42 C.F.R. § 10.11

Manufacturer civil monetary penalties

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Any manufacturer with a pharmaceutical pricing agreement that knowingly and intentionally charges a covered entity more than the ceiling price, as defined in § 10.10, for a covered outpatient drug, may be subject to a civil monetary penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each instance of overcharging, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. This penalty will be imposed pursuant to the applicable procedures at 42 CFR part 1003. Any civil monetary penalty assessed will be in addition to repayment for an instance of overcharging as required by section 340B(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the PHSA.

(b) Instance of overcharging. An instance of overcharging is any order for a covered outpatient drug, by NDC, which results in a covered entity paying more than the ceiling price, as defined in § 10.10, for that covered outpatient drug.

(1) Each order for an NDC will constitute a single instance, regardless of the number of units of each NDC ordered. This includes any order placed directly with a manufacturer or through a wholesaler, authorized distributor, or agent.

(2) Manufacturers have an obligation to ensure that the 340B discount is provided through distribution arrangements made by the manufacturer.

(3) An instance of overcharging is considered at the NDC level and may not be offset by other discounts provided on any other NDC or discounts provided on the same NDC on other transactions, orders, or purchases.

(4) An instance of overcharging may occur at the time of initial purchase or when subsequent ceiling price recalculations due to pricing data submitted to CMS or new drug price estimations as defined in § 10.10(c) result in a covered entity paying more than the ceiling price due to failure or refusal to refund or credit a covered entity.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “5, 2017), codified at 42 C.F.R. § 10.11 (a). 18 Additionally, as relevant here, Congress updated the statute by directing the Secretary to: 19 [E]stablish[] procedures for manufacturers to issue refunds to covered entities in the event that there is an overcharge by the…”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Health Resources & Servs. Admin. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “42 C.F.R § 10.11(a). In a related provision of the ACA, Congress instructed the Secretary to establish within 180 days a 340B Program administrative dispute-resolution process ("ADR process") for covered entities and manufacturers.”
— 42 C.F.R. § 10.11(a) — 1 case
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Health Resources & Servs. Admin. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “42 C.F.R § 10.11(a). In a related provision of the ACA, Congress instructed the Secretary to establish within 180 days a 340B Program administrative dispute-resolution process ("ADR process") for covered entities and manufacturers.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.