Overview
Title
To amend title III of the Social Security Act to ensure the accessibility of drugs furnished under the 340B drug discount program.
ELI5 AI
The bill H.R. 7635 wants to make sure hospitals and clinics can get important medicines at a discount from a special program without companies setting extra rules, helping them take care of more people. If companies break these rules, they might have to pay big fines, so everyone gets the help they need.
Summary AI
The bill, H.R. 7635, aims to ensure that hospitals, clinics, and health centers can access discounted drugs through the 340B drug discount program. It specifies that drug manufacturers must provide these discounts without placing any conditions on how or where the drugs are distributed, including through contracted pharmacies. The bill prohibits manufacturers from restricting the sale or delivery of discounted drugs and imposes penalties for violations, ensuring that health care providers can stretch resources to better serve their communities. Additionally, it seeks to enable covered health entities to contract with pharmacies for dispensing these discounted drugs to help manage specialty medications more effectively.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The proposed legislation, titled "The 340B Pharmaceutical Access To Invest in Essential, Needed Treatments & Support Act of 2024" or simply "The 340B PATIENTS Act of 2024," aims to amend parts of the Social Security Act. Specifically, it focuses on ensuring that discounted drugs provided through the 340B drug discount program are accessible to covered entities like hospitals and clinics, regardless of how or where the drugs are dispensed. It seeks to clarify certain provisions in the Public Health Service Act, preventing drug manufacturers from imposing purchasing conditions on covered entities and allowing these entities to employ contract pharmacies for dispensing.
Significant Issues
Several critical issues accompany this bill. Firstly, the use of complex legal and technical language throughout the document presents a challenge for comprehension among those not versed in legislative jargon, potentially leading to misunderstandings. Secondly, the bill sets a high maximum penalty of $2,000,000 per day for violations by drug manufacturers. Such penalties could be viewed as excessive and may raise concerns about fairness and proportionality.
The provisions related to contract pharmacy agreements grant significant leverage to covered entities without clearly defining the parameters or boundaries of these relationships. This lack of clarity could result in exploitation or difficulties in enforcement. Additionally, the bill mandates that the Secretary issue pertinent regulations within 180 days. This tight deadline could result in rushed regulations that might not be thoroughly vetted.
Furthermore, the legislation does not take into account the potential impacts on smaller drug manufacturers and entities. Without such consideration, there could be unintended financial burdens that affect program participation. Despite these considerations, the bill does not explicitly address the availability of specialty drugs, which raises questions about patient access to vital treatments.
Broader Public Impact
For the general public, this bill could lead to improved access to medications at discounted prices through the 340B program, primarily benefiting those served by hospitals and clinics that participate in the program. This could potentially enhance healthcare services offered to underinsured or lower-income populations across communities, assisting vulnerable groups in accessing much-needed medication.
However, the potential complexities involved in implementing the provisions could lead to confusion and inconsistencies that may indirectly affect patients. Ensuring clear guidelines and smooth implementation will be vital to avoid disruptions or barriers to accessing medications by the intended beneficiaries.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Covered Entities: Hospitals, clinics, and health centers participating in the 340B program stand to benefit significantly from this legislation. The clarifications regarding drug pricing and contract pharmacy use could help them stretch their resources more effectively, potentially reaching more patients and providing comprehensive care.
Drug Manufacturers: On the flip side, drug manufacturers might find the strict penalties worrying. The harsh penalties could potentially discourage their participation or cooperation with the 340B program. Moreover, the lack of clarity regarding conditions around drug dispensing could lead to operational and legal uncertainties for these manufacturers.
Patients: Patients reliant on specialty drugs may encounter challenges, given the current bill's lack of detailed focus on ensuring these drugs' availability under the 340B program. Yet for other groups, improved medication access via simplified procurement processes by covered entities would likely translate into tangible health benefits.
Small Manufacturers: Smaller drug manufacturers could face financial hurdles resulting from compliance with the new regulations, affecting their participation in the program by exacerbating costs or administrative burdens.
In conclusion, while this bill aims for positive reforms in the 340B program, a balanced focus on clear communication, implementation strategies, and impact assessments on all stakeholders will be fundamental to its success.
Financial Assessment
The bill H.R. 7635 seeks to amend the Social Security Act to improve the accessibility of discounted drugs under the 340B drug discount program. This proposed legislation has embedded financial implications primarily associated with the enforcement of the 340B program and the associated penalties for non-compliance.
Financial Penalties
A significant financial reference within the bill is the imposition of civil monetary penalties. The bill proposes fines of up to $2,000,000 per day for drug manufacturers that violate its terms, except in the case of overcharging. This amount highlights the seriousness with which the bill addresses compliance issues. However, one of the identified concerns is that these penalties might be considered excessive and could lead to disproportionate punishment for drug manufacturers. Such heavy fines could potentially discourage manufacturers from participating in the 340B program altogether, especially smaller ones who may find such financial penalties insurmountable.
340B Program Savings
The bill underscores that the 340B program's inflationary penalty provisions have historically saved $7 billion in Medicare Part D spending from 2013 to 2017. This substantial savings record is leveraged to justify the importance of maintaining and enforcing rigorous standards within the program. However, there is an identified issue where the bill does not provide detailed guidance on how smaller drug manufacturers might be affected by the financial burdens imposed by the proposed regulations. Failing to address these concerns could inadvertently lead to reduced participation in the 340B program, ironically undermining the program's very objective of expanding healthcare access.
