Committee backs attorney‑general enforcement to ensure 340B discounts for safety‑net providers

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend S.F. 37‑69 on a bipartisan voice vote after testimony that pharmaceutical manufacturers have limited access to 340B discounted medicines for safety‑net providers.

Senator Klein, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the measure inserts an attorney‑general enforcement provision into existing state code to make violations actionable as unfair or deceptive trade practices. He said that, despite a 2024 state law intended to preserve 340B access, manufacturers have “flagrantly” ignored obligations and that adding AG enforcement would expedite compliance.

Danny Acker, of the Minnesota Hospital Association, explained the program’s history and said courts have rejected legal challenges to the state statute but manufacturers continue to impose limitations. “We have seen continued harms to safety‑net providers,” Acker said, urging support for the bill.

Jessica Lynch of Pharma testified in respectful opposition, arguing the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) provides an exclusive alternative dispute resolution process for covered‑entity claims and that a state AG role would be premature and potentially preempted.

Committee members pressed for clarifications about overlap with federal processes and the practical effect of state enforcement; sponsors described the proposal as a “belt‑and‑suspenders” approach intended to ensure timely remedy for hospitals and pharmacies that rely on 340B discounts.

Senator Seaburger moved S.F. 37‑69 to be recommended to pass and be referred to the Senate floor; the motion prevailed.

The committee action advances the bill to the full Senate, where further floor debate and any amendments are possible.