STATEMENT ON FEDERAL COURT OPINION IN NOVARTIS AND UNITED THERAPEUTICS 340B COMMUNITY PHARMACY LAWSUITS
WASHINGTON D.C. — Two federal courts issued opinions on Friday in cases involving the dispute over drug companies’ denial of 340B discounts for safety-net hospitals, health centers, and clinics for drugs dispensed in community pharmacies. They focus on a series of letters sent May 17 by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) to six manufacturers ordering them to restore the discounts and develop plans for repaying overcharges. All six drug makers have gone to federal court seeking to block HRSA from enforcing its letters.
In all three cases – involving Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Novartis, and United Therapeutics – judges rejected industry requests to block HRSA from acting. In the Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi cases, judges said drug companies cannot impose unilateral limits on 340B discounts. In a third case involving Novartis and United Therapeutics, however, the judge said drug makers are not bound to provide discounts for drugs dispensed at community pharmacies.
The following statement from 340B Health President and Chief Executive Officer Maureen Testoni relates to the third ruling, issued Friday evening:
“We disagree with the opinion issued by the U.S. District Court for The District of Columbia regarding the 340B drug pricing program. Two federal courts have firmly stated that drug companies participating in 340B do not have the right to unilaterally impose restrictions on the provision of price discounts. Those courts have also upheld the government’s ability to enforce the law. The facts remain the same. This group of drug companies are in violation of the law and their denial of 340B discounts for drugs dispensed in community pharmacies are harming safety-net hospitals and the patients with low incomes that they serve. Ultimately, these discounts must be restored, and the safety net made whole.”
Contact: Richard Sorian at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202-536-2285.