Federal courts dismiss additional challenges to Medicare drug pricing

Big Pharma just took another hit in federal courts, and the battle over Medicare drug pricing is heating up with a conservative’s dream of government overreach being questioned.

Two federal judges, one in Texas and another in Connecticut, handed down rulings on Thursday that slapped down challenges to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, reinforcing the program’s legal standing despite pharmaceutical industry pushback, as The Hill reports.

Let’s rewind a bit to set the stage. The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, aimed at curbing skyrocketing drug costs for seniors, has been under fire from drugmakers who claim it stomps on their constitutional rights. Well, turns out, the courts aren’t buying that narrative just yet.

Court rulings favor government over pharma

In Connecticut, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2024 decision by District Judge Michael P. Shea against Boehringer Ingelheim, a major player in the drug game. Shea had ruled that the company couldn’t prove any irreparable harm from participating in these negotiations. That’s a polite way of saying, “Cry me a river, but the law’s on Medicare’s side.”

Boehringer Ingelheim, whose diabetes drug Jardiance was among the first 10 selected for price negotiations, also saw two more of its products lined up for the next round. They argued the program violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, but the appeals court doubled down on Shea’s findings, essentially telling them to take a seat.

The 2nd Circuit judgment was crystal clear: “Participation in the Negotiation Program is voluntary and thus does not entail an unlawful deprivation of rights.” Now, isn’t that a refreshing dose of reality? If you don’t like the game, don’t play—nobody’s twisting Big Pharma’s arm here.

Texas judge echoes sentiments

Meanwhile, in Texas, Judge Ezra delivered a similar smackdown to plaintiffs challenging the program. He pointed out that joining Medicare is entirely voluntary for drugmakers, so claims of irreparable harm from price talks don’t hold water. Sounds like a classic case of wanting the benefits without the responsibility.

Judge Ezra wasn’t swayed by arguments that the program trampled on Fifth or Eighth Amendment rights either. “Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the Program deprives them of a protected interest,” he stated plainly. That’s a judicial mic drop if I’ve ever heard one.

These decisions come hot on the heels of another federal judge’s ruling just a day earlier, on Wednesday, dismissing a challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The court found that several plaintiffs in that case didn’t even have standing to sue. Talk about swinging and missing — strike three for the anti-negotiation crowd.

Patient advocates cheer court decisions

While Big Pharma licks its wounds, patient advocacy groups are popping the champagne. Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs, didn’t hold back, saying, “Once again, a drug company brought its high-priced lawyers to lay out its arguments against Medicare negotiation, and once again they have lost.” Ouch — that’s a zinger with some serious sting, but it’s hard to argue with the scoreboard.

Basey wasn’t done, adding, “This ruling against Boehringer Ingelheim marks the fifth consecutive legal victory for patients who have long awaited relief from Big Pharma’s monopoly control over drug prices.” While her enthusiasm for sticking it to the industry is palpable, let’s not forget that drug innovation costs money — there’s a balance to strike here.

She also framed the fight in dramatic terms: “It’s truly US v Big Pharma.” That’s a bit Hollywood for my taste, but the point stands — patients are desperate for relief, and these rulings keep the door open for lower costs without letting progressive overreach run wild.

Balancing costs with constitutional claims

Now, let’s be fair — drug companies aren’t entirely wrong to push back when they feel squeezed by government programs. But when courts repeatedly find no constitutional violations, as both Judge Shea and the appeals court did in agreeing the program doesn’t breach the Medicare Act or Administrative Procedures Act, it’s time to rethink the strategy. Maybe focus on innovation over litigation?

The Hill reached out to PhRMA for comment on these rulings, and while we await their response, one thing is clear: the Medicare negotiation program isn’t going anywhere just yet. For conservatives wary of government overreach, these voluntary negotiations are a far cry from socialist price controls, even if they don’t thrill the corporate boardrooms.

It’s worth noting that these rulings send a broader message to industries cozy with government programs — participation comes with strings attached. If Big Pharma wants the benefits of Medicare’s massive market, they might have to swallow some bitter pills on pricing. Actions have consequences, and this time, the courts are reminding them of that old adage.