throbber
Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 48
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`900 Ridgebury Road
`Ridgefield, CT 06877
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, in his official
`capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
`Department of Health and Human Services,
`200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20201;
`
`DIANA ESPINOSA, in her official
`capacity as Acting Administrator of the
`Health Resources and Services
`Administration,
`5600 Fishers Lane
`Rockville, MD 20857;
`
`KRISTA M. PEDLEY, in her official
`capacity as Director of the Office of
`Special Health Initiatives,
`5600 Fishers Lane
`Rockville, MD 20857;
`
`MICHELLE HERZOG, in her official
`capacity as Acting Director of the Office of
`Pharmacy Affairs,
`5600 Fishers Lane
`Rockville, MD 20857;
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
`HUMAN SERVICES,
`200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20201; and
`
`HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
`ADMINISTRATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 48
`
`5600 Fishers Lane
`Rockville, MD 20857
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Boehringer Ingelheim” or “BI”)
`
`brings this action against Defendants Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
`
`U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Diana Espinosa, in her official capacity as Acting
`
`Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; Krista M. Pedley, in her
`
`official capacity as Director of the Office of Special Health Initiatives; Michelle Herzog, in her
`
`official capacity as the Acting Director of the Office of Pharmacy Affairs; the U.S. Department of
`
`Health and Human Services (“HHS”); and the Health Resources and Services Administration
`
`(“HRSA”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is about an agency attempt to dramatically expand a federal program in a
`
`manner that is divorced from the statutory text. The 340B Drug Pricing Program, 42 U.S.C. § 256b
`
`(“Section 340B”), created in 1992, sets discounted prices that drug manufacturers must provide
`
`for out-patient medicines sold to certain healthcare facilities, defined in Section 340B of the Public
`
`Health Service Act as “covered entities.” Congress carefully defined the “covered entities” that
`
`are eligible for the drug discounts by listing in the statute fifteen specific categories of “covered
`
`entities” that all, to some extent, serve underserved populations in various ways.
`
`2.
`
`The statutorily-defined “covered entities” do not include for-profit pharmacies,
`
`such as CVS or Walgreens. Yet HRSA has attempted to require that manufacturers like Boehringer
`
`Ingelheim provide 340B discount drugs to such pharmacies or allow them to be transferred to such
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 48
`
`pharmacies by covered entities if the pharmacies have various types of contracts with the covered
`
`entities. This case challenges the legal validity of HRSA’s current interpretation of the statute,
`
`which purports to extend 340B discount prices to drugs provided to contract pharmacies, even
`
`though they are not within the scope of the statute or the entities that the statute was enacted to
`
`benefit.
`
`3.
`
`Congress did not grant the federal agency charged with administering the 340B
`
`program—HRSA—authority to alter Congress’s statutory list of covered entities, and indeed
`
`provided HRSA with only narrow regulatory authority regarding the program. Yet HRSA has
`
`attempted to require manufacturers to provide, as a practical matter, 340B discount drugs to
`
`contract pharmacies via claimed “informal guidance.” AstraZeneca Pharms. v. Becerra, No. 1:21-
`
`cv-00027-LPS, 2021 WL 2458063, at *7 (D. Del. June 16, 2021) (“[T]hroughout the past 25 years,
`
`[HRSA] has dramatically expanded how covered entities may purchase 340B drugs.”).
`
`4.
`
`HRSA’s guidance has shifted over the years. First, in the mid-1990s, HRSA
`
`promulgated guidance purporting to allow covered entities to select a single outside “contract
`
`pharmacy” that could receive 340B discounted drugs for dispensing, based on HRSA’s recognition
`
`that some covered entities do not have an in-house pharmacy for dispensing drugs. See HRSA,
`
`Notice Regarding Section 602 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992; Contract Pharmacy
`
`Services, 61 Fed. Reg. 43,549, 43,549 (Aug. 23, 1996). In doing so, HRSA expressly rejected
`
`comments requesting that the agency authorize the use of multiple contract pharmacies. Id. at
`
`43,551.
`
`5.
`
`In 2010, HRSA altered its guidance to purport to allow covered entities to enter into
`
`arrangements with an unlimited number of contract pharmacies to receive 340B discounted drugs.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 48
`
`See HRSA, Notice Regarding 340B Drug Pricing Program-Contract Pharmacy Services, 75 Fed.
