Stock Markets March 17, 2026

Appeals Court Revives Whistleblower Suit Alleging Drugmakers Overcharged Safety-Net Programs

AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Sanofi must face claims under the False Claims Act tied to Section 340B pricing, court says

By Avery Klein NVS
Appeals Court Revives Whistleblower Suit Alleging Drugmakers Overcharged Safety-Net Programs
NVS

A federal appeals panel has revived a whistleblower lawsuit asserting that four major pharmaceutical companies overcharged for medications intended for low-income and uninsured patients, causing financial harm to Medicare and Medicaid. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the claims can proceed under the False Claims Act and sent the case back to a district court for further proceedings.

Key Points

  • The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a whistleblower suit against AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Sanofi alleging overcharges in the Section 340B Drug Pricing Program.
  • Adventist Health System/West claims the alleged overcharges caused Medicare and Medicaid to pay inflated reimbursements, and that enforcement action by HHS in 2019 curtailed the practice.
  • The appeals court ruled providers cannot sue under Section 340B directly but can pursue damages under the False Claims Act when the alleged fraud causes financial loss to the government - the claims effectively 'belong to the government.'

A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a whistleblower lawsuit that accuses four large drugmakers of defrauding federal and state programs by overcharging for medicines provided to low-income and uninsured patients. In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California determined that AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Sanofi must defend against allegations they violated the federal False Claims Act through their participation in the Section 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Section 340B, enacted by Congress in 1992, permits certain medical providers to buy prescription drugs at reduced prices. The statute also includes a so-called "penny pricing" provision that requires the drug price not exceed $0.01 when the statutory ceiling price falls below zero.

The lawsuit was brought by Adventist Health System/West, a Roseville, California-based nonprofit health system that operates more than 440 hospitals and clinics. Adventist contends that years of alleged overcharges by the four manufacturers led to inflated Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. According to the complaint, those overcharges ceased when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2019 decided to impose large civil fines for violations of Section 340B pricing rules.

Circuit Judge Roopali Desai, writing for the appeals court, noted that while Section 340B does not by itself provide medical providers with a private cause of action against manufacturers for overcharging, providers may nonetheless bring claims under the False Claims Act if the alleged conduct resulted in financial loss to the government. "Adventist's claims 'belong to the government,' and 'it does not matter' that Adventist cannot sue on its own behalf," the opinion states.

The appeals court returned the matter to U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer in Los Angeles. Judge Fischer had dismissed the suit in March 2024. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers may sue on behalf of the government and are entitled to a share of any recovery the government obtains.

The named companies and their counsel did not provide comments in response to inquiries. Lawyers for Adventist did not immediately reply to similar requests for comment.


Context and next steps

With the appeals court decision, the case will proceed in district court where factual development and further briefing can determine whether the government suffered compensable losses tied to the pricing practices alleged in the complaint. The False Claims Act mechanism remains the vehicle through which a private whistleblower can pursue claims that are characterized as harming government programs.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty for named pharmaceutical companies as the case returns to district court - this affects the legal and regulatory risk profile of the defendants and could influence investor sentiment in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors.
  • Potential financial exposure if courts find the alleged overcharging resulted in recoverable losses to federal or state programs - this could have implications for government healthcare reimbursements and compliance costs for drugmakers.
  • Ongoing ambiguity about private enforcement mechanisms under Section 340B - healthcare providers, payers and manufacturers may face continued regulatory and litigation volatility while courts clarify the scope of remedies.

More from Stock Markets

Credo Technology Slides 11% Even After Nvidia Signals Need for More Copper and Optical Capacity Mar 17, 2026 Morgan Stanley Flags Potential Earnings Downgrades for Australia’s Big Four Banks Mar 17, 2026 Unilever Weighs Carving Out Food Operations in Strategic Portfolio Review Mar 17, 2026 Jassy Says AI Could Propel AWS to $600 Billion in Annual Revenue Mar 17, 2026 Jassy Says AI Could Propel AWS to $600 Billion in Annual Revenue by 2036 Mar 17, 2026