The bills aim to address pharmaceutical restrictions and provide transparency, ensuring that hospitals can continue supporting low-income patients and funding critical services.
Here are seven notes:
- The 340B drug pricing program mandates drug manufacturers to provide discounted medications to safety-net hospitals and clinics serving low-income communities.
- Multiple states, including Utah, Colorado, Arkansas, Maine and Nebraska, have introduced bills to safeguard the 340B program, amid increasing restrictions from pharmaceutical companies.
- Utah’s bill, spearheaded by Rep. Steve Eliason, seeks to allow the state to manage drug distribution, countering pharmaceutical companies’ restrictions. Mr. Eliason emphasized that these restrictions harm hospitals’ ability to serve low-income patients with the program supporting nearly $1 billion in charity care annually in Utah.
- Senate Bill 71 in Colorado prevents pharmaceutical companies from limiting the use of contract pharmacies, where hospitals partner with pharmacies to distribute 340B drugs. The bill ensures patients have more options for picking up prescriptions while allowing hospitals to benefit from savings.
- Arkansas and Nebraska are also pursuing similar legislative efforts. These states aim to address pharmaceutical companies’ restrictions on 340B, advocating for transparent use of the funds and ensuring hospitals within the states can continue serving vulnerable populations.
- Maine has also introduced its own version of a 340B protection bill, aiming to prevent pharmaceutical companies from undermining the program by restricting access to discounts. This bill would require greater transparency in how hospitals use their 340B savings, promoting accountability for the funds.
- Hospitals, especially in rural areas, rely heavily on the savings from the 340B program. For example, Delta Health in Colorado faced a $3.5 million shortfall in 2024 after being disqualified from 340B.
