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
May 29, 2024

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.

340BDrug Discount ProgramHealthcareHealth LawDaphne Kackloudisjordan burdick
Client Alert

New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

May 19, 2022While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).Client Alert, Blog Post

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

May 13, 2022Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.Client Alert

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

May 11, 2022The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.Client Alert

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

May 4, 2022At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.Client Alert

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

May 3, 2022On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.
Older posts
Newer posts