Kansas committee hears sharply divided testimony on HB2550 requiring 340B hospital reporting

The Committee on Insurance heard more than three hours of testimony on House Bill 2550, a proposal to require hospitals that participate in the federal 340B drug‑pricing program to file annual reports with the Kansas Department of Insurance detailing savings, how the savings are used and drug acquisition and payment data.

Eileen, a committee staffer, told members the bill would require hospitals, beginning Jan. 1, 2027, to report items including estimated annual savings from 340B participation, how those savings are used, a comparison of 340B savings to the hospital’s total drug spending, aggregated acquisition costs for drugs obtained under 340B, aggregate payment amounts received and the number of pricing units dispensed. The bill also grants the insurance commissioner rulemaking authority.

Supporters described the measure as a modest transparency step. “When cost rise or access is disrupted, the consequence can include relapse, hospitalization, or even loss of life,” said Chris Chastain of NAMI Kansas, arguing that public reporting would help ensure 340B savings reach vulnerable patients. Kevin Mills, president and CEO of Ad Astra Bio, said the bill preserves the program’s intent by enabling policymakers to track whether savings reach safety‑net and rural providers; Mills said much of the required data already exist within hospital systems. Sean Greminger of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions warned federal oversight by HRSA has been limited and said national 340B program revenues have grown dramatically, arguing state reports would fill an accountability gap.

Opponents—including the Kansas Hospital Association, rural hospital leaders and pharmacy directors—urged caution. Karen Grama of the hospital association said hospitals already face extensive federal requirements, including HRSA enrollment and audits, and warned that the bill’s focus only on hospitals (not manufacturers or other participants) would create a “one‑sided” public record that could be misinterpreted. “This one‑sided reporting creates a partial picture for policymakers and the public alike,” she said. Maureen Testoni of 340B Health told the committee nonprofit and safety‑net hospitals rely on 340B savings to sustain uncompensated care and said federal reports and tax filings already provide substantial transparency.

Leaders of small rural providers and independent pharmacists said the operational cost of producing itemized, per‑drug and payer‑level reports would fall on pharmacy staff and compliance officers. Carrie Lutz, CEO of Holton Community Hospital, said her 14‑bed facility recorded roughly $300,000 in net 340B savings last year and that gathering the bill’s detailed line‑item data would require IT work and staff time that would otherwise support patient care. Isaac Boone, a rural pharmacist who manages 340B programs for dozens of critical access hospitals, said unfunded reporting mandates can force reductions in clinical services and staffing.

Committee members pressed witnesses on specifics: whether other states have enacted similar laws, which entities should report, and how much of the 340B revenue flow is captured today. Witnesses cited Indiana and Minnesota as states with comparable requirements; proponents said many states are considering reporting, while opponents recommended a simplified, consumer‑facing approach that avoids publishing proprietary contract details.

The hearing record contains repeated requests from members for follow‑up information—examples included the number of HRSA audits and the precise data elements that hospitals would or would not already have available. Witnesses offered to provide additional details to the committee.

The committee closed HB2550’s hearing without a vote on the bill itself. Members will have the written testimony and the offered follow‑up materials available as they decide whether to work the bill further or propose revisions.