Utah Senate Bill SB0069

Utah 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Engrossed: 3/5/25
• Enrolled: 3/13/25

Caption

Medication Amendments

Summary

SB 69, titled Medication Amendments, addresses the 340B drug discount program and limits certain actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The bill defines “manufacturer” to include a pharmaceutical manufacturer and its agents or affiliates, and then prohibits manufacturers from directly or indirectly restricting pharmacies or 340B entities from contracting with each other, accessing covered drugs, or obtaining 340B pricing. It also bars manufacturers from imposing certain conditions, such as requiring purchase from a particular supplier or demanding claim data, utilization data, or third-party contract information as a condition of access, unless federal law requires that information. The bill further protects the ability of 340B entities to receive drugs at authorized locations and to replenish or submit claims without manufacturer-imposed time limits, again except where federal law says otherwise. It also prevents manufacturer interference with contracts between pharmacies and 340B entities or with their ability to enter into those contracts. A separate provision allows the Public Employees’ Benefit and Insurance Program to adjust its business practices to reduce any financial effects that may result from the new restrictions. The bill expressly states that it should not be construed to conflict with federal law and takes effect on May 7, 2025.

Impact

SB 69 enacts a new section in Utah Code, Section 31A-46-311, creating state-level limits on manufacturer conduct in the 340B drug discount program. Its practical effect is to protect covered entities and pharmacies from manufacturer restrictions that could interfere with discounted drug access, contract pharmacy arrangements, and related delivery or dispensing practices. It also gives Utah’s Public Employees’ Benefit and Insurance Program flexibility to respond to any cost or operational impacts arising from the law.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support in the Legislature, especially after committee revisions, and it passed both chambers by large margins. Senate committee votes show some initial difficulty in advancing the measure, including failed motions to recommend, but substitute and amendment recommendations ultimately moved it forward. Final floor votes were strongly favorable in both the Senate and House, suggesting general agreement with the bill’s policy goals.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to have centered on how far the state should go in regulating pharmaceutical manufacturers’ conduct in the 340B program and whether the bill could create unintended financial or operational consequences. The inclusion of language allowing the Public Employees’ Benefit and Insurance Program to adjust business practices suggests concern about possible cost impacts. The bill also carefully preserves federal-law supremacy, indicating attention to potential legal conflict over the scope of state authority in this area.