordered the cases stayed until March 3, 2024.
• In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, intervenor-defendant state primary care association filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in support of its motion to intervene, an opposed motion for leave to file cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The state attorney general filed a cross motion for summary judgment and corresponding memorandum of law.
• In a separate case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, state attorney general filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant pharmaceutical company’s motion to dismiss the second complaint.
• In a case challenging the New York Department of Health’s 340B Carveout plan, the attorneys for both sides filed a stipulation of discontinuance as to one of the plaintiffs.
• In a qui tam False Claims Act action: (1) Several of the State Plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to dismissal of the Relator’s first amended complaint; (2) the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss the relator’s first amended complaint; (3) the defendants filed a reply in support of their renewed request for judicial notice; and (4) several defendants filed a supplemental reply in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss the relator’s first amended complaint.
• In an antitrust case involving contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision.
• In a case against the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) filed by a group of 340B covered entities seeking relief from HRSA’s recent change in its policy on child sites, a membership organization representing 340B hospitals filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the covered entity plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
• In a case challenging the 340B Administrative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rule, the parties filed a Joint Status Report.

Jae Hyun Lee, law clerk in McDermott’s New York office, also contributed to this post. 

[View source.]