Merck Suit Against Medicare: Constitutional Arguments Are Scathing, But Are They Persuasive?

A suit designed to test the limits of the protections against judicial review that are embedded in the IRA could have more traction, some legal scholars suggest.

Merck's 'Medicare Is Coercing Me' Complaint Has A long, And Unsuccessful, lineage. • Source: Shutterstock

Merck & Co., Inc.’s go-it-alone lawsuit against the US Health and Human Services Department over the government’s implementation of the Medicare price negotiation program offers a vividly-worded description of the injuries facing companies targeted for price negotiation. But its arguments that the law violates the Constitution raise questions for some industry watchers.

Key Takeaways
  • Merck’s First and Fifth Amendment challenges of the drug price negotiation program are described by one legal expert as ‘very, very weak.’

  • Complaint focuses on Constitutional arguments and stays out of the weeds on the program’s implementation

Filed 6 June, the company’s complaint seeks declaratory judgment that the nascent negotiation program violates the First and Fifth Amendments

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on Pink Sheet for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required

More from Market Access

More from Pink Sheet