Three separate federal courts ruled against the pharmaceutical industry this week, with some cases having previously been dismissed.
A federal judge dismissed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit challenging Medicare negotiations a year ago, and this ruling was upheld Wednesday by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The suit was dismissed on the basis that some of the plaintiffs — the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce — lacked standing to sue.
While the appeals court clarified that local and state organizations can sue over federal laws that impact them, it still found that the case was improperly filed. The court agreed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had standing to sue, but it would need to file a new lawsuit in a separate venue.
On Thursday, Medicare negotiation lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the program were both ruled against.
PhRMA, another trade group, saw its lawsuit dismissed by a Texas federal judge who found that the organization had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or constitutional violations stemming from Medicare negotiations.
In Connecticut, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision from last year against the pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim. Three of the company’s products have been selected for Medicare negotiation.
As has been the case in other rulings, such as the one in Texas, the court relied on the fact that participation in Medicare is entirely voluntary, meaning companies are not being deprived of certain rights because of the negotiation program.
When reached for comment by The Hill, PhRMA spokesperson Sarah Ryan said, “We disagree with the district court’s legal assessment. We continue to believe the IRA’s price-setting provisions are unconstitutional.”
With compounding losses in appellate courts, the pharmaceutical industry may be gearing up to take Medicare negotiations before the Supreme Court.
