Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ensuring Fair Access: SB 269 Protects Affordable Medication for Low-Income Patients

Client Alert

Senate Bill 269 (SB 269), introduced on May 14, 2024, will ensure that 340B covered entities, including Federally Qualified Health Centers, Ryan White Clinics, disproportionate share hospitals, and Title X clinics, can acquire 340B drugs without facing undue restrictions or discriminatory practices from drug manufacturers and distributors. This protection is crucial for 340B covered entities to continue to provide affordable medications and comprehensive services to low-income patients.

What is the Federal 340B Drug Pricing Program?
Under the 340B Program, Federal law permits covered entities to buy outpatient prescription drugs from drug manufacturers at a discount. In exchange for committing to serve historically marginalized and underserved patients, payors reimburse covered entities at retail rates, allowing the covered entity to realize a savings. Covered entities reinvest that savings into their services and programs; the savings covered entities achieve through the 340B Program helps them stretch scarce federal resources. Without the 340B Program, covered entities will not be able to provide care to vulnerable populations.

What Does SB 269 Do?
Prohibits Restrictive Practices: SB 269 prohibits drug manufacturers, re-packagers, third-party logistics providers, and wholesale distributors (and their agents or affiliates) from denying, prohibiting, restricting, discriminating against, or otherwise limiting the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities, unless required by Federal law. The law would prohibit drug manufacturers and others from limiting covered entities’ use of contract pharmacies, a practice that interferes with the ability of patients who rely on covered entities to access needed health care services and affordable prescription drugs. Under the bill, these parties also cannot require 340B covered entities to submit claims or utilization data as a condition for acquiring or delivering 340B drugs, unless such data sharing is mandated by Federal law.

Enforcement and Penalties: Under the bill, violations of these provisions may result in a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation, as well as referral to the Ohio Board of Pharmacy for further action.

Please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com with any questions about SB 269 or the 340B drug pricing program, or to weigh in with your lawmaker about the bill.


"Alien Land Law" Restricts Foreign Ownership of Real Property in Florida

You can now enter into a Postnuptial Agreement in Ohio!

Ohio's 2024-2025 Fiscal Budget - Behavioral Health Updates

Ohio’s 2024-2025 State Budget was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on July 3, 2023. Behavioral health is an area that Governor DeWine expressed great interest in supporting and the final version of the Budget does reflect some of those initiatives. The Budget prioritizes growing the behavioral health workforce and increasing research and innovation by building community capacity for care that offers better crisis response services and treatment, increased prevention efforts, and increased provision of residential and outpatient services. Outlined below are notable Budget items geared toward achieving growth and improvement in the behavioral health field as well as some key items that were rejected by Governor DeWine’s veto.

ChatGPT for Legal Research

How trustworthy and beneficial is ChatGPT for legal research? What are the benefits and drawbacks of using this tool in the legal system.

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Legally Decline Employees’ Religious Accommodation Requests

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) employers must show, in order to decline religious accommodations, that the burden of granting religious accommodations to employees will result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business, thus amending the prior, simple standard of a “de minimis” undue hardship.