Sen. Cassidy Shines Spotlight on 340B Program, Furthering Calls for Reform

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor, and Marcus J. Hopkins, ADAP 340B Consultant

So far in 2025, state legislatures nationwide witnessed a flurry of legislation on the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Just over one hundred 340B-related bills were introduced in this legislative session (Ingmire, 2025). A handful can be characterized as genuine reform efforts. Still, most are “gimmes” to the powerful hospital lobby, designed to expand the program without any guardrails or guarantees that patients will benefit. Billions of dollars and ultimately patients’ welfare are at stake, which is why Senator Bill Cassidy recently released a report on the 340B Program. The report, focused on stronger accountability and transparency, culminates a year-long inquiry by the powerful Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The report echoes the growing chorus calling for long-overdue reforms.

Sen. Bill Cassidy | Photo Source: End Points News

Aside from special interests representing the reform denialists, reactions to the report’s findings have been cheered and represent momentum toward something finally being done to return the program to its legislative intent. Senator Cassidy states, “This investigation underscores that there are transparency and oversight concerns that prevent 340B discounts from translating to better access or lower costs for patients. Congress needs to act to bring much-needed reform to the 340B Program” (HELP, 2025).

The 30-year-old 340B program has ballooned more than 600% since 2000, with over 60,000 participating covered entities (Olsen, 2025). The program was created to enable providers, known as ‘covered entities’ (CE), serving large populations of low-income individuals to purchase brand-name and generic medications at a considerable discount and use the savings to provide increased care to patients and lower their costs. Presently, the designation of CE encompasses six different categories of hospitals and ten categories of non-hospital entities (340B, n.d.). Drug manufacturers have to offer the drugs at a discount under the 340B program as a condition of participating in the Medicare Drug Rebate Program. 

As a result of the growing number of participants, many stakeholders are alarmed because the program seems not to result in increased care and lowered costs for low-income and uninsured patients as initially intended. Senator Cassidy’s investigation comprised information requests of eight of the most prominent 340B participants from several categories: two hospital-covered entities, two FQHCs, two contract pharmacies, and two drug makers (Muoio, 2025). What follows is an overview analysis of the Cassidy Report.

Photo Source: Senate HELP Committee

The investigation found that:

• Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health (Richmond Community Hospital in Richmond, VA) nor the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH)—the two hospital systems examined by Senator Cassidy’s office—pass on 340B savings directly to patients. Both hospital systems stated that the 340B legislation does not require them to do so. While both systems have sliding scale payment programs for patients based upon their annual incomes as a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) that allow patients to pay smaller percentages of the costs of services, both systems responded that they are not required to pass “dollar-for-dollar” savings on to patients.

• Neither Bon Secours nor the Cleveland Clinic accounts for 340B revenues or savings in their operating budgets. Both reported sentiments that “340B revenues are revenues like any other” and did not feel obligated to allocate or earmark 340B revenues for specific purposes. Instead, both hospitals treat those revenues as part of general funds and that they can be used for any purpose they see fit. This sentiment aligns with sentiments expressed by other hospital systems in previous congressional hearings.

• Of the two Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) examined by Senator Cassidy’s office, both Sun River Health and Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic generated a majority of their 340B revenues from a single class of drugs—HIV/AIDS medications, which accounted for more than 54% of their 340B revenues at Sun Valley, and drugs to treat diabetes, which accounted for nearly 45% of 340B revenues at Yakima.

• Both FQHCs leveraged their 340B revenues to provide significant discounts on medications dispensed to patients whose incomes fell below 200% of the FPL.

• CVS Health and Walgreens, the two contract pharmacies and third-party administrations examined by Senator Cassidy’s office, initially refused to provide the documents requested by the office and only did so after extended negotiations.

• Both companies charge significant and increasing fees related to the provision of pharmacy dispensing and 340B third-party administrator (TPA) services. The covered entities that contract with them indicated that these increasing fees are straining their resources.

• The pharmaceutical companies that provide billions of dollars in discounts to covered entities under the 340B Program have significant concerns about the integrity of the program, with Eli Lilly and Amgen both arguing that the lack of transparency that currently exists with most covered entity types allows for covered entities, contract pharmacies, and third-party administrators to too easily manipulate, misuse, and abuse a program that was designed to increase access to care.

• Both Eli Lilly and Amgen reported significant increases in sales to contract pharmacies, rather than hospitals and grantees.

Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy

The Cassidy Report comes as ADAP Advocacy launched its national advocacy campaign, calling for reforms to the 340B Program. The campaign was kicked off with a new commercial that asks the question, Is the 340B Drug Pricing Program the Next 'Too Big to Fail'? The commercial will air in the greater metropolitan DC market while Congress is in session, and it provides plenty of fodder for lawmakers to appreciate the need to move on the report.

