Overview
Title
To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to include rural emergency hospitals in the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the 340B drug discount program.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 44 wants to help small hospitals in rural areas by letting them buy medicines at lower prices. This would make it easier for them to help people who don't have a lot of money.
Summary AI
H.R. 44, introduced in the House of Representatives, aims to modify the Public Health Service Act by expanding the definition of "covered entities" within the 340B drug discount program to include rural emergency hospitals. This change is intended to allow these hospitals to access discounted prescription drugs, enabling them to better serve low-income patients. Moreover, the bill specifies that these hospitals can be government-owned or operated, or can be private non-profit hospitals with government contracts to provide healthcare to underserved populations. The Act is known as the “Rural 340B Access Act of 2025.”
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
H.R. 44 is a legislative proposal introduced in the 119th Congress concerning the Public Health Service Act, aiming to expand access to a federal drug discount program for certain healthcare providers. Specifically, the bill seeks to include rural emergency hospitals in the definition of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program. This program allows eligible healthcare organizations to purchase medications at reduced prices, thus helping them provide more affordable care to their patients.
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Rural 340B Access Act of 2025," proposes an amendment to the existing Public Health Service Act. It aims to extend eligibility for the 340B program to rural emergency hospitals that are either government-operated or have formal agreements to serve low-income populations. This inclusion is intended to support hospitals in rural areas by enabling them to reduce medication expenses, thereby potentially expanding their capacity to serve patients with limited financial resources.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several notable concerns arise with the proposed amendment:
Eligibility Criteria: The criteria for a rural emergency hospital to qualify for the 340B program, as outlined in the bill, may inadvertently favor institutions with pre-existing government contracts. This could result in an uneven playing field where hospitals without such agreements might struggle to participate.
Lack of Clarity: The bill does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes "governmental powers" that can be granted to non-profit corporations, nor does it detail the nature of the contracts required between private non-profit hospitals and government entities. This vagueness may lead to inconsistent implementation across different jurisdictions.
Financial Implications: Expanding the 340B program to include these additional facilities potentially raises concerns regarding the program's financial sustainability. There is no current assessment of the additional costs or impact this expansion may have on the program's existing resources.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The proposed expansion could have various effects on both the general public and specific stakeholders:
Broad Public Impact: On a wide scale, adding rural emergency hospitals to the 340B program aims to improve healthcare access in underserved areas by lowering drug costs and enhancing the financial viability of rural hospitals to provide services. This could lead to improved health outcomes and greater healthcare equity for rural populations.
Stakeholder-Specific Impact: For rural emergency hospitals, this bill could provide significant financial relief and support their mission to serve low-income patients more effectively. However, healthcare entities not included in the 340B expansion might face a disadvantage, as the bill appears to confer benefits mainly on hospitals with governmental affiliations or contracts.
In summary, H.R. 44 addresses critical access issues for rural healthcare providers by proposing an inclusion in the 340B program, yet it poses potential challenges regarding implementation fairness and resource allocation. The bill's ultimate impact will depend on how these issues are navigated and resolved during its consideration in Congress.
Issues
The criteria for a rural emergency hospital to qualify as a covered entity under the 340B program could result in an unfair advantage for institutions with existing government contracts (Section 2). This potentially limits access for other healthcare entities and raises concerns about equitable treatment.
The bill lacks a clear definition of the governmental powers and contractual arrangements between private non-profit rural emergency hospitals and state or local governments (Section 2). This ambiguity might lead to inconsistent implementation and could create legal challenges.
There might be financial implications related to expanding the 340B drug discount program to include rural emergency hospitals (Section 2). The costs and potential burden on the program have not been clearly addressed, raising concerns about the sustainability of funding for this expansion.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill simply gives the official name of the legislation, which is the “Rural 340B Access Act of 2025”.
2. Including rural emergency hospitals as covered entities for purposes of the 340B drug discount program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section adds rural emergency hospitals to the list of entities eligible for the 340B drug discount program under the Public Health Service Act if they are owned or operated by government units, are non-profit corporations with governmental powers, or privately contracted to provide healthcare to low-income individuals without certain federal health benefits.