J&J Sues HRSA Over Agency’s Challenge of its Rebate Model

Health Highlights
This overview is excerpted from Manatt on Health, Manatt’s subscription service that provides in-depth insights and analysis focused on the legal, policy and market developments. For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds.     

On November 12, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) filed suit against the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in D.C. federal district court, arguing that the 340B statute explicitly provides flexibility for manufacturers to decide how to offer 340B pricing, either through upfront discounts or post-purchase rebates, and that HSRA has not prohibited such an arrangement through its agreement with manufacturers (known as the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement (PPA)). This comes after HRSA challenged through a series of letters J&J’s proposed rebate model announced in September, on the grounds that “[J&J’s] proposal to implement a 340B rebate model is inconsistent with 340B statute, which requires Secretarial approval of any such proposal,” and that “the Secretary has not approved J&J’s rebate model. As a result, J&J paused implementing the model.

In its complaint, J&J states that the 340B statute mentions that manufacturers must ensure the 340B price does not exceed the ceiling price, “taking into account any rebate or discount, as provided by the Secretary,” which J&J interprets as a clear allowance for using rebates. Further, J&J points out that neither the statute nor the PPA specifies or mandates a particular mechanism for pricing, reinforcing that manufacturers retain discretion in how they comply with the ceiling price.
For more information on how to subscribe and to activate a complimentary one week trial to Manatt on Health, please reach out to Barret Jefferds.     
 
manatt-black

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

pursuant to New York DR 2-101(f)

© 2024 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

All rights reserved