))
States Make Big Moves With 340B Policy
Manage episode 427908938 series 2851356
Content provided by Voxtopica and 340B Health. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Voxtopica and 340B Health or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
While significant 340B actions have happened at the federal level, state legislatures also have made big moves in the world of 340B so far this year. We are joined by Amanda Sellers Smith, 340B Health’s legal counsel, to explain more.
More states ban drug company restrictions on 340B contract pharmacies
Following the lead of Arkansas and Louisiana, five additional states have enacted contract pharmacy protection laws so far this year. Some states enacted standalone contract pharmacy laws, while others paired these laws with PBM non-discrimination bills. Another bill is with the governor in Missouri after passing the state legislature.
Court battles continue despite early wins for state 340B laws
The pharmaceutical industry continues to fight state 340B protection laws in federal courts, with most challenges focusing on whether federal 340B law preempts such state laws. So far, none of those lawsuits have succeeded, with one federal district court and one federal appeals court rejecting the preemption arguments.
More states consider requiring 340B hospital savings data
Last year, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington enacted 340B reporting laws at the state level. And while no additional reporting packages have passed out of state legislatures so far this year, several considered doing so, and Minnesota added even more requirements for hospitals. These reporting requirements add burdens to covered entities and raise concerns about how states will use this information in the future.
Resources:
99 episodes
Share
