[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6342495,"mediaKeyId","2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9","parentId",2254797,"title","Committee hears hours of testimony on 340B program; hospitals and clinics urge protection while manufacturers warn of higher costs","audioSeconds",257,"startMs",928000,"endMs",1185000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9&start=928&end=1185","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9/thumbnail_928000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342495/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-340B-program-hospitals-and-clinics-urge-protection-while-manufacturers-warn-of-higher-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342495-843ff4cb518cc3355b33c9f182b7f23f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163237&Signature=fe5Ya8isTTDhvima6lqydidC4jTeCUYAnqs408RKcAhZpmJDziYIZXIdniWjgF5LY2FQgxMPG97HsBwyovId21vvI~FpuPlQ53~jYoirc-lu4PV5CtMbt7OhUwxuLsI0Lm9YQSLIwD5ZOn8mm0e6rF7r7EWiFRepx3a4jOJd5wskY0IAn-DSDUMXcA6YiKZ5lqItqF-EDZ4Cqo38h9O~i-hRMsnP0gaK-TimekC8Y5d-8ey1pcn-9elE9sKXDonw2MC7WdjjGUUVeMnYfakuyJvEH6N~wRlqoZI3lCPdWEObJxahmbzNDwnOZISR17pAIGJehI-zKwxq~mBQThcbCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","Testimony before the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee covered competing views on the federal 340B drug pricing program and state-level steps proposed in House Bill 1473 to limit manufacturer-imposed restrictions on contract pharmacies.

Representatives of rural hospitals, community health centers and pharmacy associations told the committee that recent manufacturer policies have narrowed which pharmacies can participate, reduced covered entities’ ability to access discounted outpatient drugs, and threatened programs and services that rely on those savings. Eric Christiansen, chief executive officer of Heart of America Medical Center in Rugby, said 340B savings support nonrevenue services such as ambulance operations, daycare, diabetes education and charity care; he provided annual loss figures he said his facility covers from those services and said that threats to 340B would force cuts. Mike Schwab of the North Dakota Pharmacists Association and Erin Navarro, director of pharmacy at Altru, described the program's federal structure and recertification and said manufacturers have begun to restrict the number of contract pharmacies contrary to HRSA guidance.

Coal Country Community Health Center staff described difficulties complying with evolving manufacturer policies that they say have reduced access to medications at local contract pharmacies. Dr. Aaron Garman and Coal Country pharmacy director Alyssa Walden and others described using 340B savings to fund school mental-health counseling, addiction services and other programs they said would be imperiled if discounts are restricted.

Industry witnesses including Jessica Lynch of PhRMA and other testimony warned that a state-level contract-pharmacy mandate could change how discounts and rebates interact, raise federal and state health-care costs, and create litigation risk. Lynch explained the manufacturers’ view that pharmacies were not an original, express subject of the 1992 federal statute and said states that have passed contract-pharmacy mandates faced legal challenges; she cited litigation over an Arkansas law and said the Supreme Court denied a pharmaceutical-industry appeal in late 2024.

Sanford Health and other large health systems explained how 340B savings are reinvested in local services and said penalties or enforcement provisions would be needed for any state mandate to be effective. Mark Hardy, executive director of the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy, told the committee the board could be tasked with enforcement of a state statute affecting manufacturers and that licensure action would be the likely enforcement mechanism.

Pharmacists, hospital officials and community-health providers gave detailed examples of services they say 340B enables. Examples in the hearing transcript included: Heart of America Medical Center reported losing roughly $400,000 a year on ambulance operations, $70,000 on daycare, $20,000 on diabetes education, $2 million on contract labor and about $250,000 in charity care; Altru said 33 manufacturers had stopped honoring 340B discounts to its contract pharmacies and described a successful HRSA audit; several witnesses said North Dakota has 36 critical access hospitals and numerous rural independent pharmacies that rely on the program.

Opponents stressed the potential fiscal impact. A witness citing IQVIA analysis provided an estimate that a state contract-pharmacy mandate in North Dakota could increase healthcare costs by roughly $16.4 million for governments and employers because of how the program interacts with Medicaid rebates and pricing. Others urged federal reform rather than a patchwork of state laws.

