pills As Prescribed

YOUR GO-TO SOURCE FOR ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AFFECTING THE PHARMA & BIOTECH SECTORS

The 340B Drug Pricing Program (the Program) has long been a cornerstone for healthcare providers seeking to deliver affordable care to underserved communities. However, as the regulatory and compliance landscape evolves, stakeholders—including covered entities, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and pharmacies—must navigate an increasingly complex array of legal requirements and enforcement trends.

This blog post provides a comprehensive update on legislative developments, legal disputes, and emerging compliance issues within the Program.

Legislative Updates

The Program’s legal framework continues to evolve as states address pressing concerns surrounding contract pharmacy access, transparency, and distribution practices through legislation. Recent updates include efforts to protect contract pharmacy arrangements, impose revenue disclosure requirements, and restrict manufacturer use of limited distribution networks.

These legislative initiatives highlight the tension between pharmaceutical manufacturers, covered entities, and pharmacies, each seeking to balance program integrity with equitable access to drugs.

State Pharmacy Access Laws

In recent years, participating manufacturers have attempted to limit contract pharmacies’ access to 340B drugs in response to the operational challenges posed by the Program’s rapid expansion and concerns about equitable access to 340B drugs. Such restrictions have included limiting the number of contract pharmacies per 340B-covered entity or restricting access to only those contract pharmacies within a certain geographic radius of the covered entity. However, such restrictions were met with litigation from 340B providers contesting that the restrictions were violative of the manufacturers’ statutory duty to offer 340B-covered drugs without restriction.

Simultaneously, states have enacted legislation to prohibit manufacturers from restricting access to 340B drugs when dispensed through contract pharmacies. For example, Arkansas’ statute states that a pharmaceutical manufacturer cannot (1) prohibit a pharmacy from contracting or participating with an entity authorized to participate in 340B drug pricing by denying access to drugs that are manufactured by the pharmaceutical manufacturer or (2) deny or prohibit 340B drug pricing for an Arkansas-based community pharmacy that receives drugs purchased under a 340B drug pricing contract pharmacy arrangement with an entity authorized to participate in 340B drug pricing.

Similar statutes have been enacted in Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, and West Virginia, with more than a dozen related bills currently pending in additional state legislatures.

These legislative efforts highlight a growing trend among states to safeguard the operational viability of covered entities while challenging practices perceived as limiting access to the Program’s benefits.

Covered Entity Revenue Disclosure Requirements

Another area of significant legislative focus has been transparency around a covered entity’s use of 340B savings. Some states have proposed or enacted laws requiring hospitals and other covered entities to disclose revenue generated through the Program and how those funds are utilized to further support patient care.

For instance, Colorado recently enacted legislation that requires hospitals participating in the Program to report detailed revenue figures and demonstrate how Program savings benefit underserved patients. While manufacturers have argued that such transparency measures are necessary to curb what they perceive as abuses of the Program, critics, including participating hospitals, counter that these requirements add administrative burdens.

Limited Distribution Networks

The emergence of limited contract pharmacy distribution networks has become another significant point of contention within the Program. These networks restrict which contract pharmacies are authorized to dispense 340B-priced medications on behalf of covered entities, effectively narrowing patient access to discounted drugs.

A recently enacted law in Arkansas—which specifically prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from implementing limited contract pharmacy distribution networks for 340B drugs—has prompted ongoing litigation challenging its constitutionality. While manufacturers argue that these laws unlawfully restrict their ability to manage distribution channels and that federal law preempts such state interference, covered entities and state regulators maintain that these laws are necessary to protect patient access, prevent discriminatory practices by manufacturers, and preserve the integrity of the Program by ensuring contract pharmacies can fully participate.

Pursuant to a 2024 opinion issued by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, use of limited contract pharmacy distribution networks is considered permissible under the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)’s Program guidance. Specifically, the DC Circuit pushed back against HRSA’s interpretation, finding that the Program does not categorically prohibit manufacturers from limiting the distribution of discounted drugs by contract.

Instead, the Circuit Court construed HRSA’s guidance to permit manufacturers to insist on at least some reasonable conditions, which in this case included allowing only limited distribution to specialty pharmacies because the covered drugs required an “unusual degree of instruction and support.”

As of June 2025, no other federal appellate court has opined on the permissibility of limited distribution models, nor have HRSA or the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued updated guidance on this matter. Accordingly, the DC Circuit Court’s favorable opinion on limited distribution models remains the most current interpretation of these models. Stakeholders involved in the Program should closely follow these developments, given the possibility that subsequent litigation could lead to a circuit split over the permissibility of this model.

Manufacturer Proposed Rebate/Credit Rebate Models and Ongoing HRSA Litigation

To guard against duplicate discounts (which occur when both a 340B discount and a Medicaid rebate are applied to the same drug), 340B-covered entities are required to determine whether a drug is eligible for 340B pricing at the time of sale. However, participating manufacturers have contested that this process is too opaque to satisfy statutory obligations for deduplication, namely due to a lack of claims-level data sharing from covered entities back to the manufacturer.

Without this data sharing, manufacturers assert that they face challenges determining whether a Medicaid rebate is being paid on drugs dispensed at the 340B price or whether 340B-priced drugs are being dispensed to eligible patients of the covered entity. To address manufacturer concerns over the limitations on data sharing, among other compliance concerns, manufacturers proposed implementation of rebate/credit rebate models as opposed to the current upfront discount model.

