Relative to participation in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program.
Summary
SB 253 would add a new consumer protection violation under New Hampshire law for certain conduct by drug manufacturers, their agents or affiliates, and related distributors or logistics providers involving the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. Specifically, it would prohibit those entities from denying, restricting, or prohibiting the acquisition or delivery of 340B covered drugs to locations authorized by a 340B covered entity, unless federal law already prohibits the transaction. It would also prohibit manufacturers from conditioning access to 340B drugs on the submission of claims or utilization data unless such data sharing is required by federal law.
The bill is aimed at protecting hospitals, clinics, and other 340B covered entities that participate in the federal program, which allows eligible providers to purchase outpatient drugs at discounted prices for low-income and underserved patients. By placing these restrictions in the state consumer protection statute, the bill would give the state an enforcement mechanism against manufacturers or related entities that interfere with 340B access. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, SB 253 would amend RSA 358-A:2, New Hampshire’s consumer protection law, to explicitly treat certain 340B-related restrictions as unfair or deceptive trade practices. It would affect drug manufacturers regulated under RSA 318, as well as their agents, affiliates, distributors, and third-party logistics providers, and would protect 340B covered entities authorized to receive covered drugs. The bill would not change federal 340B eligibility rules, but would create a state-law prohibition and enforcement risk for conduct not already required or allowed by federal law.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally supportive intent, with the bill introduced by sponsors and referred to the Health and Human Services Committee, but no recorded committee transcript or vote history is available in the provided materials. The bill’s framing indicates concern about preserving access to discounted drugs for safety-net providers and preventing manufacturer-imposed barriers to the federal program. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context limits any stronger conclusion about broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of state authority over manufacturer participation in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. Supporters would view the bill as preventing drug manufacturers from imposing extra-contractual restrictions or data demands that undermine 340B access, while opponents may argue that the bill could interfere with manufacturer distribution practices, compliance programs, or efforts to verify proper use of discounted drugs. Another likely issue is the bill’s prohibition on requiring claims or utilization data, which could be seen as limiting transparency or oversight, especially where manufacturers seek to ensure drugs are dispensed only to eligible patients or through authorized locations.