manufacturers who submit false information to HHS. Defendants argue that this express federal control precludes the traditional presumption against preemption. There is some strength to this argument, especially in light of the Secretary’s decision to keep the pricing information confidential from the states. However, upon close scrutiny of the statutory scheme, I conclude that Buckman does not control for two reasons. First, the Secretary does not make an independent determination with respect to Best Price, but merely acts as a go-between. In contrast, in Buckman, the Food and Drug Administration was “charged with the difficult task of regulating the marketing and distribution of medical devices without intruding upon decisions statutorily committed to the disc , 121 S.Ct. 1012 (<HOLDING>). Emphasizing that the state law claims depend
holding that state claims for fraudulent submissions to the fda were preempted holding that state law claims for fraud on the fda would interfere with fdas ability to balance safety concerns with need to bring products to market rapidly for flexibility is a critical component of the statutory and regulatory framework under which the fda pursues difficult and often competing objectives holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims holding that state law fraud on the fda claims were impliedly preempted by the food drug and cosmetic act