Sponsored by Senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) Specification This will prevent pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from discriminating against entities covered by 340B, which are legally required to provide discount prescription drugs.
The Senate Health Committee recently resolved to move the bill closer to a full Senate vote, but pharmaceutical companies expressed concern about the bill at hearings, and the bill did not match the original requirements of the program and was unfair. Imposing what they consider to be reasonable price constraints, saying they are limiting capacity.
Get the latest state-specific policy intelligence for the healthcare sector delivered to your inbox.
Established in 1992 by the Public Health Service Act 340B program Allows targeted healthcare facilities that serve low-income patients to purchase certain outpatient prescription drugs from manufacturers at low cost. Manufacturers have contracted with the federal government to dispense discounted medicines to these facilities in exchange for payments from Medicaid and Medicare.
Target entities must use programmatic cost savings to invest in the capacity of the facility to care for their patients. These facilities are “important” to safety net providers, as Medicaid’s reimbursement for operating costs is not well guaranteed, Pan said.
“This is a long-standing program … to ensure that patients continue to receive the services they need, which is often not explicitly funded by other means. [It’s] Efforts to ensure that these services provided by safety net providers are not disconnected, “Pan said in a hearing.
Pan has more than 15 other states enforcing similar legislation to protect entities covered by 340B, and more than 12 other states.-include Colorado— —We are also considering a law to do so.
Nicole Thibeau, director of pharmacy services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, explained some of the PBM contract practices she says are discriminating against the entities covered by the 340B.
“The biggest challenge our pharmacies are facing today is not a pandemic, but a barrage of attacks by PBMs and pharmaceutical companies,” Thibeau testified.
She explained that many PBMS and manufacturers “force” pharmacies to contract 340B-specific contracts, reducing drug refunds.These contractsShe said the pharmacy had no means of disagreeing, but she said the patient’s safety was at stake because she required the facility to use only mail-order pharmacies.
“This detracts from the 340B program, removes money from the safety net and fills the pockets of profitable businesses,” she said.
many The 340B entity has a contract with a nearby pharmacy to expand its service area or because it does not have an in-house pharmacy. Current law does not require these contract pharmacies to have a 340B pricing requirement. The manufacturer argues that the 340B pricing requirement should not apply to pharmacies contracted by the 340B entity.But only to the entity itself.
“Mandating [that] Manufacturers ship 340B medicines to contract pharmacies at a price of 340B, benefiting contract pharmacies— —Thousands of them are outside CaliforniaIn testimony against the bill, PhRMA spokesman Asher Lisec said.
Lisec states that imposing these requirements can prevent manufacturers from imposing “reasonable restrictions” on the sale of medicines, and the 340B program applies to pharmacies contracted with 340B facilities. He said he did not legally require pricing for the program.
This position reflects the feelings of the plaintiff, the pharmaceutical company. Proceedings in progress To the federal government, which claims that the Department of Health Resources cannot require manufacturers to offer contract pharmacies a discount of 340B.
Bill Head, who represents the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a national PBM industry group, also testified against PBM on behalf of him. According to him, the bill’s provisions to prevent the plan and PBM from requiring pharmacies to disclose which drug is the 340B drug do not allow manufacturers to track the dispensing of the 340B drug. It is prohibited as necessary. This hinders the manufacturer’s ability to ensure that pharmacies do not improperly dispense 340B medicines to patients not covered by the program, he said.
Head quoted 2020 Memorial Health Village The medical system was fined for overcharging Medi-Cal for 340B drug purchases.
The bill will pass the committee with 9-1 votes and will soon receive votes from all Senators.
