Another federal district court has denied the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to thwart Medicare’s ability to negotiate for lower drug prices. On July 3, 2024, Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court in Hartford, Connecticut denied Boehringer Ingelheim’s (BI’s) claims that the negotiation program is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. BI manufactures Jardiance, one of the first ten drugs subject to price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act.
The court rejected BI’s arguments that allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices violates the company’s free speech rights under the First Amendment, its rights under the Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and other constitutional and statutory claims. The decision states: “The question…is whether the government can use its power as a dominant buyer to demand lower prices from drug manufacturers. The caselaw makes clear that it can.”
Judge Shea’s well-reasoned decision is consistent with several others that rejected the same or similar arguments by the pharmaceutical industry and its allies. Some drug companies are now appealing those opinions, and it remains to be seen whether appellate-level courts will be more receptive to their arguments.
The Center for Medicare Advocacy is part of a coalition of advocates that supported the government’s position in this case by submitting an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief explaining the importance of obtaining lower drug prices through negotiation. The Center highlighted the voices of Connecticut Medicare beneficiaries who have struggled to pay high prescription drug costs. (Read the brief here.) The Center is encouraged by the district court decisions in litigation by the pharmaceutical industry thus far and will continue to strongly support the Medicare drug price negotiation program.
July 13, 2024 – A. Bers