Latest news with #SB69
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca sues Utah attorney general over new drug pricing law
AstraZeneca, a major pharmaceutical company, has sued Utah's Attorney General Derek Brown over a recently passed state law allowing for lower pricing in pharmacies. The lawsuit concerns how SB69, passed during the 2025 state legislative session, deals with Section 340B of the federal Public Health Service Act. The suit was filed in May in the U.S. District Court of the District of Utah. The lawsuit argues that SB69 violates federal law by expanding the 340B drug discount program to unlimited pharmacies. The 340B drug discount program is designed to provide pricing benefits to specific eligible health care entities. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer products at steeply discounted rates for a specific list of entities. 'Because such price controls can disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets, Congress carefully crafted Section 340B and limited participation in the program to fifteen — and only fifteen — types of covered entities," per the lawsuit. It also points out that for-profit pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walgreens, were not included in the list of covered entities. AstraZeneca's suit seeks for an order declaring that SB69 violates federal law and is unconstitutional. It also seeks to stop Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike from enforcing SB69 against AstraZeneca in any manner. The Utah Attorney General's Office said Friday it had no comment on the lawsuit. SB69, which was sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, defines terms related to the 340B drug discount program and prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from setting certain restrictions. Under the law, manufacturers cannot prohibit or restrict pharmacies from contracting with 340B entities. They also cannot deny these 340B entities access to specific drugs. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' per the suit. 'The state law requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' The suit says that SB69 extends Section 340B price caps beyond the scope of the federal program, requiring manufacturers to make discounted drugs available for sale at any and all pharmacies 'authorized by a 340B entity to receive the drug.' It alleges that the law extends the discounts to new categories of transactions that are not covered by the program, thus conflicting with federal law requirements. The suit argues that the law conflicts with federal law, specifically court rulings that 'make clear that the federal 340B statute does not obligate manufacturers to deliver discounted drugs to unlimited contract pharmacies." According to the suit, SB69 also violates federal patent law, which 'prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods.' 'It requires manufacturers like AstraZeneca to offer steeply discounted prices for the sale of their patented drugs, thereby extending federal price caps to an additional category of patented drug sales (contract pharmacy sales) that federal courts have held fall outside of the 340B program. It also argues that SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's takings clause.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues to stop Utah law expanding access to discounted drugs
Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, is pictured on the first day of the legislative session at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is suing Utah's attorney general and insurance commissioner over a law passed during the legislative session aimed at stopping drug manufacturers from limiting where hospitals and clinics can buy discounted medication. Filed in May in federal court in the District of Utah, the company accuses the law of being unconstitutional and in conflict with prior court rulings. Sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, SB69 deals with the federal 340B program, a decadesold provision in the Public Health Service Act that aims to supply hospitals and health clinics with drugs at a discounted price. The program requires drug manufacturers to provide discounts on certain outpatient drugs for entities covered under the program, like hospitals, clinics, or Native American tribes. According to the American Hospital Association, hospitals can pass savings from the 340B program along to patients by offering health care to uninsured patients, providing free vaccinations, or expanding mental and community health programs. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But Vickers, who owns and operates a pharmacy in Cedar City, said the program is not popular among drug manufacturers, who have tried to limit where the entities covered under 340B can obtain the discounted drugs. Speaking on the Senate floor earlier this year, Vickers said manufacturers have been enforcing a 'one pharmacy rule,' where certain drugs can only be obtained from certain pharmacies. 'From their perspective it's expanded more than they would like, so they've tried to limit the access of drugs,' Vickers said. 'Essentially, you could have a patient being able to get a product at a discounted price in one town but not the other.' SB69, which passed in March during the final week of the legislative session, tries to prevent this. The bill is relatively simple at just 53 lines, and states that drug manufacturers cannot restrict pharmacies from contracting with entities covered under the 340B program. It also restricts manufacturers from preventing the delivery of a 340B drug to any location authorized to receive it. 'I don't stand here professing that the manufacturers are happy with this, I will tell you they're not,' said Vickers earlier this year, telling his Senate colleagues that states that have passed similar legislation have been targeted by lawsuits. 