Amicus Briefs

The AHA weighs in on a number of issues of importance to hospitals and health systems, as well as the patients they care for, as they come before the court. Below are our most recent friend-of-the-court briefs.

Latest

The 340B program, established by section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 256b, requires as a condition of participating in Medicaid and Medicare Part B that pharmaceutical manufacturers sell outpatient drugs at a discounted price to certain public and not-for-profit hospitals, community health centers, and other providers that serve patients with low incomes (340B providers or covered entities).
Hospital Associations support challenge to conditions placed on hospital affiliation.
American Hospital Association, 340B Health, America’s Essential Hospitals, Association of American Medical Colleges, National Association of Children’s Hospitals d/b/a Children’s Hospital Association, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby file this amicus brief in support of Defendants’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca).
The AHA and Texas Hospital Association filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and several Texas hospitals and health systems challenging a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Appeals Board decision adopting a “net effect” standard for “bona fide provider-related donations” to supplemental payments in Medicaid.
Government’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene - AstraZeneca v. Cochran (March 12, 2021)
Amicus Brief–Hospital Systems - 340B Payment Reductions March 12 2021
Amicus Brief-State and Regional Hosp Associations 340B Case
Amicus Brief-State and Regional Hosp Associations Site Neutral Case
Amicus Brief: Arizona Opioid Casse
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 20-5193
NO DATE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT HAS BEEN SET No. 20-5193
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED No. 20-5193 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
The AHA, California Hospital Association, and Washington State Hospital Association today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to reverse a district court decision in a lawsuit brought by data analysis company Integra Med Analytics that “gives private plaintiffs broad license to file suits under the FCA in ways that Congress never intended and expressly barred.”
The 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case at the motion to dismiss stage.  The decision reinforces that attempting to make a case using statistics is not sufficient, details of alleged false claims are always required.   
This brief1 is filed on behalf of 36 state hospital associations,2 which represent over 5,000 hospitals and health systems that treat tens of millions of patients every year and currently stand on the frontlines of a global pandemic. Amici and their members (hereafter “amici”) share an interest in delivering quality, affordable health care, and therefore in the preservation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The AHA, joined by America’s Essential Hospitals, Association of American Medical Colleges, and Federation of American Hospitals today urged the Supreme Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that held the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional.
The AHA, joined by the Association of American Medical Colleges, Federation of American Hospitals, Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania and New Jersey Hospital Association, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that gives whistleblowers “broad license” to bring False Claims Act lawsuits against hospitals and other health care providers. 
US Chamber of Commerce files amicus brief supporting legal challenge to rule requiring disclosure of negotiated charges (Feb. 28. 2020).
The AHA and five other national hospital groups today filed a friend-of-the court brief (LINK) urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a district court decision blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s public charge rule from taking effect while legal challenges to the rule proceed.