Drug maker sues over new North Dakota pharmaceutical law
A pharmacy manager retrieves a bottle of antibiotics. (Photo by)
North Dakota is being sued over a new law that requires drug manufacturers to sell more of their medications at a discount.
House Bill 1473, signed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong in April, primarily affects drug companies participating in a federal program called 340B.
A drug manufacturer has filed suit over the policy in North Dakota federal court, claiming it is unconstitutional and will hurt its profits. The state denies the company's claims.
The 340B program was created by Congress in 1992 to improve health care access in low-income communities. It requires participating drug companies to offer discounted products to qualifying hospitals and other medical facilities. Drug companies must take part in 340B in order to participate in federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.
In legislative hearings, proponents of the bill called 340B a critical program for rural North Dakota, subsidizing medication for patients and allowing hospitals to provide a wider range of services.
'This is a lifeblood to rural facilities across the state,' Rep. Jon Nelson, a Rugby Republican and bill sponsor, said during a February committee meeting.
North Dakota this year became one of a handful of states to pass a law limiting drug manufacturers' freedom to decide where and how they sell 340B drugs.
House Bill 1473 makes it a class B misdemeanor for companies to adopt policies that 'deny, restrict, prohibit, or otherwise interfere' with pharmacies' ability to obtain and dispense products to patients on behalf of 340B hospitals.
In testimony on the proposal, hospital representatives complained that drug companies were cutting off access to medications subsidized through 340B, namely by refusing to sell the drugs to more than one pharmacy hospitals work with.
In an April complaint filed against North Dakota, drug company AbbVie argued that Congress intended for manufacturers to be able to set additional requirements for 340B hospitals to access their products — so long as the medications are offered at the reduced costs mandated by the program.
The company alleges that pharmacies and hospitals are taking advantage of the 340B program by selling the discounted medications at full price. Barring drug manufacturers from placing additional parameters on these sales will only harm the low-income patients the program is intended to benefit, AbbVie wrote in its complaint.
In testimony in favor of House Bill 1473, hospital and pharmacy representatives said that the real reason drug companies are reluctant to sell discounted drugs to more pharmacies is because they want to sell their medication at list price at as many places as possible.
AbbVie also alleges that North Dakota is trying to use a state law to change a federal program, which they say is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Any changes to how 340B operates must be approved by Congress, the company argues.
They claim that federal law makes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the sole agency in charge of enforcing 340B compliance, leaving no room for state policies like House Bill 1473.
The company further argues that the law is an illegal attempt to regulate business in other states. Since some North Dakota hospitals have agreements with pharmacies across state lines, House Bill 1473 could affect transactions between out-of-state drug companies and pharmacies — which AbbVie says is unconstitutional.
According to the company, the law also violates rights protected under the Fifth Amendment by forcing it to sell its property to a private party.
Companies found in violation of the new law, which takes effect Aug. 1, could face 30 days in jail, a maximum fine of $1,500, or both. The North Dakota Board of Pharmacy can also impose civil penalties on violators, according to testimony on the bill.
AbbVie has asked a federal judge to declare House Bill 1473 unconstitutional and to order that North Dakota cannot enforce it.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Courts across the country have ruled differently on this issue. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Third Circuit Court of Appeals have both ruled the 340B program does not prevent drug companies from imposing additional requirements on hospitals and pharmacies, the drug manufacturer noted in court filings.
However, the Eighth Circuit in 2024 upheld an Arkansas law similar to House Bill 1473. The Arkansas law makes it illegal for drug companies to prevent hospitals from using pharmacies to get 340B drugs into the hands of patients.
The Eighth Circuit includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Arkansas.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US medical debt financing groups vie to be ‘solution' to struggling rural hospitals
Medical debt financing and 'patient access' companies are pitching their services to struggling rural hospitals nervous about keeping the doors open, as congressional Republicans consider healthcare cuts that could leave 16 million Americans without insurance. These companies, who act as middlemen between hospitals and patients, told the Guardian they could be a solution for cash-poor hospitals seeking to get paid by 'subprime patients' – especially the low-income, uninsured and unbanked. 'These guys are losing money – it's not sustainable,' said Chris Stenglein, CEO of Curae, about hospitals and healthcare providers. Curae is a company that charges hospitals a fee to find money from all sorts of sources – including patients. 'I believe the next huge bailout is going to be health systems.' Middlemen are nothing new to American healthcare – the Commonwealth Fund found that the administrative complexity of US healthcare accounts for nearly one-third of the sky-high price of care in the US. What is new is the potential market disruption created by Republicans. A bill passed by House Republicans before Memorial Day would cut Medicaid by $804bn and Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act, by $301bn – changes in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' that are expected to result in 16 million newly uninsured Americans by 2034. That disruption represents risk for hospitals and patients, but an opportunity for business. 'This really underscores the through line between Medicaid cuts today equal medical debt tomorrow,' said April Kuehnhoff, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). 'This is really going to harm the most vulnerable patients in the United States.' Hospitals face a real risk of not staying afloat: margins at the nation's roughly 3,000 non-profit hospitals, about half of all nationally, reached an eight-year low in September 2023, according to a recent report from the consulting firm Deloitte. Operating margins were just 0.8% on average that year. 'Providers carry more consumer paper than all of your regional banks combined,' said Stenglein, referring to consumer debt. 