Federal Court denies attempt to stop Medicare drug negotiation program

Published in RINewsToday on November 6, 2023

Over two months ago, as supporters of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) celebrated the one-year anniversary of the passage of the historic legislation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), along with drugmakers filed multiple lawsuits to block the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions.  The drug price negotiation program, created by IRA, allows Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate the prices of ten prescription drugs for the first time.

The multiple-filed legal suits came weeks before Sept. 1 when the for Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was scheduled to publish a list of the first 10 drugs that would be subjected to negotiations.  These lawsuits argued that the federal price negotiation program was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the separation of powers clause, by giving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) discretion over a maximum fair price for any given drug selected for negotiation.  These lawsuits also charge that CMS price controls would force drug makers to pull back on developing new drugs, jeopardizing medical breakthroughs for individuals with life-threatening and chronic illnesses. 

Among the nine lawsuits scheduled to go to trial, one was a motion filed on July 12, 2023 by the Chamber and several of its affiliates in Ohio. This motion requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the Medicare drug negotiation program from implementation. The ruling came before the Oct. 1, 2023 deadline requiring drugmakers whose pharmaceuticals were selected for negotiations to either sign agreements to participate or to face stiff penalties.  

The U.S. Department of Justice opposed the Chamber’s motion, filing a motion to dismiss its case.  On Sept. 15, 2023, the court held oral arguments giving the  Chamber and the DOJ an opportunity to present their legal arguments in greater detail.  

Overcoming a Major Legal Hurdle 

On Friday, September 29, 2023, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman for Southern District of Ohio, denied the Chambers request to block implementation of the newly established Medicare drug price negotiation program before the drug price negotiation talks began.  The ruling called on the Chamber to file an amended complaint by Oct. 13, 2023. DOJ would then have until Oct. 27, 2023 to renew its motion to dismiss.

According to Spencer Kimball of CNBC, legal experts say the pharmaceutical industry hopes to see conflicting rules from lawsuits filed in other federal appellate courts to bring this issue to the Supreme Court for final resolution. 

The Willimantic, Connecticut-based Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA), a nonprofit group pushing for comprehensive Medicare coverage, health equity and quality of health care for seniors and people with disabilities, is encouraged by Judge Newman’s ruling, which assessed the drug manufacturer’s claims “to be weak in the face of clearly established laws.”

According to CMA, the 28-page court order found that the Chamber and other plaintiffs had demonstrated neither likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm, which are required for a preliminary injunction.  CMS noted that this case cited “clear” law that “participation in Medicare, no matter how vital it may be to a business model, is a completely voluntary choice.” The court also found that the price established by negotiations cannot be considered ‘confiscatory,’ as the Chamber charges or “a violation of due process, because drug manufacturers can opt out of Medicare entirely.”

Newman’s ruling noted that drugmakers are not compelled to sell drugs at the prices established by the Medicare program and that any economic harm, when the negotiated drug prices take effect in 2026, was too speculative to warrant immediate relief, reported CMS.  However, the court did deny the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit entirely, saying that more information on whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue would be beneficial and therefore the judge is allowing for limited discovery to clarify issues related to legal standing, after which the government may renew its motion to dismiss, noted the Medicare advocacy group.

With this ruling, Medicare may move forward with its implementation of its drug negotiation program as this case and others continue to proceed. 

Giving their two cents…

At press time, the Chamber did not respond to a request for comment about the court’s ruling.  But health care and aging advocacy groups issued statements expressing their thoughts about the impact of Newman’s ruling. 

“This is the first major blow to Big Pharma in its legal battles to block the drug price negotiation provisions under the Inflation Reduction Act, says Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s director of the Access to Medicines program.

“The Chamber’s lawsuit lacks merit; the court made the right decision not to grant the injunction, which would have caused needless patient suffering and treatment rationing, notes Maybarduk, calling on drugmakers “to drop their lawsuits and drop their prices.”

“Now, drug companies should agree to participate in the negotiation program in good faith. The program is an important first step in ending the exorbitant prices charged to Medicare enrollees,” adds Maybarduk.

Frederick Isasi, Executive Director of Families USA, happily noted that the Medicare drug negotiation program continues, calling the ruling “a big win for seniors and their ability to purchase life-saving medications. The ability to afford medication is a matter of life and death for millions of older adults. That’s why we are fighting this David and Goliath battle – people deserve to pay a fair price for their drugs and Medicare price negotiation is a critical piece of this puzzle. And let’s not forget each drug subject to fair price negotiation is an old drug that millions of people need and doesn’t have competition,” he notes.

“It never ceases to amaze us that – on one hand – Big Pharma can cry poverty by saying that drug negotiations will hurt their bottom line, while recent earnings reports show they are raking in money hand over fist.  We are glad Judge Michael J. Newman, a Trump appointee in Ohio’s Southern District, saw through this hypocrisy by affirming the Biden administration’s power to begin negotiating the prices of 10 medications with drugmakers,” says Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (NCPSSM).

According to NCPSSM, Drug makers made a whopping $493 billion in revenue from ten drugs that are now subject to price negotiations between CMS and the manufacturer, which have accounted for more than $170 billion in gross Medicare spending, according to a report from the nonprofit, Protect Our Care.

“The court’s decision to allow Medicare drug price negotiations to move forward is welcome news, says William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice President for Litigation at AARP Foundation. “Pausing Medicare negotiations would have risked billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers – and countless lives. It is unconscionable that Americans face such high prescription drug costs that many people skip taking medication altogether or must ration it,” he said.

