A Democratic bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the PROTECT 340B Act of 2026. It aims to stop insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers from treating healthcare providers and pharmacies in the 340B drug discount program unfairly. The bill stops these companies from paying lower rates for 340B drugs or adding special fees and restrictions just because a pharmacy handles 340B medications. It also sets up financial penalties for pharmacy benefit managers who break these rules. Additionally, the legislation creates a system using a third-party to review claims and prevent duplicate discounts in Medicaid. Finally, it stops the government from using funds to implement a specific executive order and ends the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income patients benefit because safety-net clinics and hospitals retain critical 340B savings to support their care.
- Scored +6
Does this lower the price of prescription medicines?
The bill prohibits discriminatory pricing and fees against 340B entities, helping maintain affordable drug access for patients.
- Scored +5
Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65?
The legislation extends 340B protections to Medicare Part D plan sponsors, ensuring safety-net providers are not underpaid for serving beneficiaries.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a), amending section 2730(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act: This provision stops health plans and pharmacy benefit managers from paying covered entities and specified pharmacies less for 340B drugs than they pay to other pharmacies. This is positive because it ensures safety-net providers do not lose out on money they rely on to treat patients with low incomes.
-
Section 3(a), amending section 2730(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act: This rule stops interference with an individual's choice to receive a 340B drug from a covered entity or specified pharmacy in person, by mail, or through other shipments. This is positive because it protects patient freedom in how they safely receive their necessary medications.
-
Section 3(a), amending section 2730(b)(6) of the Public Health Service Act: Group health plans and health insurance issuers are barred from denying coverage of a drug simply because it is a 340B drug. This is positive because it prevents insurance companies from cutting off patient access to prescribed treatments based on the drug's discount program status.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 3(c) of the Public Health Service Act amendments: Pharmacy benefit managers face civil monetary penalties of up to $5,000 per violation per day for breaking these new rules. While designed to enforce accountability on elected officials and regulated entities, critics might argue that these added administrative hurdles and penalties could potentially lead to higher operational costs for health plans, which might trickle down to consumers.
-
Section 3(c), adding section 1927(l) to the Social Security Act: This provision requires covered entities to furnish claims-level data to a third-party contracting entity to review and prevent Medicaid duplicate discounts. This might be seen as burdensome because it forces healthcare providers to spend time and resources collecting and submitting extra paperwork and data files.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income patients benefit because safety-net clinics and hospitals retain critical 340B savings to support their care. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors with low incomes who rely on Medicare are helped by safety-net providers receiving proper 340B funding. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans receiving care through safety-net facilities benefit from the strengthened 340B funding resources.
- Healthcare
- Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — The bill prohibits discriminatory pricing and fees against 340B entities, helping maintain affordable drug access for patients. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The legislation extends 340B protections to Medicare Part D plan sponsors, ensuring safety-net providers are not underpaid for serving beneficiaries.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects patients' choice in how they receive 340B drugs and prevents insurers from denying coverage based on 340B status.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill establishes clear requirements for reviewing claims to prevent duplicate discounts and provides regulatory transparency.
- 11/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 13 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Stephanie BiceRepublican · Oklahoma
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Sharice DavidsDemocrat · Kansas
Maggie GoodlanderDemocrat · New Hampshire
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Tracey MannRepublican · Kansas
Gwen MooreDemocrat · Wisconsin
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia