Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

HHS Issues Opinion Regarding Illegal Attempts by Drug Manufacturers to Deny 340B Discounts under Contract Pharmacy Arrangements

Client Alert

The federal 340B discount drug program is a safety net for many federally qualified health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, and other covered entities. This program allows these providers to obtain discount pricing on drugs which in turn allows the providers to better serve their patient populations and provide their patients with access to vital health care services. Over the years, the 340B program has faced intense scrutiny, particularly by drug manufacturers who are required by federal law to provide the discounted pricing.

Ongoing struggles between covered entities and drug manufacturers continued in 2020 when six manufacturers unilaterally decided to deny 340B discount drug pricing to covered entities utilizing contract pharmacy arrangements. This led to lawsuits filed by the American Hospital Association and a national network of HIV/AIDS clinics in the Fall of 2020. The battle between the covered entities and drug manufacturers took a unique twist on December 30, 2020 when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued Advisory Opinion 20-06, which instructed that drug manufacturers were not legally permitted to deny the discounted 340B pricing to contract pharmacy arrangements. 

The HHS Advisory Opinion made three key conclusions:

  1. The plain language of the 340B Statute requires manufacturers to provide the 340B discounted pricing to covered entities independent of whether the covered entity chooses to utilize a third-party contract pharmacy to dispense the drugs.
  1. The purpose and history of the 340B program indicate that contract pharmacies have always been an integral part of the 340B program and HHS’s longstanding interpretation of the 340B statute and regulations has recognized the legitimate use of contract pharmacies.
  1. Manufacturers are inappropriately attempting to circumvent the 340B program’s standing procedures for resolving disputes between manufacturers and covered entities by unilaterally excluding contract pharmacy arrangements from their 340B discount drug pricing.

While the HHS Advisory Opinion does not have the binding effect of law, it should be noted that HHS, through its Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), oversees the 340B program. Only time will tell if the Advisory Opinion will persuade drug manufacturers to resume 340B pricing to covered entities utilizing contract pharmacy relationships. Stay tuned for future developments.

If you are interested in learning more about the 340B discount drug program or collaborative strategies to enhance patient care opportunities for 340B covered entities, please contact BMD Healthcare and Hospital Law Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or any member of the BMD Healthcare and Hospital Law group

For an update on actions the state of Ohio is taking to reduce predatory practices of PBMs, see BMD Healthcare and Hospital Law Member Daphne Kackloudis' article, SB 263 Protects 340B Covered Entities from Predatory Practices in Ohio.


New Ohio Recovery Housing Rules Take Effect January 1, 2025

Ohio’s new recovery housing rules, effective January 1, 2025, require certified community behavioral health providers to refer clients only to accredited recovery housing residences listed on the statewide registry.

SCOTUS to Weigh In on Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Right to Choose their Provider

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring on whether Medicaid beneficiaries have an enforceable right to choose their healthcare providers without state interference, as outlined in Section 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act. This case stems from a South Carolina petition challenging a Fourth Circuit ruling that blocked the state from terminating Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid provider agreement.

I Went to Bed and the Rules Changed: the Corporate Transparency Act is Back on Hold

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered on December 26, 2024 that in an effort to “preserve the constitutional status quo” while it considered the Federal Government’s appeal, it vacated the prior order for a stay of the nationwide injunction pending appeal entered on December 23, 2024, and reinstated the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CTA and its corresponding Reporting Rule.

Telemedicine Flexibilities Extended to March 31, 2025

The American Relief Act of 2025 extends key telehealth flexibilities through March 31, 2025, originally enacted during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE). These flexibilities remove geographic and originating site restrictions for Medicare patients, expand the list of qualified practitioners, and allow for audio-only services and telehealth mental health care without in-person requirements. Although this extension is temporary, it provides continued access to essential healthcare services. Congress will need to pass permanent legislation to solidify these changes beyond March 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Is Back in Effect: Are You Ready?

On December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the filing requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), overturning a prior injunction. Businesses now have updated deadlines to file initial beneficial ownership information reports with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), based on their registration date. Affected companies must comply with these new deadlines, which vary depending on when the company was created or registered.