Oth­er IRA cas­es could be in­flu­enced by New Jer­sey judge's de­ci­sions, ex­pert says

A New Jer­sey fed­er­al judge’s skep­ti­cism of drug­mak­ers’ ar­gu­ments against the In­fla­tion Re­duc­tion Act’s drug price ne­go­ti­a­tions could be­come in­flu­en­tial in oth­er courts as phar­ma’s chal­lenges to the law con­tin­ue.

In a joint hear­ing last week, New Jer­sey’s dis­trict court heard a broad range of ar­gu­ments from Bris­tol My­ers Squibb, John­son & John­son, No­var­tis and No­vo Nordisk, in­clud­ing that the ne­go­ti­a­tions are un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, “un­du­ly co­er­cive” and a threat to R&D. The plain­tiffs com­pared the sit­u­a­tion to giv­ing “an arm if they com­plied with the pro­gram’s re­quire­ments or an arm and a leg if they did not.”

Unlock this article instantly by becoming a free subscriber.

You’ll get access to free articles each month, plus you can customize what newsletters get delivered to your inbox each week, including breaking news.

SIGN UP LOG IN BECOME A PREMIUM SUBSCRIBER