This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
As part of this change, the Coverage Gap Discount Program (CGDP), a program that has existed since 2011, will sunset on December 31, 2024, and be replaced by the Medicare Part D Manufacturer Discount Program (the “Discount Program”). CMS will send the final manufacturer invoice for discount liabilities accrued by then on April 30, 2028.
The question comes to the court in the case of George Sheetz , who in 2016 applied for a permit to build a 1,854-square-foot manufactured home on land that he owns in Placerville, California. The post Twelve cases added to Supreme Court calendar appeared first on SCOTUSblog. In Corner Post v. Warner Chappell Music v. 2, at 9:30 a.m.
CMS did not finalize the price verification survey, which would have required manufacturers of 10 costly drugs selected annually to provide clinical information as well as information on production, distribution, research, and marketing costs, revenue and profit, and ex-U.S. that is not supported by the statute and applicable regulations.”
Most are new or revised definitions and administrative changes, but several proposals represent new policies that should be of concern to drug manufacturers. Price Transparency Surveys The MDRP statute requires manufacturers to submit only three prices: average manufacturer price (AMP), best price, and nominal prices.
4 in the challenge to the legality of the bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin. The argument in the Purdue Pharma case is one of eight cases scheduled for seven hours of oral argument in the court’s December argument calendar , which was released on Thursday morning.
Kirschenbaum — On May 24, Minnesota enacted the Commerce and Consumer Protection Omnibus Bill, Senate File 2744 ( SF 2744 ), which significantly expands the state’s existing drug pricing activities with serious implications for all drug manufacturers, and particularly generic drug manufacturers. We address each below. Best price?
Raimondo headline the calendar for the January argument session , which the court released on Friday morning. Natural Resources Defense Council , in which the court held that when a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law as long as it is reasonable. Relentless, Inc.
The MFP would be established through negotiations between HHS and the manufacturer and would incorporate foreign pricing benchmarks, as further described below. In order to permit MFPs to be negotiated under Part D, the current prohibition on Medicare negotiating with manufacturers would be repealed.
On September 30, the Fourth Circuit tentatively calendared oral argument on the companies’ appeal for the December 10–12 argument session. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. Irish Court Rejected Claims that National Mitigation Plan Violated Climate Statute, Constitution, and Human Rights Obligations. BP p.l.c. ,
The plaintiffs had challenged the CEQA “baseline” for “fail[ing] to account for ongoing increases in global temperatures,” but the court found that the plaintiffs did not develop the argument “in any serious way” and said it would not “manufacture an argument where none is made and where none exists.”
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content