Is IRA drug price negotiation unconstitutional?

A federal judge says 'no'. Endpoints reports:

A New Jersey federal judge on Monday tossed cases brought by Johnson & Johnson and Bristol Myers Squibb against the Inflation Reduction Act, another victory for the law while Medicare works through the first year of price negotiations with industry. In a summary judgment, Judge Zahid Quraishi ruled the IRA provisions don’t constitute a physical taking of property or a violation of speech, the two constitutional claims at the core of the drugmakers’ arguments. The opinion could impact similar cases playing out in other courts across the country. “In short, Defendants are not taking drugs from Plaintiffs. BMS and Janssen want to sell their drugs to Medicare, a significant (but not the sole) buyer of pharmaceuticals in the United States,” Quraishi wrote in an opinion. “Selling to Medicare may be less profitable than it was before the institution of the Program, but that does not make Defendants’ decision to participate any less voluntary.”

The article reports that Bristol Myers Squibb has already filed an appeal.

For more information on IRA, check out my white paper with USC titled "Mitigating the Inflation Reduction Act’s Adverse Impacts on the Prescription Drug Market"