'But what we're looking at is providing access to medication at a discounted price.' Vickers was right. AstraZeneca, the global pharmaceutical company that generated more than $54 billion in revenue in 2024, is now suing Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike to stop the enforcement of SB69. The Utah Attorney General's Office did not provide comment on the active litigation. In the complaint, attorneys for AstraZeneca point to prior court rulings that supersede Utah's law. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' the complaint reads, accusing SB69 of requiring 'discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' According to AstraZeneca, the requirement in SB69 goes beyond the original intent of the 340B program, putting state law at odds with federal law and violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plus, the lawsuit alleges, SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution because it interferes with agreements between drug manufacturers and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the Constitution's Takings Clause, which protects private property from being seized for public use, since SB69 requires AstraZeneca to transfer its private property (prescription drugs) to entities covered under 340B. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This new law bans Red No. 40 from sale, distribution in Delaware schools. What to know
Delaware is the latest state to ban Red No. 40 in schools. Here's how the new law came about. Senate Bill 69 was introduced on March 11 by Sen. Eric Buckson, R-South Dover, and aims to protect students in the First State from the potential health risks associated with Food, Drug and Cosmetic Red No. 40, a synthetic food dye made from petroleum. It contains benzene, a cancer-causing substance. SB 69 prohibits the sale or distribution of foods and beverages containing Red No. 40 during the school day in Delaware school districts and charter schools. This includes items sold in vending machines on campus or served a la carte. Recent concerns over the impact of synthetic food dyes on children's health, including potential links to behavioral issues and hyperactivity, were cited as reasons for the proposed ban. SB 69 was signed into law by Gov. Matt Meyer on May 22, with the restrictions on Red No. 40 to take effect by July 1, 2026, allowing schools and education officials time to prepare for the transition. This makes Delaware only the second state, behind California, to ban Red No. 40 in schools. At least six other states have introduced similar legislation. Senate Bill 41 is a similar bill in Delaware that aims to ban Red No. 3 statewide, another synthetic food dye. This bill has yet to be decided on. More on proposed Red No. 3 ban: Along with the FDA ban, Delaware legislators seek to ban use of Red No. 3 in the state Red No. 40 is widely used and found in a variety of foods, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, according to Healthline, including: Flavored milk Yogurt Pudding Ice cream Popsicles Cakes and other pastries Candy Gum Breakfast cereals and bars Fruit snacks Gelatin Chips Powdered drink mixes, including some protein powders Soda Sports drinks Energy drinks More legislation news: Medical aid in dying becomes law, Inspector General bill passes Senate: The Press Room If Red No. 40 is in a product, it will be listed on the label as: Red 40 Red 40 Lake FD&C Red No. 40 FD&C Red No. 40 Aluminum Lake Allura Red AC CI Food Red 17 INS No. 129 E129 Sidewalk parking violations: Wilmington officials address complaints about vehicles parked on sidewalk Got a tip or a story idea? Contact Krys'tal Griffin atkgriffin@ This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: Red No. 40 banned in Delaware schools, second US state to do so
Forbes
28-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Kemp Signs Tort Reform In Georgia, As Similar Proposal Passes In Texas
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp shakes hands with Texas Governor Greg Abbott prior to the college ... More football game between the Georgia Bulldogs and the Texas Longhorns on October 19, 2024, at Darrell K Royal- Texas Memorial Stadium in Austin, TX. (Photo by Jeffrey Vest/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images) Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) has spent the first weeks of spring taking multiple victory laps following a legislative session that concluded with the enactment of top policy priorities. On April 21, for example, one week after approving legislation to accelerate state income tax cuts, Kemp signed into law Senate Bill 68 and Senate Bill 69, legislation that the Georgia Chamber of Commerce touts as 'a meaningful, comprehensive tort reform package.' 'Today is a victory for the people of our state who for too long were suffering the impacts of an out-of-balance legal environment,' Governor Brian Kemp said in his signing statement. 'As a result of this collective effort and outpouring of support from Georgians of all backgrounds, Georgia continues to move in the right direction as we work to stabilize costs and compete for economic opportunities that will create good paying jobs for hardworking Georgians across our state.' The signing statement from Governor Kemp's office goes on to note that approval of SB 68 and SB 69 'levels the playing field in our courtrooms, bans hostile foreign powers from taking advantage of consumers and legal proceedings, aims to stabilize insurance costs for businesses and consumers, increases transparency and fairness, and ensures Georgia continues to be the best place to live, work, and raise a family.' While Governor Kemp and state legislators have taken numerous steps in recent years to improve Georgia's tax and regulatory climate, tort reform aims to improve the judicial climate, making individuals and employers less vulnerable to costly and frivolous lawsuits. The tort reform package signed into law by Kemp last week does so by targeting 'phantom' damage awards and 'jury anchoring.' ''Phantom' damages are awards based on inflated medical bill amounts that were never actually paid — Georgia courts often base awards on these billed amounts rather than real payments,' the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) explains. 