340B drug discount program entities; remove distributor from prohibition of certain discriminating actions related to.
Summary
Senate Bill 2751 amends Mississippi law governing the federal 340B drug discount program. The bill changes Section 41-149-7 of the Mississippi Code to remove “distributor” from the list of parties prohibited from denying, restricting, prohibiting, or otherwise interfering with the acquisition or delivery of 340B drugs to a pharmacy that is under contract with a 340B covered entity. As written, the statute continues to apply these anti-interference rules to manufacturers, and it also preserves the exception for actions prohibited by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The bill is effective July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it narrows the state-law restriction by eliminating distributor liability under this section while leaving the protections for contract pharmacies tied to 340B entities in place as to manufacturers. The measure is focused on pharmacy access to discounted drugs and the relationship among covered entities, contract pharmacies, manufacturers, and distributors within the federal 340B framework.
Impact
SB 2751 would amend Mississippi Code Section 41-149-7 to reduce the scope of state-law prohibitions on interference with 340B drug transactions by removing distributors from the statute’s covered actors. This means Mississippi’s existing protections for contract pharmacies receiving 340B drugs would continue, but only manufacturers would remain expressly subject to the anti-interference language in this section. The bill affects entities participating in or serving the federal 340B drug discount program, including covered entities, contract pharmacies, manufacturers, and distributors.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate excerpts, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess directly. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears technical and targeted rather than broad or controversial on its face, but the absence of discussion makes it difficult to gauge support or opposition beyond the proposal itself.
Contention
The main point of contention implied by the bill is the decision to remove distributors from the statute’s prohibition on interfering with 340B drug acquisition and delivery. Supporters may view this as a narrowing clarification of state law or a response to concerns about distributor obligations, while opponents could argue it weakens protections for contract pharmacies and 340B covered entities by reducing the number of regulated actors. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, no specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified as having taken a public position in the available materials.