Congressional Investigation of Pharmacy Rebates on Medicaid Drugs
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.16.04
The House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have asked five large retail pharmacy chains for documents on pharmaceutical reimbursements and rebates under Medicaid. The committee is concerned that drug manufacturers may have been engaged in improper "marketing of the spread," to the detriment of state Medicaid programs. The letters expressed concern that drug manufacturers could be charging low prices on particular prescription medications to their customers, while submitting inaccurate or incomplete cost or price information that becomes the basis of state Medicaid reimbursement for the drug at much higher prices. The January 14th letters were sent to CVS, Eckerd, Rite Aid, Walgreen, and Wal-Mart.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
