Cuomo Revives Opioid Tax Struck Down by Federal Judge Last Year
The former opioid tax was struck down largely over a provision that barred companies from passing the cost of the surcharge onto their customers.
February 15, 2019 at 04:32 PM
5 minute read
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is asking state lawmakers to revive a tax on the sale of opioids in New York in an effort to curb drug overdoses after a similar law was struck down by a federal judge as unconstitutional late last year.
But unlike the now-defunct Opioid Stewardship Act, the cost of that tax on opioid companies would be allowed to be passed on to consumers who are prescribed those drugs, according to the legislation, which has the potential to raise prices.
The first attempt at imposing an opioid tax by state law was struck down largely over a provision that barred companies from passing the cost of the surcharge onto their customers. U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York wrote in a decision in December that the so-called pass-through provision of the law violated the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“New York's position is seriously, if not mortally, wounded by the fact that the text of the OSA places no such limitation on the pass-through prohibition,” Failla wrote. “If OSA's provisions are given their clearest meaning, the dormant commerce clause violation is clear.”
The law may have forced companies to, instead, impose the cost of New York's opioid tax on consumers in other states, Failla wrote. The new proposal would avoid that conflict by allowing the expense to be passed on to consumers regardless of their location.
“The economic incidence of the tax imposed by this article may be passed to a purchaser,” the legislation reads.
The new proposal would also change how and when the tax is collected, two provisions that were challenged in the lawsuit last year. The litigation was brought by the Healthcare Distribution Alliance, an organization representing pharmaceutical distributors.
A spokesman for the organization said they were reviewing the new proposal and declined to initially comment on it.
They took issue with how the state planned to collect the surcharge in the previous law. The state had planned to require opioid manufacturers and distributors to collectively pay $100 million to the state over six years. The amount each company was expected to pay would have been determined based on the share of business they report in New York.
Opioid companies challenged that part of the law because they said it took the amount they would pay out of their hands, and put it at risk of another company's choices.
The state is still expected to generate $100 million from the tax, but it would be collected differently. It would be set like a sales tax paid quarterly by opioid companies rather than a surcharge paid annually as it was in the previous law.
If the manufacturer's list price to wholesalers or direct purchasers for an opioid unit is less than 50 cents, they would pay a quarter of a cent per morphine milligram equivalent, or the strength of the drug compared to morphine as determined by the state Department of Health. If the list price is more than 50 cents, that company would pay 1.5 cents per morphine milligram equivalent.
The first round of taxes paid by each company would be based on the amount they sell between when the legislation is signed and Jan. 20, 2020. After that, the tax would be paid by companies each quarter based on reports filed with the state.
That method is also different from the previous version, which would have had companies make their initial payment to the state based on sales from before the law was passed. HDA had argued against that provision of the statute in their lawsuit, saying it was unlawful for the state to impose such a charge on retroactive sales.
The reports sent to the state on those sales would not be made public, according to the legislation. If a state employee makes them public or divulges any information from them without a court order, the legislation would allow them to be fired.
Cuomo included the new proposal in his 30-day budget amendments, which are released a month after the governor presents his executive budget proposal to the Legislature each year. Lawmakers were supportive of the proposal last year.
The state budget is due by the end of March.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCourt System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250