From Crisis to Action: States Lead the Charge to Defend 340B
- McKaylin Felton
- Apr 2
- 2 min read
Since late 2020, the 340B Drug Pricing Program has faced increasing challenges—particularly for covered entities relying on contract pharmacies. In response, states are stepping in to safeguard and regulate the program, which requires drug manufacturers to offer discounted medications to safety-net hospitals and clinics serving low-income populations.
In 2025, several states introduced or passed legislation aimed at countering pharmaceutical restrictions and increasing transparency to help hospitals continue supporting underserved communities.
In Utah, Representative Steve Eliason championed a bill empowering the state to manage drug distribution, directly pushing back against manufacturer-imposed limits. Eliason stressed that such restrictions threaten hospitals’ ability to provide nearly $1 billion in annual charity care across the state.
Colorado passed Senate Bill 71, prohibiting drugmakers from restricting the use of contract pharmacies. The law ensures patients can fill prescriptions more conveniently while allowing hospitals to retain vital 340B savings.
Arkansas and Nebraska are also pursuing similar legislation to combat pharmaceutical restrictions and promote accountability in the use of 340B funds.
Maine introduced a bill to prevent drugmakers from curbing access to discounts and to require more transparency in how hospitals spend 340B savings.
In Idaho, lawmakers proposed a bill mandating that all state 340B providers report detailed financial data to ensure the program’s benefits are properly used. However, this bill does not touch on protecting the contract pharmacy side of the manufacturer restrictions.
Meanwhile, Michigan Senate Democrats reintroduced contract pharmacy access bills (SB 94 and SB 95) after prior legislative delays. The proposals have sparked divided opinions in Senate Oversight Committee hearings.
These state-level initiatives underscore growing recognition of the 340B program’s role in expanding healthcare access for vulnerable populations—while also fueling ongoing debates about oversight, transparency, and the balance of power between drug manufacturers and public health systems.