Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Drug Pricing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate passes measure changing oversight of 340B drug savings, 20-14
Summary
The Colorado Senate on March 26 passed Senate Bill 124, which targets how outpatient drugs sold under the federal 340B drug pricing program are treated by nonprofit hospitals. Supporters said the bill increases transparency; opponents warned it would reduce charity-care funds and limit patient access to specialty treatments.
The Colorado Senate passed Senate Bill 124 on final reading Wednesday, voting 20-14 to approve legislation concerning outpatient drugs purchased under the federal 340B drug pricing program.
The bill, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Kirk Myer and Sen. Gonzales and sponsored in the House by Representatives Brown and Garcia Sander, was debated at length on the floor. Opponents said the measure would sharply restrict how hospitals use 340B savings and could threaten roughly $700 million that hospitals currently allocate for charity care and specialty services.
Senator Mullica, who identified herself as a practicing emergency department clinician during floor remarks, urged a no vote. “I’m not here to enrich the pharmaceutical industry… I’m here to make sure that what we do in this building doesn't have a negative impact on the patients that I take care of,” Mullica said, warning that the bill could make it harder for hospitals to offer services such as transplants and result in clinic and hospital closures in an “unstable environment.”
Senator Michaelson Janae also spoke against the bill, saying SB 124 would “severely restrict the 340B program, threatening the $700,000,000 currently available for charity care, including cancer treatment and life‑saving specialty care only available through larger hospitals.” She argued the measure would create infeasible administrative burdens, push contract pharmacies out of the 340B program and reduce access for low‑income patients who rely on local pharmacies for prescriptions.
Floor debate included both procedural and policy points: supporters framed the legislation as a transparency and accountability measure; opponents contended it would reduce critical funding for care not fully covered by Medicaid or other payers and could increase litigation risk. Speakers on the floor also discussed the limits of what state law can require, noting that certain data may be held by manufacturers or pharmacy benefit managers rather than hospitals.
After debate, the Senate voted 20 ayes, 14 no, 0 absent and 1 excused to pass SB 124. The clerk then moved on to the next item on the calendar.
The final bill text and any implementing rules or reporting requirements were not read into the record during the floor debate captured in the transcript provided.