'In some cases, they got $1.3bn they write off every year.' Stenglein views himself as a good guy in this fight, working in a 'dysfunctional' system to help people like his own parents. His mother worked at the grocery store chain Winn Dixie and his father was a truck driver. Started eight years ago, Curae is now a subsidiary of Atlanticus Holdings Corporation, which owns a portfolio of credit cards for subprime borrowers. The publicly traded corporation is valued at $794m. Firms like Curae offer an appealing pitch to hospitals, finding money from every conceivable source, such as insurers, discount drug programs, philanthropy and patients. But none of these services are free. Like the back end of a credit card, Curae charges hospitals a 'processing fee' for every transaction, Stenglein said in an interview. In written questions, Curae later declined to confirm its processing fee rate, stating: 'Our program management fees are confidential.' Curae also facilitates financing to patients, specializing in payment plans and interest-bearing loans to patients who are 'higher risk/subprime patients, who usually would never get approved for any sort of credit', a spokesperson told the Guardian. Curae is not a lender, but brands loans through the Bank of Missouri. The spokesperson said Curae-branded loans were available to patients who would struggle to 'even be approved for other loans such as for cars'. However, Curae does not refer patients, including the marginalized consumers the company specializes in, to non-profit hospitals' charity care programs. 'No, the hospital administers that program,' the company said in written questions. But it helps 'enroll eligible patients in third-party charity programs to help cover patient's expenses', which are not part of the hospital's programs Curae-branded loans are 0% interest for patients up to 24 months. Longer-term loans cost between 9.9% and 36% based on creditworthiness, according to a June 2021 cardholder agreement. Stenglein said only 3-4% of the 'patient population' sign up for interest-bearing loans, which together with payment plans represent about one-fifth of the business. A more recent cardholder agreement provided by Curae showed a long-term APR of 14.99%, although the cardholder agreement represented an approved rate for one individual borrower, and not the full range of possible rates. Curae later shared a cardholder agreement from October 2024 that showed a maximum interest rate of 26.99%. Some patients have lodged complaints about this system publicly, including an Arizona teacher who said she was 'infuriated' when she was signed up for a credit card without her knowledge. 'I got a hit on my credit saying somebody did a hard look at my credit, and of course I was freaking out, like what is going on?' Kerry Morgan told local TV station AZFamily. 'Come to find out, it was Banner [Health],' a non-profit hospital system that partners with Curae, 'hit my credit and signed me up for a credit card to put the payments on'. Despite fees hospitals must pay on top of already low margins, and the potential for patient complaints, some providers still find the deal enticing. 'Hospitals simply do not have the sophisticated skill to squeeze money out of patients,' said Ge Bai, a professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and a healthcare accounting expert. 'We're going to see more and more businesses like that that help hospitals enhance revenue. You're already seeing a flourishing, thriving industry,' of financial middle men. A testimonial sent to the Guardian by Curae provides a window into this appeal: a Banner Health employee said Curae helped the hospital 'improve collections' at the 'point of service' (their healthcare facilities) 'by $22m compared to 2023'. More than 90,000 patients applied for financing with Banner in 2024. 'I've worked in the field of Patient Access [sic] for 22 years,' wrote Jarrod Brown, senior director of patient access at Banner Health. 'Curae has been a major win for our patients, by providing a financing option focused on their healthcare needs.' Kuehnhoff said Curae's specialism in the 'subprime patient', called into question whether hospitals are pushing patients who might be eligible for free or discounted care – known as 'charity care' – into payment plans. 'Does this person who needs medical financing actually qualify for charity care through the hospital? And are they being shunted to a medical financial product rather than appropriately given the assistance they qualify for?' Kuehnhoff asked rhetorically. Traditionally, hospitals have provided patients with interest-free payment plans and the majority still do. A recent research letter published in Jama Health Forum found only 8.5% of hospitals promote what the study described as 'interest-bearing' payment products. 'Hospitals have really tried to step up to offer long-term payment plans for at least some of the patients within some income brackets – to try to work with people,' said Erin Duffy, a scholar at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Institute and a co-author of the study. But insurers have increasingly pushed costs on to consumers, which has forced hospitals to collect directly from patients. By 2022, medical debt was the most common form of debt in collections, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and most patients in debt to hospitals were insured, according to a widely cited report. The same year, about one-quarter of American adults said they had a past due medical or dental bill, according to a survey by Kaiser Family Foundation. Before Trump entered office, the Biden administration attempted to prevent debt collectors from reporting medical debt to credit agencies as a form of relief – efforts debt collectors fought. The government's legal defense of these rules abruptly ended with the gutting of the CFPB. 'I don't think we want to make a case that these are evil companies because at the end of the day they did increase access for some patients on the net,' said Bai. Instead, Bai views the system, like Stenglein, as 'dysfunctional'. 'We have toxic soil – that's why we're seeing all kinds of outlandish plants grown.' • This article was amended on 12 June 2025 to correct the processing fee charged by Curae, which was previously stated as 6% for every transaction; and to clarify that while Curae does not enroll patients in hospitals' charity care programs, it helps enroll them in third-party programs to cover costs. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'
Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. Related: Democratic senators call on private firm to reveal how it will profit from Trump's Medicaid cuts If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. Related: 'Fiscally irresponsible': Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' benefits the rich at the expense of the poor 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. [Cuts will] put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses David Machledt, National Health Law Program In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill, from tax cuts to mass deportations However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
The Social Security time bomb is near. No, really, this time.
One thing I've learned by getting old is that dates that sound very far-off will eventually arrive, and the bills payable on those dates will come due. The long-foretold tipping point of Social Security and Medicare into insolvency seemed like science fiction when I first tried to imagine the 2030s, but a new examination of the numbers confirms that the time is almost here.