`
`Reg. 10,272, 10,277 (Mar. 5, 2010).
`
`6.
`
`HRSA’s policy change led to a huge increase in the role of contract pharmacies
`
`under the 340B program. Retail pharmacies developed business models to take advantage of the
`
`340B program by signing up covered entities across the United States as partners under different
`
`types of arrangements. Under one model, the contract pharmacies replenish their inventory with
`
`drugs purchased at 340B discounts from manufacturers for drugs that the contract pharmacies
`
`already dispensed to customers, based on an assumption that a certain number of those customers
`
`had a relationship with a covered entity sufficient to have justified a 340B discount. See Aaron
`
`Vandervelde et al., BRG, For-Profit Pharmacy Participation in the 340B Program, at 5 (Oct.
`
`2020) (explaining that pharmacies use “sophisticated software algorithms” to make these
`
`determinations).1
`
`7.
`
`As a result, contract pharmacies on a large scale received post hoc drugs at the 340B
`
`discounted price that the pharmacies claimed based on drugs they already had purchased at the
`
`undiscounted price and already had dispensed to customers. Id. at 3; see also Examining Oversight
`
`Reports on the 340B Drug Pricing Program: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Health, Education,
`
`Labor, and Pensions, 115th Cong. 11 (May 15, 2018) (testimony of Ann Maxwell, Assistant
`
`Inspector Gen. for Evaluation and Inspections, Off. of Inspector Gen. (“OIG”)) (“OIG
`
`Testimony”) (testifying that “many contract pharmacies dispense drugs to all of their customers—
`
`340B-eligible or otherwise—from their regular inventory.”)
`
`
`1
`https://media.thinkbrg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/06150726/BRG-
`Available
`at
`ForProfitPharmacyParticipation340B_2020.pdf.
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 5 of 48
`
`8.
`
`This practice led to newfound and substantial profits for the contract pharmacies.
`
`Contract pharmacies are able to generate substantial revenues based on any previously filled
`
`prescription that their algorithm asserts was eligible for the 340B discounted price. Although
`
`contract pharmacies have not publicized the share of the 340B discount that goes into their pockets,
`
`the available data indicate that often little or none of the benefit reaches underserved patient
`
`populations. See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off. (“GAO”), Drug Discount Program: Federal
`
`Oversight of Compliance at 340B Contract Pharmacies Needs Improvement at 30 (June 2018)
`
`(“2018 GAO Report”); see also OIG, Contract Pharmacy Arrangements in the 340B Program,
`
`No. OEI-15-13-00431 at 14 (Feb. 4, 2014) (“2014 OIG Report”) (finding that many covered
`
`entities “do not offer the 340B price to uninsured patients in any of their contract pharmacy
`
`arrangements.”). Thus, contract pharmacies can generate significant profit margins for themselves
`
`by charging patients and their insurers the full retail price for a drug when they dispense it, and
`
`then later adding to their general inventory drugs they receive from manufacturers at the 340B
`
`discounted price. Those 340B discounts are based on the status of a covered entity with which the
`
`contract pharmacy has an arrangement—but the pharmacy retains significant portions of the profit
`
`from the discounted pricing.
`
`9.
`
`By 2020, contract pharmacy participation in the 340B program had exploded.
`
`Between April 1, 2010 and April 1, 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased
`
`by more than 4,000%, from 2,321 to 100,451. Vandervelde et al., supra, at 4. And by 2020, a
`
`covered entity was contracting with an average of 22 contract pharmacies, far from the model of
`
`contracting with one pharmacy envisioned by the 1996 guidance. Id. at 7. The number of
`
`individual pharmacies participating in the 340B program now exceeds 27,000. Id. And the number
`
`of claims for manufacturers to provide 340B discounts tripled between 2014 and 2019. See Adam
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 6 of 48
`
`J. Fein, New HRSA Data: 340B Program Reached $29.9 billion in 2019; Now Over 8% of Drug
`
`Sales, Drug Channels (June 9, 2020).2
`
`10.
`
`In order to ensure that 340B discounts actually benefit covered entities or their
`
`underserved patients, Section 340B prohibits covered entities from reselling or otherwise
`
`transferring a 340B discounted drug to an individual or entity who is not a patient of the covered
`
`entity—a practice known as “diversion.” Multiple government reports have identified the high
`
`risk of diversion under the 340B program associated with the use of contract pharmacies. The
`
`GAO found that contract pharmacies are incentivized to deem more prescriptions 340B-eligible
`
`because many of the contract pharmacies charge the covered entities fees under their contracts
`
`“based on a percentage of revenue generated for each 340B prescription.” 2018 GAO Report at
`
`25. To date, HRSA has taken no meaningful action to attempt to remedy this problem, and the
`
`problem continues to grow.
`
`11.
`
`In view of the statutory structure, which does not provide for contract pharmacies;
`
`the substantial increase in the role of contract pharmacies; documented abuses; and HRSA’s lack
`
`of action, various drug manufacturers announced certain changes in their policies this past year,
`
`including not providing 340B discounted drugs to or through contract pharmacies (subject to some
`
`exceptions) and limiting the types of contract pharmacies to which they would voluntarily provide
`
`drugs at the 340B discounted price.
`
`12.
`
`In the summer of 2020, HRSA officials acknowledged that HRSA’s prior guidance
`
`regarding contract pharmacies was not enforceable against manufacturers. See, e.g., Michelle M.
`
`Stein, HRSA Urges Pharma to Continue 340B Discounts at Contract Pharmacies, Inside Health
`
`Policy (Aug. 20, 2020) (HRSA explained that “[w]ithout comprehensive regulatory authority,
`
`
`2 https://www.drugchannels.net/2020/06/new-hrsa-data-340b-program-reached-299.html.
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 7 of 48
`
`HRSA is unable to develop enforceable policy to ensure clarity in program requirements across all
`
`the interdependent aspects of the 340B program”);3 cf. AstraZeneca, 2021 WL 2458063, at *6.
`
`13.
`
`HRSA changed position in the following months. See Letter from HRSA to
`
`President and CEO of 340B Health (Dec. 9, 2020).4
`
`14.
`
`On December 30, 2020, the Chief Legal Officer of HHS issued a legal opinion
`
`interpreting the text of the 340B statute to be unambiguous and declaring that “to the extent
`
`contract pharmacies are acting as agents of a covered entity, a drug manufacturer in the 340B
`
`Program is obligated to deliver its covered outpatient drugs to those contract pharmacies and to
`
`charge the covered entity no more than the 340B ceiling price for those drugs.” Advisory Opinion
`
`20-06 On Contract Pharmacies Under the 340B Program at 1 (Dec. 30, 2020) (“Advisory
`
`Opinion”); AstraZeneca, 2021 WL 2458063, at *6 (“[T]he [Advisory] Opinion is the first
`
`document in which HHS explicitly concluded that drug manufacturers are required by statute to
`
`provide 340B drugs to multiple contract pharmacies.”).
`
`15.
`
`The December 30, 2020, Advisory Opinion was subsequently challenged in
`
`litigation by an affected pharmaceutical manufacturer. See AstraZeneca, 2021 WL 2458063.
`
`Despite the pendency of that litigation, in May of 2021, HRSA issued threats of enforcement in a
`
`series of letters to various drug manufacturers that had recently implemented limits on the drugs
`
`that they would provide to contract pharmacies at the 340B discounted price.
`
`16.
`
`On June 16, 2021, the federal district court entered an order declaring the Advisory
`
`Opinion unlawful and noting that, contrary to the Advisory Opinion’s reasoning, the 340B statute
`
`
`3 https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/hrsa-urges-pharma-continue-340b-discounts-
`contract-pharmacies.
`4 Second Am. Compl., Ex. L, Eli Lilly, ECF No. 103-13.
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 8 of 48
`
`does not unambiguously obligate drug manufacturers to provide 340B discounted drugs to contract
`
`pharmacies. Id. at *8–9.
`
`17.
`
`HRSA withdrew the Advisory Opinion on June 18, 2021. See Notice of
`
`Withdrawal from Daniel J. Barry, Acting Gen. Counsel, HHS (June 18, 2021),5 (“Advisory
`
`Opinion Withdrawal”) (“The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is withdrawing Advisory
`
`Opinion 20-06 . . . .”). HRSA did not, however, withdraw its letters threatening enforcement, and
`
`instead represented in the litigation that the proper way to dispute those letters was via the pending
`
`litigation.
`
`18.
`
`Shortly after issuance of the court order in the AstraZeneca case rejecting HRSA’s
`
`interpretation of the statute, Plaintiff here, Boehringer Ingelheim, announced that effective August
`
`1, 2021, it would provide drugs at the 340B discounted price to up to one commercial contract
`
`pharmacy for certain covered entities—namely those that do not have an in-house pharmacy. As
`
`described below, the policy also contained a number of exceptions, designed to ensure patient
`
`access to BI’s medicines. HRSA sent a letter to BI on July 20, 2021, which contended that the
`
`statute requires BI to provide 340B discount drugs to all contract pharmacies and referenced
`
`potential civil monetary penalties. Ex. 1.
`
`19.
`
`BI responded to HRSA’s letter on July 29, 2021, explaining why HRSA’s
`
`interpretation is foreclosed by the statute, and requesting that HRSA reconsider its interpretation.
`
`Ex. 2. In subsequent correspondence with BI, HRSA has continued to assert its same interpretation
`
`of the statute.
`
`20.
`
`HRSA sent a second letter to BI on September 8, 2021 stating that BI’s July 29,
`
`2021 letter did not address HRSA’s concerns expressed in its July 20, 2021 letter. HRSA stated
`
`
`5 Notice, Ex. 1, at 2, Eli Lilly, ECF No. 119-1.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 9 of 48
`
`that it was conducting an analysis of BI’s policy and “w[ould] make a determination as to any
`
`potential action, which includes whether a violation of the 340B statute has occurred and the
`
`potential for civil monetary penalties.” Ex. 3, at 1.
`
`21.
`
`BI responded to that letter on September 15, 2021, stating that it respectfully
`
`continued to disagree with the agency’s interpretation of the statute. Ex. 4. On October 4, 2021,
`
`HRSA sent a third letter to BI that stated HRSA had completed its review of BI’s policy regarding
`
`contract pharmacies and that it “determined” that “BI’s actions have resulted in overcharges and
`
`are in direct violation of the 340B statute.” Ex. 5, at 1 (the “October 2021 Letter” or “the Letter”).
`
`HRSA reiterated its position that “[n]othing in the 340B statute grants a manufacturer the right to
`
`place conditions on its fulfillment of its statutory obligation to offer 340B pricing on covered
`
`outpatient drugs purchased by covered entities.”
`
`22.
`
`The October 2021 Letter also demanded that “BI must immediately begin offering
`
`its covered outpatient drugs at the 340B ceiling price to covered entities through their contract
`
`pharmacy arrangements, regardless of whether they purchase through an in-house pharmacy.” Id.
`
`The Letter also instructed BI to reimburse covered entities for overcharges that the agency claims
`
`have resulted from the policy and threatened civil monetary penalties if BI continues its policy.
`
`23.
`
`To date, HRSA has not altered its view of the statute. Accordingly, BI has no
`
`recourse but to bring this lawsuit, to obtain a binding determination that the 340B statute does not
`
`require BI to provide 340B discount drugs to contract pharmacies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 10 of 48
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`24.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action arises under
`
`the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706.
`
`25.
`
`This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the Court’s
`
`inherent equitable powers.
`
`26.
`
`HRSA’s October 2021 Letter, which “determined” that BI’s policy has resulted in
`
`overcharges and violates Section 340B, and which threatened civil monetary penalties against BI,
`
`is a final agency action, as discussed further below. The Letter is therefore judicially reviewable
`
`under the APA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706.
`
`27.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because this
`
`action seeks relief against federal agencies and officials acting in their official capacities, some of
`
`whom reside in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
`
`claim also occurred in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Boehringer Ingelheim is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Boehringer
`
`Ingelheim is a pharmaceutical company that researches, develops, manufactures, and markets
`
`novel treatments for human and veterinary medicine. Boehringer Ingelheim participates in the
`
`340B program.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Xavier Becerra is the Secretary of HHS. His official address is in
`
`Washington, D.C. He has ultimate responsibility for oversight of the activities of HRSA, including
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 11 of 48
`
`the administration of the 340B program and the actions complained of herein. He is sued in his
`
`official capacity.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Diana Espinosa is the Acting Administrator of HRSA. Her official
`
`address is in Rockville, Maryland. Acting Administrator Espinosa is directly responsible for the
`
`administration of the 340B program and the actions complained of herein. Acting Administrator
`
`Espinosa, among her other duties, has ultimate responsibility for the Office of Pharmacy Affairs,
`
`which is headed by Acting Director Michelle Herzog and, as a constituent part of HRSA, is
`
`involved directly in the administration of the 340B program. Acting Administrator Espinosa
`
`issued the October 4, 2021 Letter, which is a final agency action that is the subject of this
`
`complaint. Acting Administrator Espinosa is sued in her official capacity.
`
`31.
`
`Rear Admiral Krista M. Pedley was formerly the Director of the Office of
`
`Pharmacy Affairs, which is a constituent part of HRSA. Then-Director Pedley issued the July 20,
`
`2021 letter, which is one of the final agency actions that is the subject of this complaint. Director
`
`Pedley is now the Director of the Office of Special Health Initiatives, the parent office of the Office
`
`of Pharmacy Affairs. Director Pedley is sued in her official capacity.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Michelle Herzog is the current Acting Director of the Office of
`
`Pharmacy Affairs. Her official address is in Rockville, Maryland. The Office of Pharmacy Affairs
`
`is a constituent part of HRSA and is involved directly in the administration of the 340B program.
`
`Acting Director Herzog is sued in her official capacity.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant HHS is an executive department of the United States Government
`
`headquartered in Washington, D.C., and is responsible for HRSA and the 340B program.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant HRSA is an administrative agency within HHS headquartered in
`
`Rockville, Maryland, and is responsible for administering the 340B program.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 12 of 48
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The 340B Program
`
`35.
`
`The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established by Congress through statute in
`
`1992. Congress designed it to assist statutorily-defined covered entities that “provide direct
`
`clinical care to large numbers of uninsured Americans.” H.R. Rep. No. 102-384, pt. 2, at 12
`
`(1992), 1992 WL 239341.
`
`36.
`
`Section 340B instructs that HHS enter into “agreement[s]” with pharmaceutical
`
`manufacturers providing that the price that the manufacturers offer to certain statutorily defined
`
`“covered entit[ies]” can be no more than a certain ceiling price for the manufacturer’s covered
`
`outpatient drugs. 42 U.S.C. § 256b(a)(1). That ceiling price is determined by calculating the
`
`difference between the manufacturer’s Average Manufacturer Price and the Medicaid unit rebate
`
`amount for the covered outpatient drug, as determined under the Medicaid drug rebate statute. Id.
`
`§ 256b(a)(1)-(2), (b). Section 340B requires manufacturers to offer this discounted price to
`
`covered entities, but it does not create any obligation for manufacturers to offer that price or
`
`provide 340B discounted drugs to any other parties, such as contract pharmacies, or require that
`
`manufacturers otherwise engage with contract pharmacies.
`
`37.
`
`Section 340B lists 15 specific categories of covered entities that must be offered
`
`the benefit of purchasing drugs at the discounted price under the 340B program. 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 256b(a)(4).
`
`38.
`
`Congress selected these covered entities because they “generally care for
`
`underserved populations.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar, 967 F.3d 818, 822 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
`
`39.
`
`The phrase “contract pharmacy” does not appear in Section 340B. The term
`
`“contract pharmacy” generally is understood in this context to refer to a for-profit pharmacy that,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 13 of 48
`
`as HRSA has admitted, does not qualify as a “covered entity” under Section 340B but has entered
`
`into an arrangement with one or more covered entities. See Email from Rear Admiral Krista M.
`
`Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs, HRSA to Lilly USA, LLC (June 11, 2020)6
`
`(“Contract pharmacies . . . are only a mode for dispensing 340B drugs and not independent covered
`
`entities.”).
`
`40.
`
`The agreement that HHS enters into with pharmaceutical manufacturers under the
`
`statute is known as the Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement and Addendum (“PPA”). The terms of
`
`the PPA are not negotiable. See Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara Cnty., 563 U.S. 110, 118 (2011).
