Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding 340B drug pricing program reporting.
House Bill 136 creates a new reporting requirement for entities participating in the federal 340B drug pricing program. Each year, by April 1, a 340B covered entity must submit detailed information to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the State Controller, and the Attorney General about its prior-year 340B activity, including acquisition costs, payments received, payments to contract pharmacies, claim counts, and how savings were used. The required reporting must also be broken out by payer type: commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare.
The bill also directs the State Controller’s Office to compile the submitted data into an annual aggregate report by November 15, submit it to the Legislative Council electronically, and post it on the Transparent Idaho website. Although the underlying entity-level submissions are confidential and not open to public inspection, the aggregated statewide report would be publicly available. The Attorney General is authorized to use the reported information to investigate Medicaid fraud and ensure compliance with federal Health Resources and Services Administration requirements. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause.
The bill adds a new section to Chapter 3, Title 41, Idaho Code, establishing a state reporting framework for 340B covered entities. It does not change the federal 340B program itself, but it imposes new state-level disclosure obligations on hospitals, clinics, and other eligible providers participating in the program, along with reporting and aggregation duties for state agencies. It also creates a confidentiality rule for entity-level data while authorizing state oversight and public release of aggregated information.
The voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with strong majorities in both chambers and no recorded opposition in the House’s first third reading vote. The Senate third reading vote was also favorable, though with a small number of dissenting votes. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a transparency and oversight measure rather than a major policy change, which likely contributed to its generally positive reception.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between transparency and confidentiality. Supporters likely favored public reporting and state oversight of 340B savings and spending, especially given concerns about how program benefits are used and whether they support charity care or other community benefits. Opponents, reflected in the smaller number of no votes, may have been concerned about administrative burden on covered entities, the confidentiality of sensitive financial data, or the use of the reports in fraud investigations and regulatory enforcement. The bill’s focus on Medicaid, Medicare, and contract pharmacy arrangements also suggests possible concern from providers and pharmacies affected by the reporting requirements.