Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 340b Drug Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heard: Bill to protect 340B drug program access draws broad, divided testimony
Summary
SB 5,981 would prohibit manufacturers from restricting acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities or contract pharmacies (unless federal law requires such limits) and would bar manufacturers from demanding claims or utilization data as a condition of participation; hospital systems, community health centers, tribal clinics and manufacturers offered sharply divergent testimony.
Senate Bill 5,981 drew extended testimony Jan. 16. The bill would prohibit drug manufacturers or distributors from denying, restricting or prohibiting acquisition or delivery of a 340B drug by a covered entity or a contract pharmacy unless federal law requires such restriction, and would bar manufacturers from conditioning 340B access on submission of claims, utilization or purchasing data unless federal law requires it. The bill would allow covered entities to sue to enjoin violations and permits the Attorney General to bring actions on behalf of the state.
Supporters — including UW Medicine pharmacy leadership, community health centers, rural hospitals, independent contract pharmacies and tribal health leaders — described 340B revenue as essential to maintaining services for vulnerable patients, funding care navigation, dental and behavioral‑health programs, and enabling local pharmacies to stock expensive specialty drugs. Several witnesses asserted manufacturer restrictions on contract pharmacies and data demands have limited patient access and threatened safety‑net services.
Opponents — including industry groups, pharmaceutical manufacturers and employer associations — argued the 340B program has expanded beyond its original intent, raised concerns about lack of transparency and accountability, warned of higher costs to employers and payers (duplicate discounts, rebate effects), and urged federal reforms instead of the state bill. A range of policy questions about program growth, transparency, and whether state law could invite litigation were raised by opponents.
The hearing record contains many witnesses on both sides; the chair closed testimony and the committee did not record a vote in the transcript.
Provenance: topic introduced SEG 1521; topic closed SEG 2883.
