Prohibitions Against Discriminatory Practices Relating to 340B Entities and 340B Drugs:
HB 1527 would create new state-law protections for entities participating in the federal 340B Drug Discount Program and for pharmacies that contract with them. The bill prohibits prescription drug manufacturers from interfering with a 340B entity’s acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to a contracted pharmacy, and it bars manufacturers from interfering with a pharmacy’s right to contract with a 340B entity. It also makes similar protections applicable to insurers, health maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, and other third-party payors when they reimburse 340B entities for 340B drugs.
The bill broadly forbids lower reimbursement rates, special fees or clawbacks, extra audit demands, claim modifiers or attestations identifying a drug as 340B, network exclusions, and other conditions that are imposed because an entity participates in 340B. It also prohibits requiring 340B entities to disclose ingredient costs or pricing data for 340B drugs, and it protects patient access by limiting actions that would restrict a patient’s choice to receive drugs from a 340B entity through dispensing, delivery, mail order, or administration. The bill exempts Medicaid reimbursement for covered outpatient drugs from these restrictions and takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB 1527 would add several new sections to the Florida Statutes, including provisions in the insurance, pharmacy, and HMO codes, and would treat violations as deceptive and unfair trade practices under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. That means manufacturers, insurers, PBMs, and HMOs could face investigative demands, remedies, and penalties for discriminatory conduct against 340B entities. The bill would affect drug manufacturers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, health maintenance organizations, pharmacies, and 340B covered entities operating in Florida, while leaving Medicaid reimbursement rules largely unchanged.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript debate or vote history, so there is no detailed public record here of member arguments or amendments. The bill’s introduction and broad anti-discrimination framing suggest support for 340B providers and pharmacies seeking to preserve reimbursement and access, but the fact that it died in the Health Care Facilities & Systems Subcommittee indicates it did not advance through the committee process. Overall, the sentiment in the available record appears to be favorable to 340B entities but not sufficient to move the bill forward.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restrictions on insurer, PBM, and manufacturer practices, especially the bans on lower reimbursement, clawbacks, network restrictions, audit requirements, and claim-identification rules tied to 340B status. Opponents would likely argue that the bill limits plan administration, cost controls, and oversight tools, while supporters would view those same practices as discriminatory and burdensome to safety-net providers. Another likely issue is the bill’s use of FDUTPA penalties to enforce compliance, which increases the legal exposure of manufacturers and payors.