`
`Indeed, “[t]he statutory and contractual obligations, in short, are one and the same.” Id. Nothing
`
`in the PPA requires manufacturers to sell to, distribute to, or otherwise deal with contract
`
`pharmacies, third-party administrators, or any party other than covered entities. The PPA defines
`
`“covered entity” specifically to refer to healthcare entities described in Section 340B(a). See
`
`Sample PPA.7
`
`41.
`
`Congress gave HHS tools to enforce its PPAs with pharmaceutical manufacturers,
`
`including the authority to impose substantial “civil monetary penalties” on a manufacturer who
`
`“knowingly and intentionally charges a covered entity a price for purchase of a drug that exceeds”
`
`the statutory ceiling price. 42 U.S.C. § 256b(d)(1)(B)(vi), (d)(1)(B)(vi)(III).
`
`42.
`
`Although it is nominally optional for pharmaceutical manufacturers to participate
`
`in the 340B program, see Astra, 563 U.S. at 117–18, manufacturers have no choice as a practical
`
`matter. If a manufacturer does not participate in the 340B program for any of its covered drug
`
`
`6 Second Am. Compl., Ex. C, Eli Lilly, ECF No. 103-4.
`7 https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/opa/pdf/pharmaceutical-pricing-agreement-
`example.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 14 of 48
`
`products, all of the manufacturer’s prescription drug products are ineligible for coverage under the
`
`Medicaid and Medicare programs. 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(a)(1), (5).
`
`43.
`
`Congress included a number of statutory provisions to guard against abuse in the
`
`340B program.
`
`44.
`
`First, Congress prohibited covered entities from taking certain actions that would
`
`be inconsistent with the purpose of the 340B program, namely causing “duplicate discounts” or
`
`engaging in “diversion.” A covered entity cannot cause “duplicate discounts or rebates,” which
`
`occur when a covered entity purchases from the manufacturer a unit of covered outpatient drug at
`
`the discounted 340B price and then also seeks a Medicaid rebate on that same unit to be invoiced
`
`to the manufacturer. The covered entity cannot dispense discounted 340B drugs to Medicaid
`
`beneficiaries (which thereby triggers a manufacturer rebate obligation to Medicaid) without taking
`
`certain steps to prevent a duplicate discount. Id. § 256b(a)(5)(A). Covered entities also are
`
`prohibited from “resell[ing] or otherwise transfer[ring] [a 340B discounted] drug to a person who
`
`is not a patient of the entity.” Id. § 256b(a)(5)(B).
`
`45.
`
`Second, Congress required covered entities to permit both HHS and the 340B drug
`
`manufacturers to audit “the records of the entity that directly pertain to the entity’s compliance
`
`with” the bars on duplicate discounts, reselling, and transfers. Id. § 256b(a)(5)(C).
`
`46.
`
`Third, Congress instructed HHS to implement improvements in covered entity
`
`compliance with the statutory bars on duplicate discounts, reselling, and transfers. Id.
`
`§ 256b(d)(2)(B). Among other things, HHS must have a process for imposing sanctions on
`
`covered entities that violate these statutory prohibitions. Id. § 256b(d)(2)(B)(v).
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 15 of 48
`
`B.
`
`HRSA Guidance on Contract Pharmacies
`
`47.
`
`Following the creation of the 340B program in 1992, until 1996, there was no
`
`HRSA guidance purporting to authorize contract pharmacies, and instead the only activity
`
`contemplated was that covered entities would purchase and dispense 340B discount drugs
`
`exclusively through their in-house pharmacies.
`
`1.
`
`1996 Guidance
`
`48.
`
`In 1996, HRSA issued guidance that led to contract pharmacies participating in the
`
`340B program in a narrow way and in limited numbers. See HRSA, Notice Regarding Section
`
`602 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992; Contract Pharmacy Services, 61 Fed. Reg. 43,549
`
`(Aug. 23, 1996).
`
`49.
`
`The guidance explained that covered entities could contract with a single pharmacy
`
`location for the purpose of “facilitat[ing] program participation for those eligible covered entities
`
`that do not have access to appropriate ‘in-house’ pharmacy services.” 61 Fed. Reg. at 43,551; see
`
`also HRSA Notice Regarding 340B Drug Pricing Program-Contract Pharmacy Services, 72 Fed.
`
`Reg. 1540 (Jan. 12, 2007) (confirming that the 1996 guidance provided that a “covered entity could
`
`contract with only one pharmacy to provide all pharmacy services for any particular site of the
`
`covered entity” (emphasis added)). The 1996 guidance did not obligate manufacturers to sell or
`
`provide prescription drugs to contract pharmacies at the 340B price; instead, it put forth HRSA’s
`
`non-binding interpretation of how covered entities may choose to do business under the 340B
`
`program. See 61 Fed. Reg. 43,550 (“We believe that these guidelines create no new law and create
`
`no new rights or duties.”); see also Stein, supra, at 1.
`
`50.
`
`HRSA’s guidance did not identify any statutory support for its conclusion that use
`
`of a contract pharmacy is permissible. Instead, HRSA acknowledged that “[t]he statute is silent
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 16 of 48
`
`as to permissible drug distribution systems” but asserted that it does not contain “a requirement
`
`for a covered entity to purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or to dispense drugs itself.”
`
`61 Fed. Reg. at 43,549. HRSA asserted that its 1996 guidance was lawful because, in its view, it
`
`was “clear that Congress envisioned that various types of drug delivery systems would be used to
`
`meet the needs of the very diversified group of 340B covered entities.” Id. HRSA recognized
`
`that, even under its reading of the statute, however, any obligation to deal with a contract pharmacy
`
`must be predicated on the existence of an agency relationship between the covered entity and the
`
`contract pharmacy. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 43,550.
`
`51.
`
`The 1996 guidance included multiple important limits on the ability of contract
`
`pharmacies to dispense 340B discounted drugs. For example, in HRSA’s view at that time, a
`
`contract pharmacy should dispense a 340B discounted drug based only on an explicit,
`
`individualized, advance determination that the prescription-holding patient is an eligible patient
`
`receiving relevant treatment from a covered entity, based on (a) “presentation of a prescription
`
`bearing the covered entity’s name, the eligible patient’s name, a designation that the patient is an
`
`eligible patient, and the signature of a legally qualified health care provider affiliated with the
`
`covered entity” or (b) after “receipt of a prescription ordered by telephone on behalf of an eligible
`
`patient by a legally qualified health care provider affiliated with the covered entity who states that
`
`the prescription is for an eligible patient.” Id. at 43,556. HRSA specified those guidelines because
`
`“[t]he contractor should have some type of assurance that the patient to whom the contractor is
`
`dispensing the 340B drug is a patient of a covered entity participating in the 340B Program.” Id.
`
`at 43,553.
`
`52.
`
`The limited nature of the 1996 guidance helped to deter 340B program abuse,
`
`particularly because the single contract pharmacy that a covered entity used would typically
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02826 Document 1 Filed 10/25/21 Page 17 of 48
`
`maintain a separate inventory of 340B drugs that it would dispense to the covered entity’s patients.
`
`The guidance emphasized that “[t]his situation is akin to a covered entity having its own
`
`pharmacy.” 61 Fed. Reg. at 43,550.
`
`2.
`
`2010 Guidance
`
`53.
`
`In 2010, HRSA changed positions and issued guidance that altered its policy.
`
`HRSA, Notice Regarding 340B Drug Pricing Program-Contract Pharmacy Services, 75 Fed. Reg.
`
`10,272 (Mar. 5, 2010).
`
`54.
`
`HRSA’s 2010 guidance took the position that covered entities could enter into an
`
`unlimited number of contract pharmacy arrangements that would enable the contract pharmacies
`
`to obtain 340B discount drugs. Id. at 10,273.
`
`55.
`
`HRSA did not identify a statutory basis for its interpretation, but claimed it
`
`“impose[d] [no] additional burdens upon manufacturers, nor create[d] any new rights for covered
`
`entities under the law.” Id.
`
`56.
`
`The 2010 guidance further stated that covered entities were required to include
`
`certain “essential elements” in their contract pharmacy arrangements, including that “[t]he covered
`
`entity . . . purchase the drug, maintain title to the drug and assume responsibility for establishing
`
`its price.” Id. at 10,277. Therefore, the guidance rested on the legal fiction that contract
`
`pharmacies would operate as a vessel for covered entities. For example, the guidance provided
`
`that “[t]he contract pharmacy, with the assistance of the covered entity, will establish and maintain
`
`a tracking system suitable to prevent diversion of section

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket