A federal district court on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuit challenging the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program established through the Inflation Reduction Act, with a judge finding that several plaintiffs in the suit had not legitimacy.
U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman of the Southern District of Ohio concluded that the House’s argument that it could sue on behalf of its members through associational standing was incorrect.
“Here, Plaintiffs are Chambers of Commerce that do not have standing to sue in their own right. Instead, Plaintiffs assert standing under the theory of associational standing, which allows associations, in some circumstances, to sue on behalf of their members who have legitimacy,” Newman wrote.
“However, three Plaintiffs – the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce – have no associational standing and should be dismissed.”
He found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had associational authority on its own, but said it would need to file a separate lawsuit in a “different location.”
The plaintiffs argued that they could sue on behalf of a member organization, in this case pharmaceutical company AbbVie and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics. But Pharmacls is headquartered in California and AbbVie operates in Illinois, California, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
“Plaintiffs have not provided any information – in their amended complaint or otherwise – directly connecting the interests of Pharmacyclings or AbbVie to the business climate in the Dayton area,” Newman wrote in explaining why he believed three of the plaintiffs lacked standing .
He applied this same argument to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
“Although plaintiffs bring these claims to challenge Congress’s potential violation of the separation of powers, the Court would transgress exactly the same ideal by asserting jurisdiction over this case,” the judge wrote. “Pharacacls and AbbVie are large pharmaceutical companies that could have sued on their own in federal court in a different state. Instead, Plaintiffs attempted to manipulate the system and manufacturing legitimacy to obtain a favorable venue
The lawsuit was filed more than a year ago, in June, just before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the first 10 drugs chosen for Medicare negotiation.
The trading period officially ended earlier this month, on August 1st. Price publication is scheduled for September 1st.
Despite a mountain of legal resistance, pharmaceutical executives have told shareholders and analysts that the final prices will not affect financial results of their companies.
This Ohio ruling adds to the growing list of lawsuits challenging Medicare negotiations that have gone in favor of Medicare. Similar lawsuits filed by PhRMA, Novo Nordisk, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Astellas Pharma were also dismissed, dismissed on summary judgment, or voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs themselves.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not immediately respond when The Hill sought comment.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
