• Judge says Amgen likely to face significant, irreparable harm
  • Enbrel price was capped at $31,200 annually, list price tops $100,000
  • Colorado declined to comment

July 1 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Colorado ​from capping the price of Amgen’s (AMGN.O)blockbuster arthritis drug Enbrel, a first-of-its-kind ‌move by a U.S. state.
In granting a preliminary injunction, Chief Judge Daniel Domenico of the Denver federal court said Amgen would likely face significant and irreparable harm from charging lower prices, adding that it ​could affect the drugmaker’s negotiations for future contracts with wholesalers and distributors.
Domenico said ​that “as a matter of basic economic logic, Amgen is likely to ⁠be significantly harmed by a cap on the price of its product, even if ​the cap applies unevenly” within the supply chain.
He also said that while Colorado had a ​legitimate interest in helping patients afford Enbrel, and could try doing so through subsidies or negotiations to lower prices as the federal government has done, “capping the price of a patented drug” was not an ​option.
In October, the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Board capped Enbrel prices at $600 for a ​50-milligram weekly dose, or $31,200 per year, effective on January 1, 2027.
The list price of Enbrel exceeds $100,000 per ‌year. ⁠Amgen had until July 5 to decide whether to continue selling the drug in Colorado.
Genna Morton, a spokeswoman for Colorado’s Division of Insurance, said the agency cannot comment on pending litigation. Amgen and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The U.S. ​pays about three times ​as much as other ⁠high-income countries for branded drugs, and the federal government and states have pursued policies to keep prices down.
Enbrel, whose chemical name is ​etanercept, is used to treat arthritis and plaque psoriasis. It is ​one of ⁠Amgen’s biggest drugs, accounting for $2.23 billion of sales in 2025.
The Thousand Oaks, California-based drugmaker said Colorado’s cap conflicted with federal patent law, violated its due process rights under the U.S. ⁠Constitution and ​threatened patients’ access to needed treatment.