Eli Lilly’s decision to enforce its in-house 340B claims data policy by cutting off 340B pricing for certain covered entities has intensified questions about the future of manufacturer claims data requirements and could spark renewed state legislative activity. As more drug manufacturers adopt similar policies, providers may increasingly look to both courts and state legislatures for protections against conditions placed on access to 340B pricing.
In an article published by 340B Report, Geordan Ferguson discussed how covered entities are likely to pursue multiple avenues in response to these developments. He noted that providers may seek both litigation and legislative solutions, particularly as some manufacturers have exempted certain states with existing protections from their claims data requirements.
“I think you’re going to see sort of both tracks being followed for covered entities.”
Ferguson also observed that manufacturers appear to be testing the boundaries of recent court decisions regarding what conditions may be imposed on participation in the 340B Program and suggested that additional in-house claims data requirements from manufacturers may emerge in the coming months.
