Federal Court Rejects Boehringer Ingelheim's Challenge to Medicare Drug Price Negotiation

Boehringer Ingelheim's legal challenge to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Programme was rejected by a federal court, giving the Biden administration its latest win over the pharmaceutical industry's attempts to thwart the Inflation Reduction Act. The company claimed that the negotiating programme is merely nominally voluntary, and that almost half of the market is covered by Medicare and Medicaid, thus the government is effectively pressuring the firms to engage in drug price talks.

Judge Michael Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut disapproved of the pharmaceutical company's argument that firms are still free to opt out of drug pricing discussions and withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Shea stated that the government may set restrictions on private organizations' ability to participate in its initiatives without breaking the law. Shea was unmoved by Boehringer Ingelheim's First Amendment arguments either, pointing out that the firm is free to leave the program and that the government is not pressuring it to support particular stories about the drug talks.

The pharmaceutical industry's losing record in its court battle to the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is perpetuated by last week's verdict. Four pharmaceutical companies argued in front of a New Jersey court in March 2024, presenting their individual arguments for why the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Programme infringes upon their constitutional rights. Judge Zahid Quraishi was not persuaded that the program was not voluntary and expressed scepticism towards the claims made. A Delaware judge ruled in March 2024 that AstraZeneca had no legitimate claim of entitlement to sell its drugs to the Government at any price other than what the Government is willing to pay, causing the pharmaceutical company to lose its IRA challenge as well.