The Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals from pharmaceutical companies that challenged a federal program to negotiate Medicare drug prices, leaving lower-court decisions in place without additional comment from the justices, according to the Associated Press. The dispute centers on whether the federal government may directly bargain with drugmakers over the prices paid for certain drugs covered by Medicare.

The program stems from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which created the Medicare negotiation requirement after years of debate over the federal government’s role in setting drug prices. Under the law, the government must negotiate prices for specified high-cost drugs on an annual basis, with the first negotiated deals scheduled to take effect in 2026.

The AP reported that the Supreme Court’s action left undisturbed rulings from the U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia that had dismissed the drug manufacturers’ claims. In Monday’s decision, the Supreme Court did not issue further commentary, the AP said, which meant the litigation did not reach an additional merits review by the nation’s highest court.

The AP also reported that the program’s passage became part of a broader partisan fight over health and drug pricing in Congress. The story said no Republican voted for the legislation when it was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden, and it noted that Republicans had criticized parts of the law.

Despite those earlier political objections, the AP said the federal administration that has embraced the negotiation authority has continued to move forward with the program. The AP reported that the government has already negotiated prices for 25 prescription drugs covered by Medicare, including the GLP-1 medicines Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy.

The AP further reported that in January the administration announced drugs targeted for a third round of the negotiation program. That step would raise the total number of drugs with negotiated lower prices for Medicare enrollees to 40, the AP said.

Pharmaceutical companies have opposed the negotiation effort, the AP reported, arguing that policymakers seeking to lower costs should focus instead on reins in insurers and third-party pharmacy benefit managers. The AP said that without court intervention, stopping the program would likely require an act of Congress, and it added that the statute creating the program does not specify an end date.

Swenson reported from New York.