this is the default page template

With legislative sessions wrapping up in many states, several are working hard to put their bills on governors’ desks. Among the health care priorities up for debate is the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to not take up a lawsuit against a bill from Arkansas prohibiting drug manufacturers from putting restrictions on 340B pricing, states have introduced over 100 bills relating to 340B contract pharmacy restrictions. While some states want to increase 340B discount protections, others are looking to increase reporting for 340B entities. Colorado: In Colorado, a pair of bills was introduced relating to the 340B program. SB25-071 would prohibit drug manufacturers and Pharmacy Benefit Manufacturers (PBMs) from restricting 340B pricing to eligible entities. It also would prohibit drug manufacturers from requiring 340B entities to submit any patient health, claims or utilization data. The second bill, SB25-124 would require 340B entities to file reports detailing their participation in the 340B program, the use of 340B savings, their provision of charity care and their payments to third parties for services related to 340B. The bill would also require the Department of Health Care Financing to submit reports to the legislature detailing “losses and costs to the state medical assistance program that arise from a nonprofit hospital’s participation in the 340B drug program.” Both bills have been passed in the Colorado Senate and await hearings in the House. Oregon: The Oregon legislature held hearings on a trio of bills that would bar pharmaceutical manufacturers and PBMs from restricting 340B entities’ access to drug discounts, create civil monetary penalties for manufacturers restricting access to 340B drugs, and prohibit insurance companies and PBMs from requiring claim modifiers. The bills have not yet been passed. Florida: A Florida bill would prohibit manufacturers and PBMs from imposing restrictions against 340B entities, levying penalties against violators. The bill, filed in late February, has yet to be scheduled for committee hearings.