Search Results
The default setting for search results displays All Content. If you prefer to see recent content only, please adjust the date filter.
Filter your results:
Types
Topics
215 Results Found
Motion to Intervene AstraZeneca v. Cochran, Feb. 26, 2021, Re: 340B Contract Pharmacy Intervention
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene Re: 340B Contract Pharmacy
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene regarding 340B Contract Pharmacy
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss re 340B Contract Pharmacy
Order granting motion to dismiss regarding 340B Contract Pharmacy.
AHA Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Hospital Outpatient Payment Cuts
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether Chevron deference applies to a statutory interpretation question that determines both the lawfulness of agency action and the court’s jurisdiction.
AHA Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case on 340B Payment Cuts
QUESTION PRESENTED: The question presented is whether Chevron deference permits HHS to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data.
Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support
Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Re: 340B Contract Pharmacy
Order to show Cause RE: Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Order to show Cause RE: Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Reply in Support of Appellants’ Emergency Motion for Stay Re. Disclosure of Negotiated Charges, Dec, 24, 2020
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 15, 2020
Appellee U.S. Opposition to Emergency Motion to Stay
Defendant respectfully opposes plaintiffs’ emergency motion for stay. Without having moved first in the district court (contra Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)), and less than two weeks before the hospital-price-transparency rule is to take effect on January 1, 2021, plaintiffs ask that this Court “stay the enforcement of the [rule] for six months.” Mot. 13. That extraordinary request should be denied.