A lawsuit brought by three hospital groups to block implementation of the new rule was thwarted by a federal judge late last month. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras reasoned that the groups did not have standing to sue because the rule had not yet taken effect and harmed them.

While hospital representatives have said they plan on continuing the court battle, noting that Contreras’ decision hinted that they may have a case now that the rule has been implemented, they are also furiously lobbying members of Congress to pass a bill to undo the new rule.

The hospitals’ pleas have been heard across the political spectrum. A bill introduced by Reps. David McKinley, R-W.Va., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., would block the cuts from taking effect. A number of U.S. senators from both parties have also signaled their discomfort with the cuts.

Pharma is simultaneously waging an equally ferocious lobbying effort in support of a bill to increase the reporting requirements for 340B hospitals, which they claim have not been subjected to enough scrutiny about how many low-income patients they are serving and how they are using the extra money they’ve been receiving. That bill is also co-authored by members of both parties: Reps. Scott Peters, D-Calif., and Larry Buschon, R-Ind.

Peters, however, also signed a letter opposing the cuts to the program, suggesting that those who support increased accountability are not necessarily against the premise of the program.

Modern Healthcare reports that a hospital lobbyist suggested that a likely outcome of the battle will be a bill that seeks to broach a compromise between the two sides, perhaps increasing the Medicare reimbursement to 340B hospitals in exchange for greater reporting requirements.