In the latest chapter of years of legal back-and-forth, attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia have asked a federal appeals court to reverse a decision that an Oregon drug price transparency law is unconstitutional.
The Oregon law, called House Bill 4005, was enacted in 2018 and requires drugmakers to report certain drug pricing information, including justifications for price increases. The pharmaceutical industry’s DC-based trade organization PhRMA challenged the law in Oregon federal court in 2019, and a judge earlier this year sided with plaintiffs’ arguments that certain aspects violate the First Amendment and could violate the Fifth Amendment.
The case now rests with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and attorneys general are concerned the lower court’s ruling could threaten similar drug price transparency laws in other states.
“Price transparency laws like HB 4005 help states identify drugs causing affordability challenges to consumers and payers, as well as better understand pricing across a complex supply chain,” the 21 attorneys general wrote in an amicus brief filed on Friday.
The brief was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and signed by attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and DC.
Sixteen states have already adopted similar drug price transparency laws, including California, according to the brief.
The attorneys general asked the Ninth Circuit to reverse the lower court’s First Amendment finding, but did not take an opinion on the Fifth Amendment claims.
“A ruling from this Court prohibiting Oregon from implementing HB 4005 would threaten the drug price transparency laws of other states and may hinder states’ ability to obtain drug pricing information and protect access to healthcare,” the attorneys general said.
A PhRMA spokesperson told Endpoints News on Tuesday that it agrees with the lower court’s decision.