The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is not happy with the Biden administration or the new 340B rule, finalized on April 18 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), concerning the dispute resolution process put in place in 2020.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have ruled last year that the Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t get to fill in the gaps in the law that created the 340B prescription drug discount program, but some states and lawmakers are coming up with their own workarounds to force drug manufacturers to give the discounts to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.
One down, eight to go. That’s the scorecard for the constitutional challenges to mandatory Medicare drug price negotiations now that a U.S. federal court has dismissed a suit filed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the National Infusion Center Association and the Global Colon Cancer Association.
With its approval Jan. 5 of Florida’s drug importation program, the U.S. FDA ended a 23-year wait for the government to implement a 2000 provision allowing certain prescription drug imports from Canada.
One of the latest state laws impacting prescription drug prices is a per se unconstitutional taking, a U.S. district judge said last week, but he refused to grant a preliminary injunction to shield manufacturers from the effects of Colorado’s new law while Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.’s constitutional challenge moves through the courts.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for predetermined change control plans (PCCP) is a groundbreaking document for med-tech regulation, but stakeholders see a few holes in the draft version. One of the issues for device manufacturers is that the guidance seems to exclude any possibility of inclusion of a new intended use or indication for use in a PCCP, while others seek more detail on how this policy can be applied to the device component of a combination product, two elements that may prove complicated to address in the final guidance.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for predetermined change control plans (PCCP) is a groundbreaking document for med-tech regulation, but stakeholders see a few holes in the draft version. One of the issues for device manufacturers is that the guidance seems to exclude any possibility of inclusion of a new intended use or indication for use in a PCCP, while others seek more detail on how this policy can be applied to the device component of a combination product, two elements that may prove complicated to address in the final guidance.
In releasing a revised guidance June 30 detailing the requirements of the new Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services addressed some of the issues raised in recent constitutional challenges to the guidance and the underlying negotiation provision in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The floodgates have opened for challenges to the new U.S. drug price negotiation process laid out in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that was narrowly passed last year.
A federal court cut off efforts Feb. 6 to halt a U.S. program allowing prescription drug imports from Canada before the program gets off the ground. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a suit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and other organizations, saying that they lacked standing because neither they nor their members face “a concrete risk of harm from the inchoate importation program.”