Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Another Drug Manufacturer Pursues Rebate Program as 340B Alternative

Client Alert

Some of the nation’s largest drug manufacturers are forging ahead to implement rebate programs for 340B drugs, even after the federal government has called these programs illegal.

In August 2024, Johnson & Johnson first announced its plan to implement a drug rebate program for 340B drugs whereby the manufacturer would charge buyers full price for drugs and offer a back-end rebate, instead of allowing safety net providers to purchase outpatient drugs at lower costs, as they have done since the program’s inception.

In response, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the federal agency that oversees the 340B drug pricing program, deemed Johnson & Johnson’s rebate program illegal, prompting Johnson & Johnson to initially revoke the rebate plan. However, Johnson & Johnson had a change of heart and on November 12, 2024, filed a lawsuit to challenge HRSA’s decision.

Emboldened, other drug manufacturers have begun to implement drug rebate programs. On November 26, 2024, Bristol Myers Squibb filed a lawsuit against HRSA, asking the federal court to deem its rebate program legal and prevent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from taking agency action to invalidated rebates.

While it is unclear how these federal courts will rule, these lawsuits signal a desire by drug makers to change how they offer 340B drug discounts to health care providers that operate using scarce federal resources, a move that could threaten the sustainability of safety net providers and the patients they serve.

If you have questions about these lawsuits, or the 340B program in general, please contact Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


Implications of Supreme Court Stay for Business Operations in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily reinstated immigration officers’ authority to conduct brief stops based on factors such as location, work type, language, or appearance. This stay in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo allows enforcement actions to resume in California pending appeal. Employers in industries like construction, agriculture, landscaping, and day labor should prepare for increased worksite disruptions and review compliance protocols.

Ohio House Bill 429: Potential Relief for Providers Facing Same-Day Reimbursement Restrictions

Ohio House Bill 429 aims to prevent third-party payers from reducing provider reimbursement for multiple procedures performed on the same day. The bill could improve payment practices for a range of specialties, including surgery and gastroenterology.

FTC Continues to Target Noncompetes

The FTC is intensifying its focus on noncompete agreements in healthcare, urging employers to review contracts for compliance. While Ohio still generally enforces noncompetes, pending legislation could limit their use.

Medicare Updates: Prior Authorizations and Physician Fee Schedule

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced two key updates effective January 1, 2026: a six-state prior authorization pilot program targeting high-risk services under the WISeR Model, and proposed revisions to the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) that include increased payment rates, expanded telehealth coverage, and updated policies for chronic care, behavioral health, and rural providers.

USCIS Policy Updates: Implications for Business Immigration

In August 2025, USCIS issued three key policy updates enhancing vetting, good moral character (GMC) evaluations, and scrutiny of "anti-American" conduct in immigration adjudications. These policy memos will impact employers sponsoring foreign workers, including H-1B, L-1, EB visas, adjustments, and naturalization.