Communications Director, Connecticut Hospital Association
110 Barnes Road, Wallingford, CT
rall@chime.org, 203-265-7611
340B Report – Friday, January 24, 2025
By Bella Czajkowski
Connecticut hospitals, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), pharmacies and insurance companies would have to report how much they charge patients for 340B discounted drugs under a bill introduced in the state’s legislature this week.
The legislation, which state Rep. Susan Johnson (D) formally offered on Jan. 22 in the House (H.B. 6097), aims to increase price transparency around 340B discounts and “ensure consumers are getting the benefit of drug discounts and not overpaying or being prematurely enrolled in Medicaid under rules deducting costs spent on prescription drugs from income,” according to the bill’s statement of purpose. H.B. 6097 has been referred to the Joint Committee on Human Services for further review.
Gov. Ned Lamont (D) has previously signaled support for similar 340B reporting bills in past sessions and proposed 340B reporting rules as part of his 2024 state budget. He also introduced a first of its kind three-pronged 340B bill in 2023 that would have required hospital reporting on 340B revenue, prohibited drug maker restrictions on 340B contract pharmacy use and barred pharmacy benefit manager discrimination against 340B entities and pharmacies. That bill was eventually stripped of both the 340B provider reporting and contract pharmacy provisions before it passed in June 2023.
Providers Respond
A Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) spokesperson said the organization appreciates Rep. Johnson’s bill’s intent, but cautioned that it “would add unnecessary burden to 340B covered entities without providing any benefit to patients.”
“Unfortunately, this proposal would result in costly, unnecessary and impractical reporting to the state government,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson noted that 340B program savings support $1.43 billion in unreimbursed care for low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, $270 million in uncompensated care—such as for charity care or bad debt—as well as millions of dollars in hospital community investments across the state each year.
Shawn Frick, CEO of the Community Health Center Association of Connecticut, said health centers appreciate that legislators took notice of 340B and expect additional 340B-related legislation to come out of the state’s Prescription Drug Task Force this session. Health centers are not included in the House bill’s reporting requirements.
“For Community Health Centers, our main goals around 340B are to ensure that our patients continue to have access to low-cost prescription drugs at convenient locations, and to continue to receive the needed funds from this program that help sustain our integrated, high-quality model of care,” he said in a statement.
The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade group, declined to comment on the bill.
Express Scripts and Optum Rx, two large PBMs operating in Connecticut, did not respond to a request for comment. CVS Caremark, another large PBM, referred 340B Report to PCMA for comment.
Past Proposals
Connecticut lawmakers in 2024 introduced legislation that would’ve required annual reporting by 340B providers on their 340B drug savings, including detailed information on their acquisition costs and how much they were paid. The aggregate data would be reported to the state health policy agency for review and to be summarized online.
CHA also opposed that bill, claiming it “seeks costly and impractical reporting on a federally regulated program to the state government by covered entities for no identified public policy purpose.”
Meanwhile, Lamont previously proposed adding reporting requirements for 340B covered entities as part a legislative proposal tied to his Fiscal Year 2025 budget unveiled last February and in another bill introduced in early 2023.
Another bill introduced in 2024 (S.B. 8) included language that would bar drug manufacturers from interfering with the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities and their contract pharmacies in the state. It also would prohibit drugmakers from requiring claims or data submission as a condition for accessing 340B drugs.