During the past several turbulent weeks for the U.S. health care system, rulings in the case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA have called into question the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s”) scientific review process to approve new drug applications. While the U.S. Supreme Court acted on the afternoon of Friday, April 21, 2023 to preserve access to the drug mifepristone while the case continues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the future of mifepristone—and the FDA’s authority to approve new drugs—will continue to be debated on appeal.
Two cases decided over the last three months have added California[1] and Massachusetts[2] to the list of minority states that hold brand name manufacturers of drugs (“Brand Manufacturers”) liable under state “failure to warn” laws when sued by patients that exclusively used a generic version of the Brand Manufacturer’s drug. These cases follow the US Supreme Court decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011) (“PLIVA”), which held that generic drug manufacturers cannot be held liable for failure to update the safety label of a drug or biologic in ...
Recent Updates
- When AI Becomes Part of Medicine: Why CMS’s AI Questions Matter Now
- Watch: Gender-Affirming Care: What Health Care Providers Need to Know About Federal Enforcement – Thought Leaders in Health Law
- Executive Order 14321 at One Year: Civil Commitment Policy Shifts and Provider Impact
- Watch: FDA’s 2026 Enforcement Priorities: What In-House Counsel Must Know – Thought Leaders in Health Law
- The Future of 340B: New Bills Offer Competing Solutions to Modernize the 340B Drug Discount Program