Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA filed separate lawsuits against the provision last month.

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.

  • chrischryse@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    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.worldEnglish
      6·
      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.worldEnglish
        11·
        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.worldEnglish
          1·
          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.worldEnglish
      3·
      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:

      1. The Program violates Janssen’s constitutional rights in at least three respects.
      1. 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.
      1. 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.
      1. 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.