North Dakota subcommittee debates 340B reporting language, study option and where to house data

A legislative subcommittee on health policy debated whether to add reporting requirements about the 340B drug-pricing program and broader price-transparency measures to an insulin bill, or to delay mandatory reporting and instead commission a study.

Representative Dobrevitch, a sponsor of study-language alternatives, told the panel there are three possible directions: adopt the legislative council draft requiring broad reporting from hospitals, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), insurers and drug manufacturers; adopt reporting limited to covered entities while moving PBM/insurer/manufacturer reporting to a study; or adopt a study that examines every element of the draft before requiring reporting.

The options differ in timing and scope. The legislative council draft in the packet sets staggered starts and reporting deadlines: “Beginning 05/01/2027, published annually the department's website, a summary of the information reports received. Beginning 06/01/2027, report annually to the legislative management, a summary of the findings or reports received,” and it applies to health-care facilities beginning 01/01/2026 and to drug manufacturers, health insurers, and PBMs…