In this new episode, Ted Slafsky catches up with Will Newton and Bella Czajkowski to analyze the latest 340B developments at both the federal and state levels, plus new scrutiny over the program and some of its stakeholders. With the 119th Congress underway, Ted explains what House and Senate committees and lawmakers 340B stakeholders should keep an eye on with narrow Republican control in both chambers. They also discuss the surge in new state-level 340B legislation, detail mixed reactions to a recent New York Times investigation on the 340B prime vendor Apexus, and recap a high-profile lawsuit and HRSA action against a Nevada STD clinic.

Key Topics Covered: 

Congressional Landscape and Leadership Changes Narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate set the stage for new GOP-backed scrutiny of the 340B program. Ted walks through the key committees and players that will determine 340B’s future.  With 340B expected to be a major priority in the 119th Congress, covered entities and manufacturers are closely watching Capitol Hill and adjusting their policy strategies. 

State-Level 340B Legislation

Lawmakers in at least five states have reintroduced bills that would prohibit drug manufacturers from restricting 340B access to contract pharmacies. Meanwhile, a new bill in Missouri would place significant limitations on how providers use their 340B savings, drawing pushback from the provider community. The early state activity in 2025 comes after a record-setting year for state contract pharmacy protection legislation in 2024.

High-Profile Paper Investigates 340B Prime Vendor After the New York Times published a lengthy investigation alleging that the 340B prime vendor, Apexus, profited by driving 340B program expansion, critics of the program were quick to call for major reforms. However, multiple 340B providers criticized the piece for mischaracterizing the 340B program and defended Apexus’ role in ensuring 340B compliance and integrity. The longtime Apexus leader said the Times’s investigation contained inaccuracies and “misleading narratives.”

Scrutiny Over Nevada STD Clinic and its Potential Broader Impact The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) recently terminated the 340B eligibility of 20 sites affiliated with the Nevada-based STD clinic Sagebrush Health, alleging they violated program eligibility standards. HRSA’s move came shortly after multiple drugmakers sued the agency for allegedly allowing Sagebrush to register many of those sites in violation of the 340B statute. Sagebrush has strongly denied those allegations and vowed to fight HRSA’s action, and some providers worry that the lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for all STD clinics enrolled in the 340B program.

How to Follow Us and Learn More About This Episode’s Sponsor

Stay tuned for more episodes every other week! 🎧 Subscribe to Inside 340B Report on your favorite podcast platform and follow us on YouTube for video discussions.

This year, each episode will be brought to you by one of our Ultra Diamond sponsors. Verity Solutions sponsored this week’s episode. Verity’s innovative, award-winning 340B program management solutions are designed to optimize your 340B pharmacy spend and maximize your pharmacy supply chain savings. We are very grateful to Verity for its sponsorship.

Subscribe to 340B Report with a Special Discount

Special discount for YouTube and podcast listeners. 340B Report is the indispensable source for news and intelligence on the 340B program. First-time subscribers may subscribe now using coupon code PODCAST25. Not ready to subscribe? Sign up for a 15-day free trial.