Costs of Implementation
Another implicit financial reference pertains to the costs associated with implementing the new requirements. The bill mandates the Secretary to promulgate regulations within 180 days, which implies a need for resource allocation to ensure proper drafting and implementation of these regulations. This time frame may be challenging, leading to concerns about the potential for rushed regulatory processes that may lack comprehensive oversight and thoroughness. The costs of enforcing compliance, particularly with the potentially high daily penalties, may also impose financial strains on the system, necessitating thoughtful consideration of the measured appropriations needed for effective implementation.
By addressing these financial aspects, the bill aims to ensure that the benefits of the 340B program—the expansion of healthcare services through cost savings—are fully realized. However, it must also carefully balance the potential financial burdens on manufacturers and covered entities to ensure the program's sustainability and effectiveness.
Issues
The Act uses complex legal and technical language throughout, making it difficult for the general public to understand, particularly in sections detailing amendments to Section 340B. This could lead to misinterpretations of the law's implications. (Section 2, Section 3)
The potential civil monetary penalties for violations are set at a maximum of $2,000,000 per day, which might be considered excessive and could raise concerns about disproportionate punishment for drug manufacturers. (Section 3)
The section addressing contract pharmacy relationships provides covered entities with significant leverage but does not clearly define boundaries for these relationships. This could lead to ambiguities in enforcement and potential exploitation of the system. (Section 2)
The Act requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations within 180 days, which might lead to rushed regulatory drafting that could lack thorough oversight and thoroughness. (Section 3)
The Act does not address the impact of these regulations on small drug manufacturers and covered entities, potentially leading to unintended financial burdens that could affect their participation in the 340B program. (Section 3)
Specialty drugs, critical for treating serious conditions, are often only available through specific pharmacies, yet the Act does not clearly define what constitutes reasonable access to these drugs under the 340B program, which could leave gaps in patient care. (Section 2)
While the Act clarifies the prohibition on drug manufacturers placing conditions on 340B pricing, it lacks clear definitions for what qualifies as a 'condition,' leaving room for varied interpretations and enforcement challenges. (Section 2)
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 states that the official name of the legislation is "The 340B Pharmaceutical Access To Invest in Essential, Needed Treatments & Support Act of 2024," or simply "The 340B PATIENTS Act of 2024."
2. Findings and purposes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the 340B program helps covered entities like hospitals and clinics provide more services to patients by requiring drug manufacturers to sell drugs at discounted prices, and emphasizes that manufacturers must offer these discounts regardless of how or where the drugs are dispensed. The act aims to clarify that covered entities can contract with pharmacies to dispense these discounted drugs, ensuring they can save resources and better serve their communities.
Money References
- (8) Section 340B’s inflationary penalty provisions, which have saved $7 billion in Medicare Part D spending between 2013 and 2017, have a proven record of reducing drug price increases, and use of 340B in contract pharmacies contributes to these savings.
3. Ensuring the accessibility of drugs furnished under the 340B drug discount program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Public Health Service Act to ensure that drug manufacturers cannot impose conditions on 340B-covered entities' ability to buy discounted drugs, regardless of how or where the drugs are dispensed, and applies these rules to contract pharmacies. It also introduces penalties for manufacturers who violate these rules, with regulations to be established by the Secretary to enforce compliance.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 340B(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)— (A) by striking “that the manufacturer furnish” and inserting the following: “that— “(A) the manufacturer furnish”; (B) by striking “‘ceiling price’), and” and inserting “‘ceiling price’);”; (C) by striking “shall require that the manufacturer offer” and inserting the following: “(B) the manufacturer offer”; and (D) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: “, regardless of the manner or location in which the drug is dispensed; and “(C) the manufacturer not place conditions on the ability of a covered entity to purchase and use a covered outpatient drug at or below the applicable ceiling price, regardless of the manner or location in which the drug is dispensed, including but not limited to placing limits on the delivery of drugs, placing limits on the mechanisms through which drugs may be purchased, placing limits on where such drugs may be delivered, administered, or dispensed, requiring a covered entity’s assurance of compliance with requirements under this section, or requiring the submission of claims data or other information, except that, notwithstanding this subparagraph, the manufacturer may impose such conditions after receiving advance approval from the Secretary (or, with respect to conditions specified by the Secretary, without such advance approval) if such conditions would not discourage covered entities from purchasing the manufacturer’s drugs through the drug discount program under this section or otherwise undermine the objective of this section, either by singling out covered entities from other customers for such conditions or by imposing conditions that disproportionately impact covered entities.”; and (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “(11) CONTRACT PHARMACIES.—The requirements and prohibitions under subsection (a)(1) shall apply, in the case of a covered entity that elects to contract with one or more pharmacies to dispense covered outpatient drugs purchased by a covered entity at or below the applicable ceiling price described in paragraph (1), to patients of the covered entity.”. (b) Manufacturer compliance.—Section 340B(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(vi), by inserting “in the case of an overcharge” after “penalties”; (2) in paragraph (1)(B), by adding at the end the following: “(vii) The imposition of sanctions in the form of civil monetary penalties in the case of a violation of subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(11), other than an overcharge, which— “(I) shall be assessed according to standards established in regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary not later than 180 days after the date of enactment; “(II) shall apply to any manufacturer with an agreement under this section that knowingly and intentionally violates a requirement under subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(11), other than an overcharge; “(III) shall not exceed $2,000,000 for each day of such violation; “(IV) shall be determined by the Secretary, taking into account factors such as the nature and extent of the violation and harm resulting from such violation, including, where applicable, the number of drugs affected and the number of covered entities affected; and “(V) shall continue to be imposed each day until such manufacturer is no longer in violation of a requirement under subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(11), other than an overcharge.”; and (3) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following: “(D) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to permit covered entities to assert claims of violations of subsection (a)(1) and subsection (a)(11) under the process promulgated under subparagraph (A).”. ---