<p>一家联邦上诉法院恢复了一项提议的集体诉讼，指控四家主要制药公司合谋限制政府强制的药品折扣计划， allegedly 导致为低收入患者服务的安全网医院和诊所的成本上升。</p>
<p>该诉讼由 <strong>Mosaic Health Inc.</strong> 和 <strong>Central Virginia Health Services Inc.</strong> 提起，声称 <strong>Sanofi SA</strong> 的 SNY <strong>Sanofi-Aventis U.S</strong>、<strong>Eli Lilly and Co</strong> LLY、<strong>Novo Nordisk A/S</strong> NVO 和 <strong>AstraZeneca Plc</strong> 的 AZN AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP 协调限制通过 340B 药品折扣计划提供的糖尿病药物的价格优惠。</p>
<p>该计划要求医疗保险和医疗补助覆盖药物的制造商以设定的最高价格或以下价格向合格提供者销售药物。</p>
<p><strong><em>另请阅读：RFK Jr.因药品折扣计划被 Eli Lilly 和 Amgen 起诉</em></strong></p>
<p>多年来，这些制药公司为通过零售药房购买的药物提供这些折扣，帮助降低脆弱患者群体的成本。但从 2020 年开始，这些公司 allegedly 齐心协力限制访问。</p>
<p>根据原告的说法，这些公司游说联邦政府，有时通过共享的游说公司和行业团体，限制糖尿病药物的计划范围。当这些努力失败时，他们在几个月内相继宣布类似的折扣限制。</p>
<p>阿斯利康是第一家在 2020 年 7 月通知卫生与公共服务部将于当年 10 月停止对大多数合同药房提供 340B 折扣的公司。赛诺菲几天后跟进，条件是提供者与赛诺菲的供应商共享处方索赔数据。</p>
<p>在 2020 年 8 月，Eli Lilly 宣布将停止承认折扣，除非在有限情况下，并施加原告称不切实际的额外要求。诺和诺德随后在 2020 年 12 月宣布将于 2021 年 1 月停止大多数 340B 折扣。</p>
<p>原告认为，这些协调的限制对诊所及其低收入患者造成了重大财务损害。</p>
<p>他们最初在联邦法院提起诉讼，指控违反联邦和州反垄断法以及州普通法。地区法院驳回了投诉，并拒绝了他们修改的请求，认为没有足够的证据证明存在阴谋。</p>
<p>然而，美国上诉法院裁定，提议的修订投诉合理地指控了横向价格操纵阴谋。</p>
<p>法院指出，被告政策在时间、内容和效果上的相似性，以及共享经济动机、与个人自利行为相悖的行动和广泛的公司间沟通等间接 “加分因素”。</p>
<p>上诉小组撤销了地区法院的驳回，并将案件发回，指示允许原告提交第二次修订的投诉。</p>
<p>新的分析显示，由于对折扣 340B 药物的无资格索赔，各州在医疗补助回扣方面损失了数十亿美元，导致处方药覆盖的整体净成本上升。</p>
<p>研究人员发布了一份报告，审查了要求制药公司在 340B 药品定价计划下与合同药房合作的州法律可能对州医疗补助计划的影响。</p>
<p>根据报告，这些法律可能导致每年额外增加 12 亿美元的医疗补助支出，其中 4.37 亿美元直接分配给州预算。</p>
<p>在 2024 年 12 月，卫生资源与服务管理局（HRSA）警告赛诺菲其在 340B 计划下对某些门诊药物的拟议信用模型。</p>
<p>去年，<strong>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.</strong> BMY 对 HRSA 和美国卫生与公共服务部提起诉讼，指控 HRSA 拒绝其对 340B 药品定价计划的拟议回扣模型违反联邦法律。</p>
<p><strong>下一步阅读</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong><em>Rumble 押注 AI 云增长，计划收购 Northern Data</em></strong></li>
</ul>
<p><em>照片由 HJBC 通过 Shutterstock 提供</em></p>

礼来

阿斯利康制药

阿斯利康

诺和诺德公司

<p>一个联邦上诉法院已恢复对赛诺菲、礼来、诺和诺德和阿斯利康的集体诉讼，指控他们串通限制 340B 药品折扣计划下的折扣。诉讼称，这些公司协调限制糖尿病药物的价格优惠， allegedly 伤害了安全网医院和低收入患者。法院发现有足够的证据表明存在阴谋，因此将案件发回进一步审理。原告辩称，这些协调行动对诊所和患者造成了重大经济损失</p>

<p>A federal appeals court has revived a proposed class action accusing four major drugmakers of conspiring to restrict a government-mandated drug discount program, allegedly driving up costs for safety-net hospitals and clinics serving low-income patients.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>一家联邦上诉法院恢复了一项提议的集体诉讼，指控四家主要制药公司合谋限制政府强制的药品折扣计划， allegedly 导致为低收入患者服务的安全网医院和诊所的成本上升。</p>
</div><p>The lawsuit, brought by <strong>Mosaic Health Inc.</strong> and <strong>Central Virginia Health Services Inc.</strong>, claims <strong>Sanofi SA’s</strong> SNY <strong>Sanofi-Aventis U.S</strong>., <strong>Eli Lilly and Co</strong> LLY., <strong>Novo Nordisk A/S</strong> NVO, and <strong>AstraZeneca Plc’s</strong> AZN AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP coordinated to limit price breaks on diabetes drugs provided through the Section 340B Drug Discount Program.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该诉讼由 <strong>Mosaic Health Inc.</strong> 和 <strong>Central Virginia Health Services Inc.</strong> 提起，声称 <strong>Sanofi SA</strong> 的 SNY <strong>Sanofi-Aventis U.S</strong>、<strong>Eli Lilly and Co</strong> LLY、<strong>Novo Nordisk A/S</strong> NVO 和 <strong>AstraZeneca Plc</strong> 的 AZN AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP 协调限制通过 340B 药品折扣计划提供的糖尿病药物的价格优惠。</p>
</div><p>The program requires manufacturers of Medicare and Medicaid-covered drugs to sell them to eligible providers at or below a set ceiling price.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该计划要求医疗保险和医疗补助覆盖药物的制造商以设定的最高价格或以下价格向合格提供者销售药物。</p>
</div><p><strong><em>Also Read: RFK Jr. Sued By Eli Lilly, Amgen Over Drug Discount Program</em></strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong><em>另请阅读：RFK Jr.因药品折扣计划被 Eli Lilly 和 Amgen 起诉</em></strong></p>
</div><p>For years, the drugmakers offered these discounts for purchases made through retail pharmacies, helping lower costs for vulnerable patient populations. But starting in 2020, the companies allegedly moved in lockstep to restrict access.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>多年来，这些制药公司为通过零售药房购买的药物提供这些折扣，帮助降低脆弱患者群体的成本。但从 2020 年开始，这些公司 allegedly 齐心协力限制访问。</p>
</div><p>According to plaintiffs, the firms lobbied the federal government, sometimes through shared lobbying firms and industry groups, to curb the program’s scope for diabetes medications. When those efforts failed, they each announced similar discount limits within months of one another.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据原告的说法，这些公司游说联邦政府，有时通过共享的游说公司和行业团体，限制糖尿病药物的计划范围。当这些努力失败时，他们在几个月内相继宣布类似的折扣限制。</p>
</div><p>AstraZeneca was the first to notify the Department of Health and Human Services in July 2020 that it would end 340B discounts for most contract pharmacies starting October of that year. Sanofi followed days later, conditioning discounts on providers sharing prescription-claims data with a Sanofi vendor.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>阿斯利康是第一家在 2020 年 7 月通知卫生与公共服务部将于当年 10 月停止对大多数合同药房提供 340B 折扣的公司。赛诺菲几天后跟进，条件是提供者与赛诺菲的供应商共享处方索赔数据。</p>
</div><p>In August 2020, Eli Lilly announced it would stop honoring discounts except in limited cases, imposing additional requirements plaintiffs said were impractical. Novo Nordisk then declared in December 2020 that it would halt most 340B discounts beginning January 2021.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 2020 年 8 月，Eli Lilly 宣布将停止承认折扣，除非在有限情况下，并施加原告称不切实际的额外要求。诺和诺德随后在 2020 年 12 月宣布将于 2021 年 1 月停止大多数 340B 折扣。</p>
