SB480 would add a new section to chapter 321, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to protect access to discounted prescription drugs under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. The bill prohibits drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and their agents or affiliates from directly or indirectly limiting or denying access to 340B drugs for pharmacies that are contracted with 340B covered entities and authorized to dispense on their behalf. It also defines key terms such as 340B covered entity, 340B drug, manufacturer, and wholesale distributor.
The bill’s stated purpose is to preserve the integrity of the 340B program, which the legislature describes as essential to health care access for low-income, uninsured, rural, and Native Hawaiian populations. The findings emphasize that contract pharmacies are especially important in Hawaii because of geographic barriers and the need to reach patients in remote areas without in-house hospital pharmacies. The measure would treat violations as unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 480-2, which could expose violators to civil enforcement and penalties under Hawaii’s consumer protection laws.
Impact
If enacted, SB480 would create a new state-law prohibition on manufacturer and distributor restrictions affecting 340B contract pharmacies, expanding Hawaii’s regulation of prescription drug distribution practices. It would also tie violations to the state’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices statute, section 480-2, giving the state an enforcement mechanism beyond the federal 340B framework. The bill would directly affect drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, 340B hospitals and clinics, community health centers, Native Hawaiian health centers, rural providers, and contract pharmacies serving patients who rely on discounted medications.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced in a supportive policy environment, with the text strongly favoring preservation of 340B access and emphasizing patient access, rural health, and community benefits. The available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, but the measure was deferred by the HHS committee on 2025-02-10. That deferral suggests the proposal did not advance at that stage, though the bill itself reflects a clear pro-access stance.
Contention
The main point of contention is the conflict between 340B covered entities and drug manufacturers or wholesale distributors over contract pharmacy access. The bill’s supporters argue that manufacturer restrictions undermine affordable medication access and reduce savings that hospitals use for community services, especially in rural areas. Opponents, while not identified in the available record, would likely be those concerned about the bill’s impact on manufacturer distribution controls, compliance burdens, and the use of state unfair-practices law to regulate conduct tied to a federal drug pricing program.
Regulation of pharmacy benefit managers, fiduciary and disclosure requirements on pharmacy benefit managers, and application of prescription drug payments to health insurance cost-sharing requirements. (FE)
Regulation of pharmacy benefit managers, fiduciary and disclosure requirements on pharmacy benefit managers, and application of prescription drug payments to health insurance cost-sharing requirements. (FE)
Requesting The Administrator Of The State Health Planning And Development Agency To Convene A Pharmacy Benefit Manager Working Group To Determine The Best Policies To Reform Pharmacy Benefit Manager Practices In The State To Ensure Transparency And Fairness For Consumers And In The Pharmaceutical Sector, Lower Drug Costs For Patient Consumers, And Increase Access To Health Care.
Requesting The Administrator Of The State Health Planning And Development Agency To Convene A Pharmacy Benefit Manager Working Group To Determine The Best Policies To Lower Drug Costs For Patient Consumers And Increase Access To Health Care.