Committee advances bill limiting manufacturer-ordered reporting for 340B participants

A House Judiciary Committee majority advanced a substitute for House Bill 78 on a 6-5 vote, moving a state-level effort to constrain contract-pharmacy and manufacturer-imposed reporting requirements tied to the federal 340B drug-pricing program.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Mia Thompson, told the committee HB 78 would bar manufacturers and their affiliates from requiring more claims, utilization or purchasing data than federal law requires before shipping discounted 340B medications to eligible providers. “We are trying to stop every single pharmaceutical manufacturer from requiring a different reporting system,” she said during the hearing.

Why it matters: Advocates for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and other safety-net providers said manufacturers’ unilateral platforms and data demands since about 2020 have become onerous and diverted scarce clinic staff time away from patient care.

Yvette Ramudas Ammerman, chief executive of the New Mexico Primary Care Association, said FQHCs in New Mexico serve roughly 331,000 people statewide and rely on 340B savings “to plow that money back into services to the uninsured or underinsured.” Melissa Manlove, who has run a 340B pharmacy program for two decades, said federal statute and HRSA rules already require that proceeds be used for mission-related services and noted that HRSA allows manufacturer audits at manufacturer expense.

Industry representatives urged a no vote. Kyle Piccola, director of state policy for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, told the committee the program is governed by federal statute and that state laws risk colliding with federal authority. He cited state and national studies alleging markup and diversion of program benefits to middlemen such as contract pharmacies and PBMs and warned that a patchwork of state laws could exacerbate the program’s problems.

Other testimony reflected the divide. Executives from La Clinica de Familia, Presbyterian Medical Services and several community health centers said 340B proceeds keep clinics open and fund services like behavioral health and chronic disease programs. Industry representatives and national trade groups said federal reforms and federal litigation are the correct venue to address alleged abuses.

Committee action and next steps: Representative Romero moved a “do not pass on House Bill 78, but do pass on House Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 78”; Representative Zapanski seconded. The roll call recorded six yes votes and five no votes; one member recorded a pass. The committee report advances the substitute; the transcript records debate and the vote but the measure will next proceed per House rules to subsequent referrals.

Context and caveats: The bill’s text does not change federal 340B statute or HRSA’s audit authority. Supporters repeatedly said the substitute is intended only to prevent manufacturers from imposing additional, unilateral reporting platforms and contract-pharmacy limits on listed safety-net entities in New Mexico. Industry witnesses and several committee members warned of federal preemption risk and ongoing litigation in multiple federal courts. The bill’s proponents said state action is a stopgap to preserve access for New Mexico clinics while federal solutions are pursued.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a vote on a motion to recommend a do pass on the committee substitute (motion made by Representative Romero, seconded by Representative Zapanski). Tally recorded in transcript: yes 6, no 5 (one pass recorded).