Drug Industry Denied Fast Relief in Nevada Price Law Challenge

Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.

By Dana A. Elfin

A new Nevada pricing transparency law for diabetes drugs remains alive, disappointing pharmaceutical industry groups that wanted the law to be rescinded immediately ( Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Sandoval , 2017 BL 325250, D. Nev., Case No. 2:17-CV-2315 JCM (CWH), 9/14/17 ).

Judge James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada declined an invitation from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) to kill the Nevada law outright. The court said the groups hadn’t shown they were entitled to immediate relief.

PhRMA and BIO are seeking to prevent the state from implementing the law, which requires drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to disclose pricing and rebate information for diabetes drugs. They sued the state over the law Sept. 1, claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution and runs afoul of trade secret and patent protection laws. Although the groups couldn’t secure instant action from the court, the court will hear oral argument Oct. 17.

BIO predicted the groups’ efforts to stop the law from being implemented would ultimately succeed. “BIO remains confident in the eventual outcome of the process,” George Goodno, BIO’s communications director for state policy, international affairs and intellectual property, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 15. Similarly, PhRMA said in a Sept. 15 statement it looks forward to arguing the case for enjoining the law at the October hearing.

If the law stays on the books, the groups warn it would cause massive disinvestment in the pharma and biotech industries. The law became effective this summer but hasn’t yet been implemented.

In his Sept. 14 order denying the groups’ bid to immediately enjoin the law, Mahan said the groups didn’t demonstrate they would suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage if the court gave the state of Nevada time to respond before the court makes a decision on the law’s fate.

The state’s response is due Sept. 27, with PhRMA and BIO’s reply due two weeks later, followed by the court hearing Oct. 17.

To contact the reporter on this story: Dana A. Elfin in Washington at delfin@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Randy Kubetin at RKubetin@bna.com

For More Information

The order is available at http://src.bna.com/szL.

Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Request Health Care on Bloomberg Law