Three major pharmaceutical companies and their national lobbying organization are suing Missouri to block enforcement of a new state law requiring them to give medical providers unlimited access to discounted drugs for their pharmacies.
In four federal lawsuits filed over the past month, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Abbvie and PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry, argue that Missouri lawmakers unconstitutionally intruded into interstate commerce with the bill passed this year.
Under the bill, drugmakers must accept orders to deliver medications to providers eligible for discounts under the 340B program, named for the section of law where it is authorized. The bill allows eligible providers to have an unlimited number of contracts with pharmacies to dispense their prescriptions of drugs purchased under the program.
“Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Missouri has no authority to define who has access to 340B-priced drugs,” states the lawsuit filed last week by PhRMA in the Western District of Missouri.
Advertisement
The law takes effect on Wednesday. The plaintiffs in each case have asked for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement, but no hearings on the requests have been scheduled and only one case, filed Aug. 2 by Novartis, has had enough activity for the judge to schedule any proceedings.
Abbvie went first, filing its lawsuit July 22 in the Eastern District — 10 days after Gov. Mike Parson declined to sign the bill and instead allowed it to become law despite his misgivings. The other three cases are filed with the Western District, which includes Jefferson City.
The lawsuits name Attorney General Andrew Bailey and members of the state Board of Pharmacy, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The board is given authority to investigate violations of the law and the attorney general has enforcement powers through the state Merchandising Practices Act.
“It is difficult to convincingly argue that doing what a federal program requires is an irreparable harm,” Maria Lanahan, deputy solicitor general in the attorney general’s office, wrote in a filing arguing against a preliminary injunction in the Novartis lawsuit. “To the contrary, when Novartis complies with S.B. 751, it is helping covered entities that serve vulnerable populations.”
Bailey’s office did not respond to an email seeking comment on the cases.
Advertisement
The board is relying on Bailey to respond to the lawsuit. The law is self-enforcing and while the board could write rules about how it is to be followed, Executive Director Kimberly Brinston said.
“The board does not have a timeline to promulgate rules and has not made a decision on whether rules would be promulgated,” she said.
The Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Primary Care Association have asked to intervene in the Novartis lawsuit and will likely seek to join the other three, hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon said Monday.
“We are evaluating each case and intend to reinforce the work done by the General Assembly on behalf of Missouri’s hospitals, other providers and the communities they serve,” Dillon said.
The 340B program was created in 1992. It had two components — drug manufacturers had to deliver their products at a discount to eligible providers and eligible providers could only use the program to provide prescriptions to patients they treated directly.
Advertisement
Eligible providers included children’s hospitals, as well as hospitals that were sole providers in their community or designated “critical access hospitals” by providing care that would otherwise be absent, and those serving large numbers of indigent patients known as “disproportionate share hospitals.”
Other qualifying providers include federally qualified health care centers — clinics that receive grants to support operations so they can base charges on ability to pay — as well as clinics that serve AIDS patients, black lung victims and other debilitating diseases.
The use of contract pharmacies started in 1996, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began allowing one contractor per provider as recognition that many providers did not have in-house pharmacies. But a change to allow unlimited contracting increased the number of contract pharmacies from 2,321 in 2010 to 205,340 in 2024, according to data from PhRMA provided to The Independent in June.
Nationally, pharmaceutical manufacturers sold nearly $100 billion in discounted drugs in 2021 and 2022. Discounts averaged 60% from regular wholesale prices, the lobbying organization stated.
The pharmaceutical companies focus their criticism on the disproportionate share hospitals, who often contract with for-profit pharmacies to dispense the drugs. Those hospitals account for about 80% of all drugs purchased through the 340B program, $41.8 billion in 2022 and $34.3 billion the year before.
Advertisement
Pharmaceutical companies complain that the discounts are rarely passed on to patients. Instead, insurance companies and consumers pay retail prices and the extra profit is often split between the pharmacy and the provider.
“Make no mistake, the boom in contract pharmacies has been fueled by the prospect of outsized profit margins on 340B-discounted drugs,” AstraZeneca’s lawyers wrote in the complaint filed last week. “In short, the widespread proliferation of contract pharmacy arrangements since 2010 has transformed the 340B program from one intended to assist vulnerable patients into a multi-billion-dollar arbitrage scheme.”
