House committee advances H.266 requiring hospitals to report estimated 340B savings to Green Mountain Care Board

A House committee voted to amend and approve H.266, a bill addressing protections for 340B covered entities and 340B contract pharmacies, advancing a strike‑all amendment that narrows and refocuses hospital reporting requirements.

The amendment, adopted as draft 2.2, changes the annual reporting date from July 1 to January 31 to align with hospitals' fiscal year, replaces several detailed disclosures with an annual estimated savings figure, removes vendor names and certain expense reporting, and adds a repeal (sunset) of the reporting requirement effective Jan. 1, 2031. The committee recorded multiple affirmative roll‑call votes and noted one absence during the votes.

The Office of Legislative Council staff explained the amendment. "We are looking at draft 2.1. This is h 2 66 and act relating to protections for 3 40 b covered entities and 3 40 b contract pharmacies," said Jen Carvey, Office of Legislative Council. Carvey summarized the reporting changes, including the shift in the annual reporting date and the replacement of earlier detailed cost and vendor disclosures with a required "annual estimated savings to the hospital from participating in the 3 40 b program, comparing the acquisition price of drugs under the 3 40 b program to group purchasing organization pricing." The amendment instructs hospitals to compare to another generally accepted pricing source if GPO pricing is not available.

A committee member who participated in drafting the bill said the narrower reporting language reflected stakeholder compromise. "The reporting piece, it's clearly not as comprehensive as what was in the original. I think this is consensus language amongst many stakeholders," the committee member said. Another committee member who worked on the bill over the summer said hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) asked that 340B be addressed because recent manufacturer changes were "hurting them," and that the reporting should show how the program funds services such as dental clinics and mobile health work.

Under the amendment, the committee removed prior requirements to report aggregated acquisition costs for all prescription drugs obtained through 340B, the aggregated amounts hospitals received for drugs obtained under 340B, detailed vendor lists for entities providing program administration, and a payer‑by‑payer breakdown of claims. The amendment retains a requirement that hospitals report the number of claims for 340B drugs in the previous hospital fiscal year but removes the separate counts by payer type.

Section 3 of the amendment establishes a repeal date for the reporting provision: the reporting section would be repealed on Jan. 1, 2031. The act would take effect on passage, and the first report under the new schedule would be due Jan. 30, 2026, according to legislative staff.

Members asked how the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) would be involved. The amendment requires hospitals to submit the reports to the GMCB and directs the board to post them publicly. Some committee members expressed concern about whether the GMCB already has that authority and whether the board could charge fees related to monitoring. One committee member said the bill does not grant the GMCB new authority over hospitals but makes the board the repository for the reports; Jen Carvey said she would need to check the board's statute for the board's existing information‑gathering authorities.

A committee member who helped draft the bill said the intent was to restore prior operating conditions for hospitals and FQHCs that have been affected by changes in manufacturer behavior and contract pharmacy arrangements, and to provide data demonstrating program benefits. Committee discussion repeatedly distinguished between the reporting requirements being requested of hospitals and granting regulatory power to the GMCB.

The committee adopted the strike‑all amendment (draft 2.2) and then voted to approve the bill as amended. Committee members recorded multiple "ayes" during the roll call; one committee member (Emari) was noted as absent. The committee chair said the committee would submit the amended document to the clerk's office for processing.

Next steps: the approved committee report and the amended bill will be submitted to the clerk and, per the legislative process referenced in the meeting, the measure would proceed to the next stage of floor consideration. The transcript did not record further floor scheduling or a final vote by the full body.