If at first you don’t succeed … maybe you’re just wrong

Three times in the past few months, courts have either tossed out Eli Lilly’s suits against compounding pharmacies or telehealth platforms, or they look like they’re about to. The message they’re sending what pharmacists have known all along: Compounding GLP-1 medications for patients who can’t get the brand-name versions is legal, responsible, and necessary care. 

In three federal cases — one against a pharmacy and two against telehealth platforms — judges have openly questioned drugmaker Eli Lilly’s campaign to paint compounding as unlawful. A Delaware judge dismissed Lilly’s case against Strive Pharmacy for lack of standing and, in dicta (non-binding comments that nevertheless can inform other courts), he cast doubt on the company’s entire legal theory. 

Another judge, in throwing out Lilly’s lawsuit against Willow Health, pointedly wrote that, even if a pharmacy is making what seems like a lot of a compounded medication, there’s nothing wrong with that. Compounding “need only be tailored to the specific goals of the patient.” 

And in the ongoing Lilly v. Mochi case, the court’s questioning has suggested the same skepticism.

In short, courts aren’t buying the idea that compounding pharmacies are the problem. They see what’s really happening: Pharmacists and prescribers filling a gap in patient access — legally and effectively.