The drugmakers have fought the expansion of contract pharmacies in a variety of ways. When Novartis sought in 2020 to limit the contracts to pharmacies within 40 miles of an eligible provider, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice that it considered the limit a violation of the program’s rules.
An advisory opinion on contracting, later withdrawn, said the 340B program required delivery to a pharmacy on “the lunar surface, low-earth orbit, or a neighborhood…”
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruled in January 2023 in a case against the federal agency that pharmaceutical companies could impose limits on the number of pharmacies they would allow to purchase the discounted drugs.
Advertisement
After the 2023 ruling, Novartis tightened its rules to allow only one contracted pharmacy per covered provider, but only if the provider did not have an in-house pharmacy. Other manufacturers have imposed variations on the Novartis policies.
State efforts to counter the limits have ramped up in the past two years. Missouri is one of eight states to pass laws requiring drugmakers to deliver discounted medications to contract pharmacies.
Arkansas was one of the first. In March, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis upheld the Arkansas law requiring drugmakers to allow covered providers to have an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.
In the motion to dismiss the Novartis lawsuit, the Missouri attorney general’s office relied heavily on that ruling, writing that it shows federal law does not prevent Missouri from passing a similar law.
The four lawsuits use a variety of legal theories to assail Missouri’s new law. Along with allegations of interfering with interstate commerce and regulating in an area reserved for federal action, the Abbvie lawsuit argues that its property rights are being violated.
Advertisement
“These abuses of the federal 340B program raise obvious concerns because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing the transfer of property at confiscatory prices to private parties for their own private benefit,” the lawsuit states.
In the filing seeking to intervene in the Novartis case, the hospitals and primary care associations argued that the revenue from profits on 340B medications are essential support for their operations.
“Reducing access to those savings,” the filing states, “means hospitals are unable to underwrite critical but under-reimbursed services lines.”
Missouri senior forward Mark Mitchell was recognized Monday with a second-team selection to the All-Southeastern Conference teams.
Mitchell has led the Tigers all season long and tops the team in scoring (17.9 points per game), rebounding (5.2) and assists (3.6). He would be the just the second player in program to lead all the categories in one season, joining Albert White from the 1998-99 season.
Mitchell is also on pace to become the first player in program history to average at least 17 points, five rebounds and three assists since Anthony Peeler in 1992, the year he took home the Big 8 Conference Player of the Year award.
Mitchell was the only Missouri player to be recognized in SEC postseason awards.
Advertisement
Five players were named to each of the three All-SEC teams.
Darius Acuff Jr. (Arkansas), Ja’Kobi Gillespie (Tennessee), Thomas Haugh (Florida), Labaron Philon Jr. (Alabama) and Tyler Tanner (Vanderbilt) made the first team.
Acuff was named the conference’s player of the year and freshman of the year.
Joining Mitchell on the second team were Nate Ament (Tennessee), Rueben Chinyelu (Florida), Otega Oweh (Kentucky) and Dailyn Swain (Texas), while Rashaun Agee (Texas A&M), Alex Condon (Florida), Keyshawn Hall (Auburn), Aden Holloway (Alabama) and Josh Hubbard (Mississippi State) were named to the third team.
The All-SEC defensive team consisted of Chinyelu, Somto Cyril (Georgia), Felix Okpara (Tennessee), Billy Richmond III (Arkansas) and Tanner. Chinyelu was selected as the defensive player of the year.
Advertisement
Appearing on the all-freshman team were Acuff, Amari Allen (Alabama), Ament, Malachi Moreno (Kentucky) and Meleek Thomas (Arkansas).
Swain was selected as the newcomer of the year, while Urban Klavzar of Florida was named the sixth man of the year.
The 2026 Missouri high school basketball state championship brackets continue on Monday, March 9, with eight games in the sectional and quarterfinal round of the higher classifications.
High School On SI has brackets for every classification in the Missouri high school basketball playoffs. The championship games will begin on March 19.
