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

UPDATE - Vaccine Policy Considerations for Employers

January 4, 2021If you read our post from November, you’re already an informed employer. This first post of 2021 is to share good news, give a few updates, and answer some other common questions. Q: What’s the Good News? First, the EEOC confirmed that employers may require employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Second, polling indicates that the number of Americans who said they will receive a vaccine has increased from around 63% to over 71%. The number of Americans who are strongly opposed to a vaccine is about 27%. Third, initial returns show that the efficacy rate for certain vaccines is as high as 95% for some at-risk recipients.Client Alert

Changes to FFCRA Paid Leave: Congress’ Revisions to Employment COVID-19 Leave Benefits Signals the Light is at the End of the Tunnel

December 28, 2020Late in the evening on December 27th, President Trump signed into law the government’s $900 billion COVID-19 relief package (the “Stimulus Bill”). Among other economic stimulus benefits, the Stimulus Bill contains the $600 stimulus checks that will be issued to eligible individuals as well as, relevantly, changes to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The FFCRA was implemented in April 2020 and provided benefits to individuals who missed work as a result of an actual or suspected COVID-19 illness or to care for a child when their school or childcare service was closed because of COVID-19. Importantly, the Stimulus Bill extends eligibility for employer payroll tax refunds for leave payments made to employees on or before March 31, 2021 under the FFCRA, signaling to the American people that Congress believes many of the employed public will be vaccinated by this time, the light at the end of the tunnel. However, the Stimulus Bill does contain a caveat that employers are no longer required to provide FFCRA leave benefits after December 31, 2020, but if they do, they will receive the payroll tax credits, up to the maximums provided in the FFCRA, for payments made prior to April 1, 2021. Below we provide a list of questions and answers we received to date following the passage of the Stimulus Bill. We expect the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) to issue additional questions and answers as the Stimulus Bill is implemented, and we will update this Client Alert as these are received.Client Alert

Healthcare Speaker Programs: New OIG Alert

December 11, 2020In a rare Special Fraud Alert issued on November 16, 2020 (the “Alert”), the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) urged companies who host speaker programs to reassess their programs in light of the “inherent risks” associated with these activities. The Alert reports that, in the last three years, drug and device companies have reported paying nearly $2 billion to health care professionals for speaker-related services.Client Alert

Value-Based Care Advances – CMS Issues New Final Rules for Stark and Anti-Kickback Statutes

December 11, 2020The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) issued two highly anticipated (and quite extensive) Final Rules to reform the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) regulations. The Final Rules generally take effect on January 19, 2021. The Final Rules include new safe harbors for the AKS and new exemptions to the Stark Law to allow for greater flexibility. According to the HHS, the goal of updating both laws is to make it easier for providers to engage in care coordination and value-based care programs without running afoul of the statutes. Please note that this client alert could not cover the full extent of the Final Rule changes so please contact your BMD Healthcare attorney with questions.Client Alert

Mandatory Filings Under CFIUS New Rules

December 11, 2020On September 15, 2020, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) promulgated a final rule modifying its mandatory declaration requirements for certain foreign investment transactions involving “TID US businesses” (sensitive U.S. businesses dealing in critical technologies, critical infrastructure and sensitive personal data) dealing in “critical technologies” – i.e., U.S. businesses that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies. The new rule also makes amendments to the definition of the term “substantial interest” (used to determine whether a foreign government has a substantial interest in an entity). The final rule became effective on October 15, 2020.
Older posts
Newer posts