Pillar 03

340B Drug Pricing

Program Exclusion · Budget-Neutral Clawback · AHA v. Becerra

Low
$81.4B Total 340B program size
$0 340B benefit received by FAH member hospitals
$9B CMS remedy FAH opposed after Supreme Court ruling
2022 Year Supreme Court ruled in AHA v. Becerra
01 FAH POSITION

FAH Position

FAH for-profit members are categorically excluded from the 340B drug pricing program, which FAH highlights as a competitive disadvantage.

FAH’s position: tax-paying hospitals provide more charity care on average than other hospitals while paying state and local taxes, yet receive no access to 340B drug discounts. FAH opposes budget-neutral clawback mechanisms that would reduce non-drug payments to all hospitals.

02 KEY ACTIONS

Key Actions

Supreme Court Ruling (2022)

AHA v. Becerra (596 U.S. 724) — Supreme Court ruled CMS had improperly reduced 340B payments. CMS proposed a $9 billion budget-neutral remedy to repay 340B hospitals.

FAH Response

Kahn stated “the proposal to claw back 5 years of payments sets a dangerous precedent,” opposing the remedy because the budget-neutral mechanism would cut non-drug payments affecting all hospitals including FAH members.

October 2024

MacDonald released statement following Senate HELP Committee hearing emphasizing FAH members “derive no benefit from the 340B drug discounts available to other hospitals.”

119th Congress

FAH opposed the 340B ACCESS Act (H.R. 5256).

Sources