Committee advances 340B reporting and fee framework amid debate over fees and rural impact
February 25, 2026 | Legislative Sessions, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Health Care and Wellness committee on Feb. 25 advanced Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 59‑81, a comprehensive package of reporting and fee provisions for the federal 340B drug pricing program, after adopting a striking amendment that sets HCA authority for fees, creates a dedicated 340B program reporting account, and requires certain aggregate reporting.
The striking amendment H3663.1 — described by Representative Tai — would require covered entities to report aggregate payments related to contract pharmacies, have manufacturers pay tiered filing fees set by the Health Care Authority (HCA), and deposit fees into a dedicated reporting account. The amendment also extended civil‑fine authority to the filing‑fee requirements and directed HCA to include fee and cost information in its annual prescription drug price‑transparency report.
Representative Marshall brought a sequence of amendments that sought to remove filing fees, require 90% of 340B revenue be spent on direct patient care, restrict contract pharmacy expansion to rural or medically underserved areas, and delay the effective date until 2029. Marshall argued, "With new fees come additional costs... we don't have runaway costs" and urged measures to ensure revenue supports patient care. Marshall also raised allegations that some 340B revenue had paid for "very expensive advertising to include Super Bowl commercials," framing the amendment to require accountability for how revenues are used.
Representative Tai and others countered that transparency requires industry support for reporting costs and noted federal law limits state authority on certain aspects of the 340B program. Sponsors and supporters described the adopted striker as a balance between timely reporting and coordination with federal regulatory timing.
On final roll call the committee recorded 11 ayes, 7 nays and 1 excused; staff announced SSB 59‑81 as amended was reported out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
Next steps: the bill will be transmitted with the committee’s recommendation; members and staff noted ongoing concerns about implementation details, potential litigation risk, and rural provider impacts.
The striking amendment H3663.1 — described by Representative Tai — would require covered entities to report aggregate payments related to contract pharmacies, have manufacturers pay tiered filing fees set by the Health Care Authority (HCA), and deposit fees into a dedicated reporting account. The amendment also extended civil‑fine authority to the filing‑fee requirements and directed HCA to include fee and cost information in its annual prescription drug price‑transparency report.
Representative Marshall brought a sequence of amendments that sought to remove filing fees, require 90% of 340B revenue be spent on direct patient care, restrict contract pharmacy expansion to rural or medically underserved areas, and delay the effective date until 2029. Marshall argued, "With new fees come additional costs... we don't have runaway costs" and urged measures to ensure revenue supports patient care. Marshall also raised allegations that some 340B revenue had paid for "very expensive advertising to include Super Bowl commercials," framing the amendment to require accountability for how revenues are used.
Representative Tai and others countered that transparency requires industry support for reporting costs and noted federal law limits state authority on certain aspects of the 340B program. Sponsors and supporters described the adopted striker as a balance between timely reporting and coordination with federal regulatory timing.
On final roll call the committee recorded 11 ayes, 7 nays and 1 excused; staff announced SSB 59‑81 as amended was reported out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation.
Next steps: the bill will be transmitted with the committee’s recommendation; members and staff noted ongoing concerns about implementation details, potential litigation risk, and rural provider impacts.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
