HHS Confirms Providers’ Right to 340B Discount Pricing for Contract Pharmacies

January 5, 2021 Alerts and Newsletters

As a holiday gift to providers, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) General Counsel recently issued a strongly worded Advisory Opinion indicating that federal law requires drug manufacturers to deliver covered outpatient drugs purchased by providers at 340B discounted rates to contract pharmacies, so that contract pharmacies can dispense such drugs to patients on behalf of providers. See HHS General Counsel Advisory Opinion, dated December 30, 2020. During 2020, several manufacturers refused to deliver 340B discounted drugs to contract pharmacies, though providers had ordered and paid for the drugs. HHS issued the Advisory Opinion in response to numerous requests from both providers and manufacturers regarding the propriety of the manufacturers’ refusal to provide the drugs to contract pharmacies.

In the Advisory Opinion, HHS concluded that the 340B statute could not be “less ambiguous” in requiring that manufacturers offer covered outpatient drugs at no more than the 340B ceiling price for purchase by providers, regardless of how the providers intend to dispense the drugs. HHS also noted that not allowing contract pharmacies to dispense covered outpatient drugs would undercut a main purpose of the 340B Program, which seeks to benefit providers that are remote, small, resource-limited, receiving federal assistance, or serving disadvantaged populations. As HHS put it, “[t]hese are the poster children of providers that one would expect to lack an in-house pharmacy,” meaning contract pharmacies are a necessary link in the 340B distribution chain. HHS noted that denying discounts due to contract pharmacy use would foreclose 95% of all 340B discounts, a nonsensical result.

The Advisory Opinion confirms HHS’s consistent affirmation of the use of contract pharmacies. HHS noted that if manufacturers are genuinely concerned about diversion and duplicate discounts for 340B drugs—the manufacturers’ stated reasons for refusing to provide discounted drugs to contract pharmacies—they can proceed through the available dispute resolution channels, which now include a formal alternative dispute resolution process implemented by the recent adoption of the final rule. See Verrill Client Alert, dated December 14, 2020.

On balance, the Advisory Opinion is a positive development for providers, though it is possible that manufacturers will not view the Advisory Opinion as legally binding, as it is neither law nor regulation. It is also possible that the incoming presidential administration will take a different view of manufacturer requirements vis à vis contract pharmacies, though a pro-manufacturer change in position seems highly unlikely. Still, for now, the Advisory Opinion strongly and unequivocally establishes HHS’s current view that manufacturers must provide 340B discounts for covered outpatient drugs dispensed through contract pharmacies.

Firm Highlights

Publication/Podcast

How Growing Cyber Scrutiny Affects Corporate Compliance

Verrill attorneys David Lazarus , Michael Fee , and Jeffery Smagula authored an article published in Law360 on December 3, 2021 entitled "How Growing Cyber Scrutiny Affects Corporate Compliance." In the article Lazarus, Fee...

Publication/Podcast

2021 Medicare Cost Report Preparation, Reminders and New Developments for Hospitals

Publication/Podcast

What's Notable In DOJ's 1st Cyber-Fraud Initiative Settlement

Verrill attorneys David G. Lazarus , Michael K. Fee , and Jeffrey Smagula recently wrote the article "What's Notable In DOJ's 1st Cyber-Fraud Initiative Settlement" published in Law360 . The article reviews the U.S...

Publication/Podcast

Hospitals Win 340B Medicare Rate Cut Suit, But When, How, and How Much They Will Recoup Remains Unclear

In a recent unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), erred when it significantly reduced...

Matter

Patent Litigation: Medical Device

Defended company medical device manufacturer against claimed infringement of expired patent relating to laser hair removal; obtained stay of matter pending reexamination of patent, which resulted in cancelling of all allegedly infringing claims and...

Publication/Podcast

James Roosevelt, Jr. Published in ScienceDirect

Verrill attorney James Roosevelt Jr. was published in the February 2022 volume of ScienceDirect , a scientific, technical, and medical research publication. His article “A Federal Indian Health Insurance Plan: Fulfilling a Solemn Obligation...

Publication/Podcast

New DOJ Task Force Announced Will Impact Health Care Providers & Prescribers in Northern New England

Major enforcement news was released today, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, for medical professionals and anyone working in or around the health care space in Maine , New Hampshire , and Vermont . The United...

News

31 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in 2022 Chambers & Partners Guide

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700