The American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, along with four other groups, recently sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee opposing two bill amendments that would affect 340B hospitals and stakeholders.
The letter, which asks for amendments to two bills, was sent ahead of the committee's scheduled markup session.
HR 3561, called the PATIENT Act of 2023, includes language that would require 340B providers to report on the aggregate spread of drugs that receive reimbursements above the acquisition cost, according to the letter. The information would then be published in an electronic and searchable format.
The groups are asking legislators to amend the proposal to omit that new requirement.
"We have serious concerns with this mandate, which would further burden 340B providers at a time when hospitals are treating unprecedented levels of patient illness amid high inflation, increased labor costs, and other factors," the letter read. "New reporting requirements would only exacerbate these challenges. In addition, this mandate could potentially compromise proprietary financial data, making public sensitive competitive financial information that could aid competitors. We also understand that this mandate would be duplicative of some current state statutes and regulations, adding an additional layer of bureaucracy that does not promote efficiency or competition."
The second bill, HR 3290 or the Public Health Service Act, would "impose onerous reporting requirements on most 340B hospitals, on top of the many forms of reporting they already do voluntarily or as required by law."
The groups said they are concerned the information required to be reported would not show the real impact of 340B on patients and communities. They are also concerned it would require the development of new software to comply with, give HRSA "unlimited and undefined authority" in auditing and establish civil monetary penalties.
"Because of our substantial concerns, especially as 340B hospitals grapple with significant challenges as they work to serve increasingly vulnerable patient populations, we urge you to oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3290," the letter read.