Missouri High School Girls Basketball 2026 Playoff Brackets, Schedule (MSHSAA) – March 9, 2026
Advertisement
Sectionals
Doniphan vs. Potosi – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
St. James vs. St. Francis Borgia – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Notre Dame de Sion vs. Oak Grove – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Smithville vs. Benton – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Cardinal Ritter College Prep vs. Clayton – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Orchard Farm vs. Kirksville – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Boonville vs. Strafford – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Reeds Spring vs. Nevada – 03/09, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Quarterfinals
Festus vs. Lift for Life Academy – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Grandview vs. Kearney – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
MICDS vs. St. Dominic – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Helias vs. Marshfield – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Quarterfinals
Jackson vs. Marquette – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Advertisement
Rock Bridge vs. Staley – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Incarnate Word Academy vs. Troy-Buchanan – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Kickapoo vs. Lee’s Summit West – 03/13, 6:00 PM CT
Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe’s request to grade public schools on an “A” through “F” scale is pushing House lawmakers to approve legislation some think isn’t quite ready.
With approval and dissent on both sides of the aisle, the House voted a bill to create a new school accountability system through to the Senate 96-53 Thursday despite concerns the letter grades could be a “scarlet letter” for underperforming schools.
“Will this labeling system actually improve schools or will it mostly brand communities, destabilize staffing and incentivize gaming rather than learning?” asked state Rep. Kem Smith, a Democrat from Florissant, during House debate Tuesday morning, March 3.
Advertisement
She said the key metrics that determine the grade, performance and growth, are volatile.
“The label itself can become a self-fulfilling prophecy,” she said. “The bill doubles down on high stakes metrics that are known to be unstable.”
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Dane Diehl, a Republican from Butler, told lawmakers that a performance-based school report card with “A” through “F” grades is inevitable. The details, though, are negotiable.
“The governor’s executive order, it is going to happen either way,” he said. “I think we tried to make that process a little better for school districts.”
Advertisement
Kehoe’s order directs the state’s education department to draw up a plan for the report cards and present it to the State Board of Education. The board could reject the idea, but with a board with primarily new members appointed by Kehoe, lawmakers have accepted the system as fate.
State Rep. Ed Lewis, a Republican from Moberly and chair of the House’s education committee, told the committee in January that he prioritized the bill as a way to give lawmakers influence over the final outcome. He is happy with the edits the committee made, which gives the education department more leeway to determine grade thresholds and removes a provision that would raise expectations once 65% of schools achieve “A” or “B” grades.
The House also approved an amendment March 3 that would grade schools’ environment. This would be based on the rates of student suspension, seclusion and restraint incident rates and satisfaction surveys given to students, parents and teachers.
The Senate’s version, which passed out of its education committee last week, does not include those changes.
“I think (the House bill) is the best product we have in the Capitol right now,” Lewis said. “I am not saying it’s complete, but it is the best we have right now.”
Advertisement
The changes have softened some skeptics of the legislation, like state Rep. Brad Pollitt.
Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican, said he didn’t support the legislation “for a number of years.” But with the edits, he sees potential for the legislation to usher in changes to the way the state accredits public schools.
The current process, he said, “nobody seems to like,” pointing to widespread concerns with the state’s standardized test.
Some of these changes are already happening quietly. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education received a grant from the federal government to develop a state assessment based on through-year testing, which would measure student growth throughout the school year, instead of a single summative assessment.
The department is poised to pilot the new test in 14 classrooms this spring, hoping to eventually offer it statewide within a few years. But the estimated startup cost of $2 million is one of many department requests cut from the governor’s proposed budget as the state grapples with declining revenue.
Advertisement
Creating the “A” through “F” report cards is estimated to cost a similar amount, if not more, according to the state’s fiscal note. The expense is largely frontloaded, going to the programming and technology support required to create the grade cards’ interface.
When The Independent asked Kehoe’s office about the fiscal note, the governor’s communications director Gabby Picard said he would work with “associated agencies” to determine appropriate funding “while remaining mindful of the current budget constraints and maintaining fiscal responsibility.”
The House’s version of the legislation includes an incentive program for high-performing schools, giving bonuses to go toward teacher recruitment and retention, if the legislature appropriates funding for the program.
More: Missouri school board considers using letter grades to score districts
The bill originally proposed incentives of $50-100 per student to subsidize teacher pay. This had large fiscal implications, and Lewis surmised that it would violate a section of the State Constitution prohibiting bonuses for public employees.
Advertisement
Making the funding optional and directing it to the school’s teacher recruitment and retention fund remedied those concerns. The Senate Education Committee removed the incentive program in its version of the legislation.
The House’s approval Thursday does not stop discussion and possible amendments. Next, the bill will go to the Senate for consideration, and if any changes are made, it will return to the House for more discussion.
This story was first published at missouriindependent.com.
