Medicare drug price negotiations: Judge tosses PhRMA lawsuit

Activists protest the worth of prescription drug costs in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) constructing on October 06, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a serious pharmaceutical industry lobbying group and two other organizations that challenged Medicare’s latest powers to barter prices for costly prescription medicines. 

The choice is an early win for the Biden administration because it grapples with a flurry of other legal challenges that drugmakers have filed against the Medicare drug price negotiations. The important thing policy under the Inflation Reduction Act goals to make medicines cheaper for seniors and will cut into pharmaceutical industry profits. 

The judge’s ruling won’t end the legal battle over the policy, which could find yourself on the Supreme Court. Medicare issued its initial drug price offers to manufacturers for the primary 10 medications subject to the talks earlier this month, with final negotiated prices going into effect in 2026.

U.S. Judge David Ezra of the Western District of Texas sided with the Biden administration in dismissing the suit by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the Global Colon Cancer Association and the National Infusion Center Association, which argued that the worth talks were unconstitutional. 

In a 14-page ruling, Ezra specifically dismissed the National Infusion Center Association, or NICA, from the case, arguing that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the group’s legal challenge. He wrote that NICA’s claims fall under the Medicare Act and will only be heard by a court following an administrative review by the federal agency. 

Ezra dismissed the remaining of the case on condition that NICA is the one plaintiff based within the district. 

PhRMA is “disenchanted with the court’s decision, which doesn’t address the merits of our lawsuit, and we’re weighing our next legal steps,” spokesperson Nicole Longo told CNBC in a press release. PhRMA represents lots of the most important drugmakers on this planet, including Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

But PhRMA and the 2 other organizations could appeal the choice. Legal experts say the pharmaceutical industry hopes to acquire conflicting rulings from federal appellate courts, which could fast-track the difficulty to the Supreme Court. 

A slate of major corporations with drugs chosen for negotiations, including J&J, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb, have filed separate lawsuits difficult the constitutionality of the worth talks. Those cases are still pending.

Notably, a federal judge in Ohio issued a ruling in September denying a preliminary injunction sought by the Chamber of Commerce, one among the most important lobbying groups within the country, which aimed to dam the worth talks before Oct. 1.

PhRMA, NICA and the Global Colon Cancer Association filed their lawsuit in June, alleging that the negotiations delegate an excessive amount of authority to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

The suit also argued that the worth talks violate the Eighth Amendment because they include a “crippling” excise tax geared toward forcing drugmakers to just accept the government-dictated price of medicines. 

The groups also argued that the worth talks violate due process by denying pharmaceutical corporations and the general public input on how Medicare negotiations might be implemented.

Department of Justice attorneys on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services countered that NICA lacked standing since it doesn’t make or sell pharmaceuticals that could possibly be subject to the negotiations.