We’re back from the holidays with updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country as we move into 2024. 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, Other, HRSA Audit Process

• In a case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, defendant pharmaceutical companies filed a reply memorandum of law in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff state attorney general’s second complaint.
• In two separate cases regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, four amici moved for leave to file amicus briefs in support of defendant state attorney general’s cross-motions for summary judgment. In both cases, the court granted the motions for leave, and the amici then filed their amicus briefs with the courts.
• In another case regarding a state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the parties filed and the court granted a joint motion to stay pending the ruling in a related case
• In response to the final rule published on November 2, 2023, detailing a remedy for underpayment in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in AHA v. Becerra, stay orders were issued in one of the pending Medicare payment cut cases until February 19, 2024, to allow for implementation of the final rule. The parties anticipate that the case will be dismissed after the payments are made.
• In an appeal concerning the obligations of the 340B Prime Vendor, the appellant submitted its reply brief.
• In a qui tam False Claims Act action alleging that defendants failed to charge accurate ceiling prices to 340B covered entities, the defendants filed a notice of motion to stay discovery and a joint stipulation of the parties.
• 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, the covered entity plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and the court set a briefing schedule.

Patrick Moore, law clerk in McDermott’s Los Angeles article, also contributed to this post.