'Jury anchoring is a practice in which lawyers suggest an unreasonably large award before a jury with that number becoming an 'anchor' point in jurors' minds.' The tort reform package enacted by Kemp, ATRA adds, 'will address the expansion of premises liability in Georgia that has left businesses responsible for criminal acts committed by third parties on or near their property – even if they had no way to predict or prevent such acts.' Such practices, ATRA notes, 'lead to higher litigation costs across the board. 'Securing tort reform has been the Georgia Chamber's top legislative priority for 20 years,' said Chris Clark, president and CEO of the Georgia Chamber. 'Getting both SB 68 and SB 69 signed into law fulfills the Georgia business community's promise to do right by Georgians by restoring balance to the civil justice system so our courts can focus on justice—not jackpots.' If one considers imitation to be a form of flattery, then Governor Kemp and Georgia lawmakers are now receiving high praise from the Lone Star State. While the debate over school choice has drawn the lion's share of media attention, Governor Greg Abbott (R), Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (R), and Texas legislators are working to enact a number of other conservative priorities this year, among them a tort reform package similar to the one recently enacted in Georgia. 'Georgia's meaningful reforms will ensure that truly injured victims can recover fair compensation while preventing frivolous lawsuits from driving up costs for businesses and families,' Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) noted in a recent post. 'TLR—alongside the Lone Star Economic Alliance (LSEA), a business coalition comprised of 1,150 Texas job creators, individuals and associations from every corner of the state—is urging Texas legislators to pass similar reforms through SB 30.' SB 30, legislation introduced by Lt. Governor Patrick that passed out of the Texas Senate two weeks ago, 'seeks to prevent abusive lawsuit practices by many plaintiff lawyers that wrongfully inflate medical damages in personal injury lawsuits,' TLR explains. By approving SB 30, TLR adds, legislators 'will bring uniformity to Texas courtrooms by defining the noneconomic damages of pain and suffering and mental anguish, assuring that harmed persons are fully compensated on a fair and reasonable basis.' 'Critically, SB 30 would limit the evidence of medical damages that plaintiffs may submit at trial to 300% of the 2025 Medicare reimbursement rate with an adjustment for inflation,' adds TLR. 'The provision is meant to prevent lawyers from 'colluding with providers who over-diagnose, overbill and overtreat' victims to come up with inflated medical charges. Additionally, SB 30 makes clear that noneconomic awards cannot be used to punish defendants, make an example to others or serve a social good.' Nearly a week after the Texas Senate passed and sent SB 30 to the House, it approved SB 39, the other piece of Lt. Governor Patrick's tort reform package. SB 39, legislation filed by Senator Brian Birdwell (R), aims to crack down on frivolous lawsuits against trucking companies by clarifying the commercial vehicle litigation process. 'The explosion of lawsuits (many of them frivolous) against trucking companies in Texas has caused insurance rates to skyrocket, hurting Texans and our businesses,' Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement released following Senate passage of SB 39 on April 24. 'By passing SB 39, the Texas Senate has taken a major step toward providing judges a clear approach to collision cases. These changes will speed up collision trials involving commercial motor vehicles so victims get justice quicker while decreasing legal costs for Texas businesses. I thank Sen. Birdwell for his work on this critical issue.' After years of trying and coming up short, Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Patrick, Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R), and their colleagues are understandably celebrating the recent enactment of an education savings account program. With just over one month left before the biennial regular legislative session is scheduled to adjourn in Austin, however, lawmakers still have a lot of unfinished business left to tend to and many priority bills still awaiting consideration in one legislative chamber. There is reason to believe that passage of many outstanding priorities, tort reform in particular, is likely to prove politically popular. A survey was released on April 11 by Protecting American Consumers Together (PACT), a pro-tort reform group, gauging likely Texas voters' views about lawsuit abuse and the way in which it drives up the cost of living. That survey found: According to PACT, the results of their survey demonstrate that 'a vast majority of Texans believe lawsuit abuse is a key factor driving up the price of goods and services and want their legislators to take action to fix the system.' Texas lawmakers are working hard to reach a deal on property tax relief and reforms intended to reduce regulatory burdens. Yet the advancement of tort reform in Texas and other states underscores how, beyond tax and regulatory reform, there are other ways in which state lawmakers are aiming to reduce costs for households and businesses.