“We’re prepared to fight for as long as necessary to ensure big drug companies can’t charge excessive prices at the expense of patients’ health, says Rivera, noting that the new Medicare negotiation law would bring financial and medical relief to millions of older Americans and their families, and put drugs that treat life-threatening and chronic conditions, from cancer to heart disease, within their reach. Rivera says, “It must not be derailed.” 

Congress has put the breaks to the spiraling costs of pharmaceuticals by giving Medicare the authority to negotiate the price of popular drugs with drug makers.  America’s seniors will continue to suffer financial  hardships and many might even lose their lives by not choosing not to take their costly medications if courts rule in favor of drug companies.  Time will tell.   

U.S. Judge Michael J. Newman ruling denying the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s request for a preliminary injunction, go to https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/DaytonAreaChamberofCommerceetalvBecerraetalDocketNo323cv00156SDOh/5?doc_id=X3U600KOGG69QHQBPEU24OS1JMO

A listing of drugmaker revenues of the first ten negotiated drugs, go to https://www.protectourcare.org/by-the-numbers-the-ten-costly-drugs-that-are-now-eligible-to-have-lower-prices-negotiated-by-medicare/

Casey Calls on Federal Agencies to Enhance Web Access for People with Disabilities, Seniors

Published in RINewsToday on February 27, 2023

After Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced on March 20, 2020, the bipartisan Department of Veterans Affairs Website Accessibility Act with Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), the legislative proposal passed both chambers to ultimately be signed into law nine months later by President Donald Trump. The new law directed the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) to report to Congress regarding the he accessibility of VA websites to people with disabilities.

Casey calls for better website technology 

On Dec. 20, 2022, Casey released Unlocking the Virtual Front Door, a 72-page report detailing the findings of an 11-month investigation that found widespread failure across the federal government to ensure that website technology is accessible for people with disabilities, seniors, and veterans. The investigators identified the absence of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reporting as a contributing factor to widespread accessibility gaps at the numerous federal departments and agencies.

On June 30, 2022, Casey led a bipartisan group of Senators respondence led by Casey in sending correspondence to DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding answers from the agency on its lack of website accessibility for people with disabilities. 

Earlier that month, Casey also had sent correspondence to VA Secretary Denis McDonough urging the agency to improve VA website accessibility for disabled veterans.

Casey also released a report from the VA from the VA which found that only 10 percent of VA websites are fully accessible for people with disabilities, as required by law, posing barriers to deaf, blind and paralyzed veterans as well as tens of thousands of veterans with other disabilities. 

On July 28, 2022, Casey’s Senate Aging Committee held a hearing that further investigated the issue the issue of federal website accessibility.

With Casey’s ongoing pressure, ultimately DOJ would finally release a report last week  for the first time in a decade.  

Reaction’s to DOJ’s website data release

Casey, Chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, quickly reacted to the release of DOJ data in a Feb. 22, 2023, press release, noting that the agency was required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act to provide a report to Congress and the President every two years on federal technology accessibility. “Despite this mandate, the latest report was from 2012, leaving taxpayers in the dark for over a decade about the accessibility of government technology, including websites, for people with disabilities,” said the press release.

While new data confirmed the findings of Casey’s recent investigation that exposed widespread accessibility barriers to federal technology, the press release criticized the data as “insufficient and incomplete,” calling on DOJ and the entire federal government to prioritize technology and web accessibility and transparency.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires the federal government to make all its website information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, because of ongoing barriers to federal website and technology access, Casey charges that many people with disabilities—including seniors and veterans—are being barred from accessing key government resources, facing barriers to accessing information about COVID-19, filing claims and accessing health care, using VA kiosks, and more.

Casey’s repeated calls for data for transparency confirmed by his investigation that revealed that people with disabilities are being locked out of government services and are not given a level playing field in federal workplaces due to inaccessible technology. ”Unfortunately, after a decade of keeping the public in the dark, DOJ has not provided Americans with disabilities insight into what progress has been made over that time period—which will make it harder for the federal government to remedy these issues and ultimately improve web and technology accessibility,” says the Pennsylvania Senator. “It is clear that the federal government has a lot more work to do to make technology accessibility and transparency a priority and fulfill our promise to Americans with disabilities, older adults, and veterans,” he said.

Casey urged the DOJ to improve transparency around Section 508 compliance by returning to their mandated biennial reporting and ensuring their reports are modeled more closely after the agency’s 2012 web report  instead of an abridged data set that DOJ released last week 

Taking a closer look 

DOJ’s recently released report, based on data from Feb. 2021 through August 2022, compiled in partnership with the General Services Administration, found that one in 10 public-facing websites at major federal departments and agencies are not fully accessible for people with disabilities. In addition, three in five internal websites at major federal departments and agencies are not fully accessible to people with disabilities.

According to the data, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of State, and VA reported that 50 percent or less of the public-facing websites that were tested comply with federal accessibility requirements.

The DOJ data noted that some departments and federal agencies did not report conducting any accessibility testing of internal websites. It not clear what steps departments and agencies are taking to test other types of technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

DOJ data indicated that key government agencies, including DOJ itself, as well as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency did not have adequate “resources committed and/or staff trained to implement policies, processes, and procedures.” These shortfalls in staffing were reflected in data regarding the low number of federal and contract employees directly supporting Section 508 programs in many agencies. 

DOJ also found that “agency maturity remains largely unchanged from prior reporting,” raising concerns that, despite over a decade of technological evolution, many federal government agencies have not made efforts to improve and better integrate Section 508 compliance and ensure the federal government’s resources are available for people with disabilities, including taxpayers and federal workers.

Finally, Casey observed that DOJ’s recommendations underscore many of the recommendations he made in his report, which called for enhanced oversight and transparency from DOJ regarding Section 508 compliance as well as better integration of accessibility into everyday oversight efforts at every federal agency.