.png)
As challenges to the 340B Drug Pricing Program continue to grow, states are stepping in to protect covered entities and the patients they serve. This week, lawmakers in Oregon and Oklahoma moved forward with new legislation aimed at preserving access to 340B discounts through contract pharmacy arrangements—setting the stage for continued state-level resistance to manufacturer restrictions.
Oregon’s House Bill 4010 has been advanced with the goal of protecting 340B-covered entities from manufacturer-imposed restrictions. Specifically, the bill prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from denying or limiting access to 340B pricing when covered entities use contract pharmacies.
For many providers—especially rural hospitals and community health centers—contract pharmacies are a crucial extension of care. Without them, access to life-saving medications could be severely limited. HB 4010 aims to ensure that Oregon-based covered entities can continue to serve their patients without facing operational or financial hurdles from the drug industry.
The legislation has received support from healthcare advocates and provider organizations that view it as a critical tool for preserving patient access and stabilizing safety-net services.
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, Senate Bill 1030 has passed through a House committee with unanimous support. Like Oregon’s bill, SB 1030 seeks to protect 340B entities by prohibiting manufacturers and their distributors from interfering with the distribution of 340B drugs to contract pharmacies.
The bill also establishes penalties for non-compliance—an important enforcement mechanism that could help ensure manufacturers follow the law once it’s enacted. Oklahoma’s legislation has been framed as a defense of rural and underserved communities that rely on contract pharmacy models for affordable access to medications.
These legislative actions are part of a broader national trend. As of early 2025, nearly 30 states have introduced or passed bills that seek to protect the contract pharmacy component of the 340B program. This comes in response to a growing number of pharmaceutical companies imposing restrictions on 340B discounts, often citing concerns about data sharing or program oversight.
While federal guidance has remained inconsistent, state lawmakers are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. These bills reflect a collective concern about the future of the program and a growing recognition that local providers need stronger protections to continue serving vulnerable populations.
As these bills move closer to becoming law, covered entities should keep an eye on:
These state-level initiatives highlight the ongoing tension between pharmaceutical manufacturers and covered entities. While the intent is clear—protect access for patients and safeguard provider funding—what remains uncertain is whether these efforts will lead to greater clarity or deeper fragmentation in the 340B ecosystem.
Questions to Consider:
