Committee advances bill aimed at protecting safety‑net providers’ access to 340B savings after extended debate
Loading...
Summary
A committee presenter argued the bill would prevent manufacturers and PBMs from blocking federally authorized 340B discounts for safety‑net providers; members pressed for guardrails and transparency. The measure was moved to the Senate floor after discussion and requests for stakeholder input.
A presenter for S1913 told the Senate Finance Committee that the bill would bar pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), outsourcing facilities and third‑party logistics providers from restricting dispensing by covered entities and New York pharmacies participating in the federal 340B drug‑discount program. The presenter said the program is designed to let qualifying institutions purchase drugs at reduced prices and reinvest savings into community services.
The committee’s exchange centered on two questions: whether the 340B program’s savings flow to patients or only to institutions, and what oversight or guardrails should accompany any state action. A questioner asked, “Can you give us a brief explanation of the bill and who what it does in terms of the rebates from the pharmacies from the drug manufacturers.” The presenter responded: “The discount does not go to the consumer. The discount goes to the entity,” adding that federally qualified health centers and safety‑net hospitals use those savings to fund services for their patients.
Committee members pressed for proof that the program is being misused and for mechanisms to ensure funds are reinvested in community care. One member asked whether the legislation included audit or accountability language; the presenter said it did not but welcomed stakeholder collaboration: “If folks want to come to us in good faith and say, let’s actually put language here ... that the institutions that might be taking advantage of it and not using it correctly shouldn’t benefit from the program, I got no problem with that.”
The presenter cited figures to underscore the bill sponsor’s case, saying “I think the estimate last year was about $8,080,000,000” when describing broader program impacts and later noting that some providers “lost $80,000,000” last year because of changes imposed by manufacturers and intermediaries. Several members urged clearer guardrails and suggested the committee request pro and con memos from lobbyists and stakeholders before floor action.
After extended questioning and debate, Chair Liz Krueger moved S1913 and members voted to send the measure to the Senate floor for further consideration. The committee asked that central staff receive competing memoranda so all members can review arguments pro and con before the bill reaches full Senate debate.
