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.


BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

CLIENT ALERT: Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law

Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law As we head into 2018, you should be aware of some recent changes made in Ohio’s laws concerning Workers’ Compensation. These changes became effective September 29, 2017. Some will affect business more than others, but these are changes you should really know about.

Client Alert: NLRB Reverses 2015 Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Decision

The NLRB issued a 3-2 decision reversing the Board’s standard for joint employment in collective bargaining that it issued in the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. That controversial decision by the liberal leaning Board overturned years of precedent and significantly expanded the definition of joint employment. The decision spurred legislation (H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act) to overturn the expansive definition, and replace it with a far more narrow and proper definition of joint employment.

Ohio Court of Appeals Upholds Sanctions for Attorney’s Frivolous Conduct

On August 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District upheld a trial court’s order imposing frivolous conduct sanctions in the amount of $22,926.72 on a plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm in the case of Keith-Harper v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., --- N.E.3d ----, 2017-Ohio-7361 (11th Dist. Lake).

The Impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments on the Definition of "Substantial Limitation" Under the Ohio Civil Rights Act

The Impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments on the Definition of “Substantially Limitation” Under the Ohio Civil Rights Act