Committee members asked both sides clarifying questions about who benefits, how savings are used, whether patients directly receive discounts, and whether manufacturers retain discretion to withdraw from federal pricing agreements. No committee vote on HB 1473 was recorded during the hearing; the record shows only testimony and questioning.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Industry, Business and Labor Mon, Feb 10, 2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee held a lengthy hearing on House Bill 1473, which would restrict drug manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacy participation in the federal 340B program; hospital and pharmacy witnesses said restrictions have reduced access to discounted drugs while industry witnesses warned of higher health-care costs.","taxTitle","Industry, Business and Labor, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28894,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342497,"House committee amends bill to create Office of Entrepreneurship, sends it to appropriations",120,224000,344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9&start=224&end=344","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9/thumbnail_224000.jpg","/articles/6342497/North-Dakota/House-committee-amends-bill-to-create-Office-of-Entrepreneurship-sends-it-to-appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342497-f7a1a72043d5b3666466579cd53e097f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163237&Signature=oejm-Ng1afIc4SWneOwT3h8yWIH7P2enbqbeXYKHKs4IDljgst4gIB5Mwnlcca28yQ4S~LDVR4PENSCp3sc2Z06eMgb7ktiBDTGrBhC347yA7kku4xiOCMb6SH2bKCo-M5MvcdV4jvW8MY7R~W2CLtJmYktCIQH~zQ2gybRvJg72auDaF4M1tbHjFm37mgpwgFtzvTF4vxl7YvrB2fzCuvWqGF7wEGD-br1El5P3dhkd584XRnF~C0n1R~2zcKP6fQ7LZLEqIlQWeE7j9unRQ-l1zhzLywEIQVVG5Kgg2u751BNaQpsDUhUToAmJkElN4RUk5XuhRaysg7pfjt-Sqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Joshua Casper, sponsor of House Bill 1191, offered a substantial amendment to establish an Office of Entrepreneurship within the Department of Commerce and walked the committee through the changes.

The amendment removes a prior requirement that would have reserved 5% of state contracts for businesses five years old or younger and instead focuses the office on coordinating entrepreneurship services, producing an annual report to advise the Legislature, and protecting business records of firms the office helps. Casper said the amendment keeps a director and a coordinator positions with a continuing appropriation.

Representative Bail moved to adopt the amendment; Representative Palmer seconded. The committee adopted the amendment by voice vote. Representative Osley then moved that the committee give the bill a \"do pass as amended\" recommendation and refer it to Appropriations; Representative Greenberg seconded. The committee chair directed a roll call; the committee clerk recorded votes in the transcript and the motion was carried and the bill was referred to Appropriations.

Committee members raised questions and concerns during discussion. Representative Ruby and Representative Bill (as identified in the transcript) said they thought the new office would duplicate services already provided by the Commerce Department and Small Business Development Centers across the state. Ruby cited local incubators, accelerators and programs she said already assist entrepreneurs, and said she would not support creating a separate office. Representative Bill said the office would be hard to measure in terms of direct results and might struggle to show outputs beyond a handful of businesses helped. Representative Casper said he modeled the proposal on similar offices established in other states and emphasized the office would provide centralized coordination and community mentoring not covered by the SBDC confidentiality rules.

Representative Casper told the committee the amendment did not change the fiscal note. The sponsor said the Department of Commerce was listed as the default location for the office but that other placements (for example, a state bank) could be considered.

The committee moved the amended bill forward to the Appropriations Committee for further consideration. No appropriations action occurred in this hearing; referral was the committee's formal action.","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee amended House Bill 1191 to create an Office of Entrepreneurship within the Department of Commerce, adopted the amendment by voice vote and voted to give the bill a \"do pass as amended\" recommendation and refer it to the Appropriations Committee.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342485,"Committee actions at a glance: three bills moved or voted on during IBL hearing",7553,460000,8013000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9&start=460&end=8013","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9/thumbnail_460000.jpg","/articles/6342485/North-Dakota/Committee-actions-at-a-glance-three-bills-moved-or-voted-on-during-IBL-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342485-de64495245f4a7a82a99ddf1c30455d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163237&Signature=G4TtvcjtGgUmzqKwdm1W32-aU3Pp7Y61~Qbszd1S9QezCFWQ0d-vUmFufz5sT3w12EVAyo4UtQJDfV~Mg2Bk2qRIwHeeuzHfgAlgHO8AF354IM0wqejydQDF799KPwxNRdF7ca~Z8EzYsQn4WQZBzaVAjOk~-YFJoDLVxypLSqjWEOUKkC0ggZgZkF1XqfgDorOgNLoPbfK9vfcTpEgiajuJw2LzVDlB-Bfh87A7H~L7vCq5ycV5yU5HyaQsJLa~icDewqNb3Z5PjHRbfxdX4VkTNiA8RtZ0wOzS-nybOO9GAgccCmmDLCJs7clA3H1HP~Eoe2Qf8hkecslNcLFoaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A summary of formal committee actions recorded in the transcript during the October 12 committee meeting:

House Bill 1191 (Office of Entrepreneurship): Committee adopted a sponsor amendment by voice vote and then moved a \"do pass as amended\" recommendation; the chair directed the bill be referred to the Appropriations Committee because the fiscal note exceeds $100,000. The motion to refer and the committee recommendation were seconded and the clerk recorded votes in the transcript; the committee carried the motion and referred the bill to Appropriations.