Under the rebate model, manufacturers proposed to provide covered entities with rebates as opposed to upfront discounts. Specifically, the rebate model would function such that covered entities would purchase a 340B drug at full price and subsequently receive rebates equal to the value of the 340B discount following the submission of documentation and/or data as required by the manufacturer to validate the 340B claim as eligible for the 340B discount. According to the manufacturers proposing these models, this approach would enhance the transparency and integrity of the Program, ensure that the 340B discounts benefit the intended patient populations, and prevent duplicate discounts.

However, to quell adoption of this rebate model, HRSA began issuing warning letters to manufacturers, calling for immediate cessation of the model’s implementation and, in some instances, threatening sanctions. Specifically, HRSA asserted that the rebate models violate the 340B statute, which HRSA interprets as requiring the manufacturer to provide discounts at the time of purchase, not as post-purchase rebates contingent upon the submission of additional information and documentation.

In response to HRSA’s opposition and threats of sanctions, several manufacturers have filed suit against HRSA in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. These lawsuits question HRSA’s inherent authority within the Program and present a combination of arguments, including that (1) the 340B statute permits rebate models (as opposed to an upfront discount), (2) HRSA’s rejection of the rebate models is an APA violation, (3) the rebate model increases program integrity and prevents abuse, (4) the rebate models help to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, (5) the rebate models prevent duplicate discounts, and (6) the rebate models are similar to other models allowed by HRSA.

Ultimately siding with HHS, the DC District Court recently granted, in part, the government's cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the plaintiffs' claims (except in the case of Sanofi-Aventis). Notably, the court’s treatment of Sanofi’s rebate model differed from the others due to nuances in how Sanofi structured its model, and how HRSA addressed it. The court found that unlike the other manufacturers, HRSA’s rejection of Sanofi’s rebate model did not thoroughly address several critical statutory questions raised by Sanofi. The court therefore found that HRSA’s analysis was incomplete and remanded the matter for further review.

This recent decision confirmed the need for HRSA to review and approve a manufacturer’s rebate model, emphasizing that the lack of upfront discounts could conflict with the Program’s statutory requirements. For covered entities, this decision underscores the importance of closely monitoring developments, as future rulings may directly impact their ability to secure 340B-priced drugs. And for manufacturers, the ruling presents a challenge to their efforts to restructure pricing mechanisms, potentially setting the stage for broader regulatory scrutiny and legal disputes by and against HRSA.

Conclusion

The Program remains a vital tool for expanding access to affordable drugs, but its regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly more complex. By staying abreast of legislative developments, enforcement trends, and emerging disputes, stakeholders can better navigate these challenges and maximize the Program’s benefits.

How We Can Help

Drawing on our experience in navigating the complexities of the Program, our team is prepared to provide strategic advice and solutions to help stakeholders achieve compliance and optimize their Program participation.

Rare Disease Day
In honor of Rare Disease Day on February 28, 2025, we will publish a series of posts throughout the month on As Prescribed and Health Law Scan, focusing on issues impacting the rare disease community.
#JPMHC25
Several members of our firm’s life sciences team were on the ground at the 43rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco from January 13 to 16, 2025.  It was an exciting and sunny four days, during which key players from across the life sciences industry gathered to engage in deal discussions and consider upcoming trends for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and healthcare industries. Although there was a notable increase in the level of security at the conference given recent events, the overall sentiment of the conference was one of optimism.
The life sciences industry has long been at the forefront of innovation, and 2025 promises to continue this trajectory with exciting developments in intellectual property (IP), licensing, and mergers and acquisitions (M&A). As the sector navigates a dynamic landscape of scientific advancements, economic pressures, and regulatory changes, stakeholders are increasingly leveraging strategic transactions to gain a competitive edge.
Recognizing the importance of diversity and inclusivity in clinical trials, drug development, and regulatory decision-making, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) in connection with the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, requiring sponsors of certain clinical studies of drugs, biological products, and medical devices to submit Diversity Action Plans to the FDA (FDCA Sections 505(z) and 520(g)(9)).
FDA recently issued a revised draft guidance titled Promotional Labeling and Advertising Considerations for Prescription Biological Reference Products, Biosimilar Products, and Interchangeable Biosimilar Products. This guidance provides specific recommendations for all three classes of products—biologics approved under 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and biosimilar products and interchangeable biosimilar products approved under 351(k) of the PHS Act—with respect to meeting FDA’s general accuracy and truthful and non-misleading standards that are applied to advertising and promotion of prescription drug products generally.
It is hard to believe that we are already in February and it has been a month since the 42nd Annual JP Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco wrapped. It was a packed four days in which the major players in the life sciences industry gathered to make deals, form relationships, and discuss upcoming trends for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.
The ball has dropped on the healthcare and life sciences industry’s unique New Year tradition, the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, so all eyes turn to 2024. To help define a path forward, Morgan Lewis FDA and healthcare partners Jacqueline Berman, Rebecca Dandeker, Maarika Kimbrell, and Kathleen Sanzo have assembled an in-depth report on drug and biologic developments at the FDA.
Substantial evidence, the evidentiary standard for effectiveness established in 1962 by the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), is the measure against which all drugs and biologics are approved in the United States. This standard is, in large part, what makes the FDA’s approval standard often considered the worldwide “gold standard” for drug approvals. Now, recent draft guidance issued by FDA looks to refine this standard even further.
President Joseph Biden issued an “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy” (EO) on September 12. Under this EO, the president aims to “advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security” through a multipronged and collaborative approach.