With the U.S. Congress sitting on its hands on reforms to the 340B drug discount program, states are stepping into the gap. While most state efforts have been aimed at forcing biopharma companies to give the federally mandated drug discounts to an increasing number of contract pharmacies, California is looking in a different direction. According to unofficial election results, a slim majority of the state’s voters said yes to Proposition 34, which would require certain providers that benefit from the drug discounts to spend at least 98% of their 340B revenues on direct patient care.
The drug and device industries have a lot hinging on the results of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Tax policies. The reach of the FTC. Legislation aimed at drug prices, competition, pharmacy benefit managers and lab-developed tests. Cabinet and agency appointments that could reshape Medicare drug negotiations, the 340B program, FDA Orange Book device patent listings, regulatory flexibility and Bayh-Dole march-ins. And that’s just the top of the list.
Although more and more gene therapies are getting the FDA stamp of approval, concerns persist about their potential long-term risks. U.S. lawmakers have proposed several pieces of legislation over the past few years to address some of the uncertainties. Now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is suggesting other requirements Congress may want to consider to improve the regulatory landscape for gene therapies, especially those intended to treat blood disorders.
