.png)
State Legislators Propose 340B Oversight Measures in Indiana, West Virginia, and Illinois
Lawmakers in Indiana, West Virginia, and Illinois have introduced legislation aimed at increasing oversight and transparency in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. These proposals range from imposing new reporting requirements on covered entities to restricting how certain providers use program savings and even calling for state-level investigations.
As of 2025, at least ten states have proposed bills requiring covered entities to disclose financial details about their 340B operations. Meanwhile, more than 20 states have introduced legislation to counter drug manufacturers' restrictions on contract pharmacy arrangements. Five of these bills have advanced through at least one legislative chamber, and two are awaiting final approval from state governors (340B Report, 2025).
In Indiana, two separate bills addressing the 340B program have gained legislative traction. The Indiana Senate passed S.B. 118, which would mandate covered entities to submit annual financial reports to the Indiana Department of Health detailing their 340B operations. The reports, due by April 1 each year, would require disclosures on:
If enacted, the Indiana Department of Health would publish an aggregated report of the data annually by November 15 (Indiana General Assembly, 2025).
On the other hand, H.B. 1003, passed by the Indiana House, proposes restricting certain covered entities from charging commercially insured patients more than the 340B acquisition cost unless they receive a federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grant. Critics argue that this bill could undermine the program’s intended purpose by restricting covered entities' ability to reinvest savings into patient care services. The Indiana Hospital Association has voiced strong opposition, emphasizing the financial risks this restriction poses to nonprofit hospitals that rely on 340B savings to fund charity care (Indiana Hospital Association, 2025).
In West Virginia, seven state senators introduced S.B. 675, which would require covered entities to submit annual reports on:
This bill follows West Virginia’s 2024 law prohibiting pharmaceutical manufacturers from restricting contract pharmacy arrangements, a move that has been replicated in at least eight other states. Proponents argue that financial transparency is necessary to protect the integrity of the 340B program, while critics warn of excessive regulatory burdens on providers (West Virginia Legislature, 2025).
In Illinois, Representative Curtis Tarver (D) introduced H.R. 158, urging the state auditor general to investigate the financial practices of 340B-covered entities. The resolution raises concerns about program accountability and transparency, calling for an assessment of:
Although resolutions like H.R. 158 do not carry the force of law, its passage by the Illinois House would signal a push for greater scrutiny of 340B financial practices. Tarver’s initiative has drawn criticism due to reported campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, McKesson, and CVS Health, which have historically opposed expansive 340B participation (Illinois State Board of Elections, 2025).
Illinois has also joined the list of states considering legislation to protect contract pharmacy access for 340B-covered entities, underscoring the ongoing national debate over the program’s future (Illinois General Assembly, 2025).
These legislative efforts highlight the growing scrutiny of the 340B program at the state level. While transparency advocates argue that public reporting can help ensure program integrity, healthcare providers warn that excessive regulations could hinder their ability to serve low-income and vulnerable populations. The outcome of these state legislative battles will likely shape future federal discussions on 340B program oversight and reform.
