316

Johnson & Johnson sues Biden administration over Medicare drug price negotiations (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Johnson & Johnson sued the Biden administration over Medicare’s new powers to slash drug prices, making it the third pharmaceutical company to challenge the controversial provision of the Inflation Reduction Act.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] chrischryse@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The lawsuit filed in federal district court in New Jersey argues the Medicare negotiations violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Unless I’m missing something after reading the article, can someone tell me how this violates the first and fifth amendments?

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I would hope this is a good thing, because (as a layman) it sounds ludicrous to justify this suit using the 1st and 5th amendments. Hopefully the court agrees. Doubtful, but I'm naive.

[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They're grasping at straws. A majority of this court already ruled that Medicare has the right to compel vaccine mandates on providers who want Medicare reimbursements because Medicare has no obligation to do business with companies/providers that do not meet their rules. The Medicare statute is very clear here.

These companies are actually arguing that the government requiring negotiations violates their "free speech" to set their own prices and is "depriving them of life, liberty, or property" by not buying from them if they don't negotiate. The reality is that what they're asking the court to do is to compel the federal government to buy their products at the price they want to sell them at. The inevitable result of such an outcome is that they can charge 100x what they do now and there's nothing the government could do but spend 100x as much. When it's put like that, it's clear how absurd their argument is.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That makes sense. I worry that with how the courts are today, that they (Big Pharma) might win and - as you said - be able to charge even more for drugs, and there's nothing anyone can do but pay it.

[-] homura1650@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You can read their filing here: https://www.jnj.com/_document/janssen-lit?id=00000189-6a3c-daed-a5bd-fb7fc2a60000

Constitutional argument spelled out starting on paragraph 83:

The Program violates Janssen’s constitutional rights in at least three respects.

First, the Program will appropriate Janssen’s patented Xarelto® products for third-party use without providing adequate compensation, a clear physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Second, the Program will violate the First Amendment by compelling Janssen to make false and misleading statements through the Manufacturer Agreement, including that the Program will involve “negotiating” a “fair” price for Xarelto® products.

Third, the Act would violate Janssen’s constitutional rights even if participation in the Program were voluntary (it is not), by impermissibly conditioning Janssen’s ability to participate in Medicare and Medicaid on Janssen’s relinquishing its speech and property rights.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023

316 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19248 readers

2674 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News