House Bill 13 62 (content and sponsor details discussed in committee): A motion for \"do not pass\" was made and seconded. The committee clerk called the roll and the transcript records multiple \"yes\" votes; the committee carried the motion for \"do not pass.\" Committee members said the bill lacked necessary mechanics and amendments and that some sponsors could return with a better-drafted measure.

House Bill 1086 (referred matter regarding cigarette ignition propensities and firefighter protection enforcement fund): Committee approved a motion to re-refer House Bill 1086 to Appropriations (to address stranded fees and fiscal technicalities) with a voice vote. The chair said the amendment incorporating the re-referral would be submitted to Legislative Council for final drafting and that the Appropriations Committee would receive the updated text.

These were the formal recorded actions in the transcript; many other items in the hearing were testimony-only and did not result in committee votes.","During the Industry, Business and Labor Committee meeting the panel moved an amended recommendation for House Bill 1191 (Office of Entrepreneurship), voted to give House Bill 13 62 a \"do not pass\" recommendation, and re-referred House Bill 1086 to Appropriations as amended.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342490,"Bill would require landlords to prove background checks were done or refund fee; apartment association raises implementation concerns",1580,2630000,4210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9&start=2630&end=4210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254797-2967b1a8abac4fe63b3b50e8c3fad6f9/thumbnail_2630000.jpg","/articles/6342490/North-Dakota/Bill-would-require-landlords-to-prove-background-checks-were-done-or-refund-fee-apartment-association-raises-implementation-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342490-ad272c5418937c352c7cb2dffbcc13ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163237&Signature=ghVSxgW~DYipglnZQrBZob2slbpTIrC6ts3t8sZzj~sXpWp2b87q2eiUlf0blRt6uz7Tqi7px6ufg1mTbEWNSSTr4jN63y77wt0FSZjEpMsOoo4sy7AreyXLWhfYiSi47gpgrYLRnWZkSoZVovBZdeCQKq-ISV3Mdd-pO0eln5ZwH2YGx4E93nq9BouUsAMDTAkH7yOTAwPrMGPFvD2WswAI3ynofGvX8MZ29KUlSxsR3yQI4OQD6zJaK3ruNoywfqPPuQ8uT7-HqL811-kS9cZb2hOeLhE0YfrcCplu3IocOWwhjwEKggXbdKlb~JrYLT~bSOlaE8YBAEBcFgetXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Hendricks introduced House Bill 1395, which would require a landlord who charges a tenant for a background check to produce evidence that the check was performed and, if the landlord cannot do so, to refund the fee.

Sponsor Representative Hendricks told the committee the bill responds to renters who pay for screening but receive no record or explanation when denied, leaving applicants uncertain whether a check occurred or what information led to denial. He said the bill is not intended to micromanage landlord practices but to give applicants a way to confirm the paid service was actually performed. The sponsor said common screening is performed by third-party consumer-reporting services.

Jeremy Petron of the North Dakota Apartment Association testified in opposition or with concerns. He said landlord groups are generally willing to provide a receipt or record, but implementing the bill raised practical issues: (1) security of records transmitted by email, (2) timing because third-party vendors may not return invoices for 30 days, and (3) criminal-background checks across states can take longer than seven days. Petron said landlords already provide adverse-action letters tied to credit checks under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when an applicant is denied for credit reasons.

Committee members asked about the common fee range for tenant screening. Petron said typical application fees range from about $45 to $65 and usually cover credit verification, criminal-history checks, income verification and rental references. Representative Koppelman asked whether a full refund would be fair in all situations; the sponsor said the bill's purpose is to protect applicants who paid and received no evidence the check was done.

The committee collected testimony and held the bill for further consideration; no committee vote was recorded during this hearing.","House Bill 1395 would require landlords who charge for background checks to show they actually conducted them and refund fees if they did not. Proponents described tenant confusion when applicants are denied with no record; industry witnesses questioned timing, record security and operational burdens.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears hours of testimony on 340B program; hospitals and clinics urge protection while manufacturers warn of higher costs

House committee amends bill to create Office of Entrepreneurship, sends it to appropriations

Committee actions at a glance: three bills moved or voted on during IBL hearing

Bill would require landlords to prove background checks were done or refund fee; apartment association raises implementation concerns