of health care professionals,” a task that would be disrupted by state suits. 531 U.S. at 349-350, 121 S.Ct. 1012. The Best Price program is one employing cooperative federalism, and so there is no “uniquely federal” interest. Boyle, 487 U.S. at 505, 108 S.Ct. 2510. Second, in Buckman, Congress provided expressly that it was the federal government, not private litigants, that was authorized to file suit for non-compliance, whereas here the statute provides that the federal remedies are “in addition to other penalties as may be prescribed by law.” § 1396r-8(b)(3)(c)(ii). As a practical matter, the confidentiality of the pricing information and the lack of audit powers inhibits the ability of the states to monitor drug f 530 U.S. 363, 374-386, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); Buckman, 531 U.S. at
holding that while state shared federal goal of sanctioning foreign nation state remedies disrupted presidents flexibility in foreign affairs for conflict is imminent when two separate remedies are brought to bear on the same activity holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce holding that as a matter of law the embassy of a sovereign nation is a foreign state