</div><p>The plaintiffs argue these coordinated restrictions caused significant financial harm to clinics and their low-income patients.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>原告认为，这些协调的限制对诊所及其低收入患者造成了重大财务损害。</p>
</div><p>They initially filed suit in federal court, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and state common law. The district court dismissed the complaint and denied their request to amend, finding insufficient evidence of a conspiracy.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他们最初在联邦法院提起诉讼，指控违反联邦和州反垄断法以及州普通法。地区法院驳回了投诉，并拒绝了他们修改的请求，认为没有足够的证据证明存在阴谋。</p>
</div><p>However, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the proposed amended complaint plausibly alleges a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，美国上诉法院裁定，提议的修订投诉合理地指控了横向价格操纵阴谋。</p>
</div><p>The court pointed to similarities in timing, substance, and effect of the defendants’ policies, along with circumstantial “plus factors” such as shared economic motives, actions contrary to individual self-interest, and extensive interfirm communications.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>法院指出，被告政策在时间、内容和效果上的相似性，以及共享经济动机、与个人自利行为相悖的行动和广泛的公司间沟通等间接 “加分因素”。</p>
</div><p>The appellate panel vacated the district court’s dismissal and sent the case back, directing that plaintiffs be allowed to file their second amended complaint.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上诉小组撤销了地区法院的驳回，并将案件发回，指示允许原告提交第二次修订的投诉。</p>
</div><p>New analysis reveals that states are losing billions in Medicaid rebates due to ineligible claims on discounted 340B drugs, driving up the overall net cost of prescription drug coverage.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>新的分析显示，由于对折扣 340B 药物的无资格索赔，各州在医疗补助回扣方面损失了数十亿美元，导致处方药覆盖的整体净成本上升。</p>
</div><p>Researchers released a report examining how state laws requiring drug manufacturers to work with contract pharmacies under the 340B Drug Pricing Program could impact state Medicaid programs.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>研究人员发布了一份报告，审查了要求制药公司在 340B 药品定价计划下与合同药房合作的州法律可能对州医疗补助计划的影响。</p>
</div><p>According to the report, these laws could result in an additional $1.2 billion in annual Medicaid spending, with $437 million allocated directly to state budgets.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据报告，这些法律可能导致每年额外增加 12 亿美元的医疗补助支出，其中 4.37 亿美元直接分配给州预算。</p>
</div><p>In December 2024, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) warned Sanofi about its proposed credit model for certain outpatient drugs under the 340B program.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 2024 年 12 月，卫生资源与服务管理局（HRSA）警告赛诺菲其在 340B 计划下对某些门诊药物的拟议信用模型。</p>
</div><p>Last year, <strong>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.</strong> BMY filed a lawsuit against HRSA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that HRSA’s rejection of its proposed rebate model for the 340B Drug Pricing Program violates federal law.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>去年，<strong>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.</strong> BMY 对 HRSA 和美国卫生与公共服务部提起诉讼，指控 HRSA 拒绝其对 340B 药品定价计划的拟议回扣模型违反联邦法律。</p>
</div><p><strong>Read Next</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>下一步阅读</strong></p>
</div><ul>
<li><strong><em>Rumble Bets On AI Cloud Growth With Northern Data Takeover Plans</em></strong></li>
</ul>
<div class="lb-trans"><ul>
<li><strong><em>Rumble 押注 AI 云增长，计划收购 Northern Data</em></strong></li>
</ul>
</div><p><em>Photo by HJBC via Shutterstock</em></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><em>照片由 HJBC 通过 Shutterstock 提供</em></p>
</div>

赛诺菲、礼来、诺和诺德公司和阿斯利康制药再次面临被指控串谋限制 340B 折扣