PATIENT ACCESS 340B PHARMACY
HB3350 creates the Patient Access to Pharmacy Protection Act, a new Illinois law aimed at protecting the federal 340B drug discount program. The bill would prohibit any person, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, from interfering with the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to covered entities or their contract pharmacies, unless federal law prohibits the transaction. It also bars manufacturers from restricting how many contract pharmacies a covered entity may use, where those pharmacies may be located, who owns them, or what type they are.
The bill further prohibits manufacturers from requiring 340B entities or contract pharmacies to provide ingredient-cost or pricing data, impose inventory-management requirements not mandated by state or federal law, or submit other nonrequired information as a condition of receiving 340B drugs. It establishes enforcement authority in the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, allows the Department and affected covered entities to seek injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees in private actions, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The act is stated to take effect immediately and includes preemption and severability provisions.
If enacted, HB3350 would add a new state regulatory framework governing 340B drug distribution and contract pharmacy relationships in Illinois. It would create enforceable rights for 340B covered entities and contract pharmacies against manufacturers or other persons that impose restrictions on drug acquisition, delivery, contracting, data requests, or inventory audits beyond what state or federal law requires. The bill would also expand the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation’s enforcement role and authorize civil litigation and penalties, potentially affecting pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies participating in the 340B program.
The bill’s findings and structure indicate strong support for protecting access to discounted medications, especially for rural and medically underserved communities. The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded opposition, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-access framing. Overall, the measure appears to be presented as a patient-access and health-equity bill with an emphasis on preserving existing 340B distribution arrangements.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s limits on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ ability to impose conditions on 340B drug distribution, including restrictions on contract pharmacies, data reporting, and inventory audits. Supporters would view these provisions as preventing manufacturers from undermining the 340B program and restricting access to low-cost drugs, while opponents may argue the bill intrudes on manufacturer oversight, compliance controls, and contract terms. The bill also raises potential legal tension over preemption and the scope of state authority relative to federal 340B law, though the text expressly attempts to avoid conflict with federal requirements.