Activists protest the price of prescription drug costs in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services constructing in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 2022.
Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images
A federal judge on Friday rejected AstraZeneca‘s legal challenge to Medicare’s latest power to barter the costs of certain costly prescribed drugs with manufacturers.
The choice is one other win for the Biden administration in a bitter legal fight with the pharmaceutical industry over the constitutionality of those price talks. The negotiations are a key policy under the Inflation Reduction Act that goals to make medicines more cost-effective for seniors and will take a bite out of the pharmaceutical industry’s profits.
The legal wrangling over the policy is removed from over. Manufacturers have said they intend to escalate the difficulty to the Supreme Court.
The judge’s decision got here in the future before an important deadline in the method.
Manufacturers of the primary 10 drugs chosen for negotiations have until Saturday to reply to Medicare’s initial price offer for his or her treatments. Those drugs include AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, which is used to treat Type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and heart failure.
Final negotiated prices for the primary round of medicine will go into effect in 2026.
In a 47-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware said AstraZeneca has not identified a property protected by the structure that can be jeopardized by the price talks.
He wrote that AstraZeneca’s participation within the Medicare market is voluntary, so the corporate’s “desire” and even “expectation” to sell its drugs to the federal government “at the upper prices it once enjoyed doesn’t create a protected property interest.”
The chance to sell drugs to greater than 49 million Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries is a “powerful incentive” for manufacturers to take part in the price talks with the federal government, Connolly wrote. But he said that incentive just isn’t “a gun to the top” like AstraZeneca contends in its suit.
“It’s a possible economic opportunity that AstraZeneca is free to simply accept or reject,” Connolly wrote.
In a press release, AstraZeneca said it’s “upset with the court’s decision and the potential negative impact it can have on patients’ access to future life-saving medicines.” The corporate said it’s evaluating its path forward.
AstraZeneca’s lawsuit claimed that the talks would force it to sell medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. The corporate asserted that this violates due process under the Fifth Amendment, which requires the federal government to pay reasonable compensation for personal property taken for public use.
The judge’s decision is one other blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which has filed a flurry of lawsuits claiming that the negotiations are unconstitutional.
The ruling comes a month after a federal judge in Texas tossed a separate lawsuit difficult the price talks.
A federal judge in Ohio also 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 price talks before Oct. 1.
But most of the other cases are still pending. On March 7, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, Novartis and Johnson & Johnson will present their oral arguments to a federal judge in Recent Jersey in the identical hearing.
Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: