A Washington, D.C., federal judge has declined requests from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America(“PhRMA”) to invalidate a new interpretive rule applicable to orphan drugs in the 340B drug discount program, saying the trade group must file a new complaint in order to proceed.

Last week, the D.C. District Court ruled that PhRMA must bring a new lawsuit to challenge the recent interpretive rule regarding orphan drugs set forth by Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”). Earlier this year, PhRMA successfully invalidated the regulation promulgated by HRSA, and the court ruled that HRSA lacked the substantive rulemaking authority to implement the rule in the first instance.

HRSA responded by deciding to implement the same policy presented in a new document as an interpretive rule rather than a regulation. In turn, PhRMA argued before the court that this interpretive rule is “materially identical to the vacated and unauthorized Final Rule,” because it “adopts the same interpretation of ‘covered outpatient drug’ and imposes the same compliance obligations as the vacated Final Rule.”

The district court rejected PhRMA’s argument and held that PhRMA’s complaint originally only challenged the final rule promulgated by HRSA. Accordingly, PhRMA’s challenge to the new interpretive rule was found to be beyond the scope of the present law suit.

The court’s ruling means that for the time being, HRSA’s current interpretive rule will stand. As we have previously reported, under this rule only some sales of orphan drugs will be excluded from the 340B program — sales of orphan drugs for orphan indications are to be excluded from the program (and thus not subject to the required discount), and sales of orphan drugs for non-orphan indications may be included and purchased at the statutory discounted price. It is the responsibility of covered entities (and contract pharmacies) to ensure that orphan drugs purchased through the 340B program are not to be transferred, prescribed, sold, or otherwise used for the orphan indication, and to maintain auditable records to demonstrate compliance.

 

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jennifer Plitsch Jennifer Plitsch

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She…

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She has particular expertise in advising clients on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act, including march-in and substantial domestic manufacturing. Jen also has significant experience in negotiation and compliance under non-traditional government agreements including Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs), Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), Cooperative Agreements, Grants, and Small Business Innovation Research agreements.

For over 20 years, Jen’s practice has focused on advising clients in the pharmaceutical, biologics and medical device industry on all aspects of both commercial and non-commercial agreements with various government agencies including:

  • the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA);
  • the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC);
  • the Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBRN); and
  • the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

She regularly advises on the development, production, and supply to the government of vaccines and other medical countermeasures addressing threats such as COVID-19, Ebola, Zika, MERS-CoV, Smallpox, seasonal and pandemic influenza, tropical diseases, botulinum toxin, nerve agents, and radiation events. In addition, for commercial drugs, biologics, and medical devices, Jen advises on Federal Supply Schedule contracts, including the complex pricing requirements imposed on products under the Veterans Health Care Act, as well as on the obligations imposed by participation in the 340B Drug Pricing program.

Jen also has significant experience in domestic sourcing compliance under the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), including regulatory analysis and comments, certifications, investigations, and disclosures (including under the Acetris decision and Biden Administration Executive Orders). She also advises on prevailing wage requirements, including those imposed through the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Labor Standards.