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
January 14, 2021

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.

Health LawHealthcareBMD Healthcare & Hospital LawJeana Singleton340BPharmacists
Client Alert

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

May 4, 2022At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.Client Alert

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

May 3, 2022On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.Client Alert

Property Owner Protection from Tax Valuation Challenges

April 29, 2022New legislation provides significant new protections for commercial property owners against challenges to valuation primarily by local school boards and prohibiting side agreements to avoid tax valuation changes. The Ohio Legislature has approved House Bill 126 which will go into effect July 2022 but will effectively apply to the 2023 tax valuation year.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Update: The IDR Portal is Open

April 25, 2022The No Surprises Act (“NSA”) became effective January 1, 2022, and has been the subject of lawsuits and criticisms since its inception. The goals of the No Surprises Act are to shield patients from surprise medical bills, provide to uninsured and self-pay patients good faith estimates of charges, and create a process to resolve payment disputes over surprise bills, which arise most typically in emergency care settings. We have written about Part I and Part II of the NSA previously. This update concerns the Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) procedure created by Part II but applicable to claims covered by Part I. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) finally opened the Portal for providers to submit disputes to the IDR process following some updated guidance regarding the arbitration process itself.Client Alert

Updated FAQs for the No Surprises Act - Good Faith Estimates

April 7, 2022The No Surprises Act (“NSA”) became effective January 1, 2022. Meant to protect consumers from surprise medical bills, the new law is good for consumers, but vexatious for health care providers and facilities. One particular source of frustration is the operationalization of the Good Faith Estimate (“GFE”) requirement, governed by Part II of the regulations that implement the NSA. The GFE requirements apply broadly to all healthcare providers and facilities that practice within the scope of their state-issued license.
Older posts
Newer posts