Ultimately, Senator Cassidy’s office recommended five changes to the 340B Program:

• Requiring covered entities to provide detailed annual reporting on how 340B revenue is used to ensure direct savings for patients, providing a more transparent link between program savings and patient benefit;

• Addressing potential logistical challenges caused by increased administrative complexity, leading to burdens that may impede patients from benefiting from the program;

• Investigating the types of financial benefits contract pharmacies and TPAs receive for administering the 340B Program to ensure that increasing fees do not disadvantage covered entities and patients;

• Requiring transparency and data reporting for entities supporting participants in the 340B Program (i.e., contract pharmacies and TPAs); and

• Providing clear guidelines to ensure that the manufacturer discounts actually benefit 340 B-eligible patients, including examining legislative changes to the definition of eligible patients.

Advocacy groups such as ADAP Advocacy, Community Access National Network, and The Alliance to Save America's 340B Program (ASAP 340B) are supportive. Cassidy’s report findings align with the work of ADAP Advocacy’s 340B Patient Advisory Committee over the last two years. In a press release, Brandon M. Macsata, CEO of ADAP Advocacy, summarized: “In 2019, ADAP Advocacy endorsed the Community Access National Network 340B Commission’s final report calling for long-overdue accountability and transparency standards to improve the 340B Program, among them clearly defining who are 340B patients, and how 340B covered entities should utilize their 340B savings to improve patient access to care and services. Senator Cassidy has laid a path to reform this vital program, and ADAP Advocacy looks forward to working with him on this important issue.” 

ASAP 340B issued a statement in support of Senator Cassidy’s work. In the release, Thomas Johnson, Executive Director of ASAP 340B, states, “This report details how large hospital systems, PBMs, and corporate middlemen take advantage of the program – it is clear the time for meaningful reform is now. We strongly urge Congress to enact legislation that realigns the 340B program in the interest of true safety-net providers and the patients and communities they serve.”

Conversely, and not surprisingly, there were some opposing viewpoints from hospital stakeholders. For example, 340B Health, a lobbying group representing over 1500 hospitals and health systems in the 340B program, expressed concern about the report. In a statement, 340B Health stated it had “concerns with several aspects of the report that may not fully reflect the purpose or implementation of 340B” (Muoio, 2025). Maureen Testoni, 340B Health’s president and CEO, also emphasized that the language of the 340B statute names ‘cost of operations’ reductions as one of the program's primary goals. She implied that using 340B savings to fund capital improvements and community benefits was a way to benefit low-income patients (Muoio, 2025). However, that sentiment is one of the concerns heralded by proponents in favor of 340B reform. Passing savings on to patients and improving their care is the impetus behind the 340B program. Capital improvements do not benefit patients directly, especially when improvements involve facilities that do not serve needy communities.

Photo Source: Drug Channels Institute

Leading biopharmaceutical experts, critical of the reform denialists' claims that the program isn't warped, pointed to the Cassidy Report to highlight glaring problems that only seem to be getting worse. For example, Adam J. Fein, Ph.D., with the Drug Channels Institute, published an analysis: "Follow the 340B Dollar: Senator Cassidy Exposes How CVS Health and Walgreens Profit as 340B Contract Pharmacies." Likewise, Matt Toresco pointed to the report, asking: "340B: Safety Net or Profit Engine?"

Although Senator Cassidy’s report involves a small sample of 340B entities, it is still an informed and enlightening cross-section of the 340B landscape and the needs for reform. Urging Congressional 340B reform actions can help bolster state legislative actions addressing the misuse of the program in hopes of refocusing the benefit on patients. Some covered entities effectively pass savings on to patients; however, many do not. Senator Cassidy has a long history of being active in healthcare reform, and this report is a salient foundation for continued efforts.

[1] 340B Health. (n.d.) 340B Drug Pricing Program Overview. Retrieved fromhttps://www.340bhealth.org/members/340b-program/overview/#:~:text=The%20340B%20ceiling%20price%20is,over%2Dthe%2Dcounter%20drugs.

[2] Ingmire, B, (2025, May 1). The Evolving Landscape of 340B Drug Pricing Laws. Retrieved from https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/5/1/the-evolving-landscape-of-340b-drug-pricing-laws

[3] Muoio, D. (2025, April 24). Cassidy calls for 340B reform, increased oversight of hospitals, contract pharmacies. Retrieved from https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/regulatory/sen-cassidy-releases-340b-report-recommending-greater-transparency-oversight-hospitals    

[4] Olsen, E. (2025, April 28).Top Republican calls for 340B reform in long-awaited investigation. Retrieved from https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/bill-cassidy-help-committee-340B-reform-investigation/746405/

[5] U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). (2025, April 24). Chair Cassidy Releases Report on 340B Reform, Calls for Congressional Action. Retrieved from https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy-releases-report-on-340b-reform-calls-for-congressional-action

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.