A U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge June 27 ruled against Johnson & Johnson and sided with the Department of Health and Human Services and hospitals in a lawsuit brought by J&J challenging the government’s authority to reject J&J’s proposed 340B rebate model. 

“In sum, based on the plain and unambiguous language of the 340B statute, and supported by its purpose and history, HRSA has the authority to ‘provide’ for discounts, rebates, or both,” Judge Rudolph Contreras wrote. “This conclusion defeats J&J’s claim that HRSA lacked the authority to require prior approval of J&J’s rebate model.”

The AHA in a friend-of-the-court brief urged the court to uphold the government’s decision to reject J&J’s proposed 340B rebate model. Others joining the AHA in the filing were the Children’s Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges and America’s Essential Hospitals.

Earlier this year, a second district judge reached the same conclusion in cases brought by five other drug companies. 

Headline
Eli Lilly said June 1 it will deny 340B Drug Pricing Program discounts to providers that do not meet its documentation requirements by next week.In a statement…
Headline
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of AppealsMay 28 agreed to rehear challenges to 340B contract pharmacy laws from West Virginia and Maryland. In April, a three-judge…
Headline
The Wall Street Journal today published a letter to the editor from AHA General Counsel Chad Golder responding to a May 7 editorial criticizing the 340B Drug…
Headline
The AHA today urged Eli Lilly to abandon its 340B Drug Pricing Program claims-data policy and work with the AHA to develop a functional third-party…
Headline
The AHA again is asking the Health Resources and Services Administration to take action after Eli Lilly warned hospitals that they could lose access to…
Headline
The Washington Post yesterday published a letter to the editor from AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack responding to an April 18 editorial criticizing the 340B…