The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to take up an appeal by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), challenging an Arkansas law that mandates drug manufacturers offer discounts on medications dispensed through third-party pharmacies partnering with hospitals and clinics serving low-income communities. This ruling effectively upholds the law, which was designed to expand access to affordable medications for vulnerable populations.
PhRMA, the leading trade association for the pharmaceutical industry, had argued that the Arkansas law conflicted with federal regulations governing the 340B drug discount program. The program, which requires pharmaceutical companies to provide discounted drugs to hospitals and clinics that serve low-income populations, has become a point of contention between drug manufacturers and healthcare providers.
The Arkansas law, passed in 2021, was the first of its kind to address the practice of drug manufacturers restricting the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B program. These third-party pharmacies are often used by hospitals and clinics to dispense drugs to eligible patients, especially in rural areas where in-house pharmacies may not be feasible. PhRMA argued that the widespread use of contract pharmacies could lead to abuse, duplication of discounts, and a lack of transparency in drug pricing.
However, both a district court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Arkansas, stating that the federal 340B program does not explicitly restrict the use of contract pharmacies, and that states have the authority to fill in any gaps. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves this legal framework intact.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a significant win for the state’s drug access law, which he argued addresses disparities in healthcare access, particularly in rural areas. “This decision ensures that Arkansas’s law will remain in effect, providing equal access to critical medications for rural patients,” Griffin said. “The federal 340B program may not cover every aspect of drug access, but this law ensures that pharmaceutical companies can no longer exploit loopholes to deny patients the medications they need.”
The controversy surrounding contract pharmacies within the 340B program has been a long-standing issue. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance allowing 340B providers to use an unlimited number of contract pharmacies, a policy shift from previous guidelines that limited the use of such pharmacies to just one per provider.
While the expansion of contract pharmacies was intended to increase access to medications, drugmakers argue that it has created opportunities for abuse, leading to duplicate discounts and inconsistent pricing. As a result, many pharmaceutical companies have imposed restrictions on 340B sales through contract pharmacies, prompting several states, including Arkansas, to take action to protect the use of these pharmacies in the program.
Arkansas is not alone in defending the use of contract pharmacies in the 340B program. Other states, including Maryland, West Virginia, Mississippi, Kansas, and Louisiana, have passed similar laws to protect the rights of hospitals and clinics to partner with third-party pharmacies for the distribution of 340B drugs.
PhRMA, however, remains steadfast in its belief that the Arkansas law, and similar state laws, are incompatible with federal regulations. A PhRMA spokesperson reiterated the organization’s position, stating that the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B program is prone to misuse and that federal intervention is necessary to ensure that the program operates efficiently and fairly.
This decision marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle between drug manufacturers and state governments over the 340B program. While the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Arkansas case leaves the lower court rulings intact, legal experts expect further challenges as more states pass similar legislation and the debate over drug pricing continues to heat up.
Read more: