AstraZeneca has asked the Supreme Court to hear its case challenging the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program created through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the Supreme Court\u2019s docket, AstraZeneca\u2019s petition was filed on Sept. 19. The company has asked the court to consider \u201cwhether the IRA implicates an interest of pharmaceutical manufacturers that is protected by the Due Process Clause.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the first selection of drugs for Medicare negotiation, AstraZeneca\u2019s diabetes medication Farxiga was selected. In the following round of drugs, its mantle cell lymphoma treatment Calquence was also chosen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its petition, AstraZeneca noted the looming deadline it faces. On Jan. 1, the prices it agreed to in the first round of bargaining for Farxiga in 2024 take effect. The Biden administration revealed last year that it had negotiated a 68 percent discount on Farxiga\u2019s list price, with the company agreeing to sell it for $178.50, with its list price being $556.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis case concerns the fate of a new government program that will overhaul the $600-billion prescription drug market and affect the lives and health of the 68 million Americans enrolled in Medicare,\u201d AstraZeneca wrote in its petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cContrary to its statutory name, it involves no genuine \u2018negotiation.\u2019 Rather, it compels pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell their most innovative and widely used medicines at prices unilaterally chosen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Numerous other lawsuits filed by drugmakers and trade groups challenging Medicare negotiation have been shot down in federal courts, with judges consistently finding that the law is not unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In May, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court\u2019s ruling dismissing AstraZeneca\u2019s lawsuit. The panel of judges soundly rejected the drugmaker\u2019s claims of unconstitutionality or that it would suffer harm as a result of the IRA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere is no protected property interest in selling goods to Medicare beneficiaries (through sponsors or pharmacy benefit plans) at a price higher than what the government is willing to pay when it reimburses those costs,\u201d the ruling stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPharma continues to recycle the same failed legal arguments against Medicare negotiation in its pursuit of maintaining complete monopoly power,\u201d Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs, said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cStarting January 1, millions of patients on Medicare will begin to see lower prices on lifesaving medications, including AstraZeneca\u2019s blockbuster drug Farxiga,\u201d she added. \u201cAfter 14 courtroom defeats to date, this latest appeal is just another attempt by the industry to restrict the government\u2019s power to secure a better deal for patients and delay the inevitable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n