[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6325083,"mediaKeyId","2334881-cca821bc60791f149b70a41dd2fba9ea","parentId",2334881,"title","Committee debates 340B transparency and pharmacy contracting; members seek more data before acting","audioSeconds",2672,"startMs",2593000,"endMs",5265000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334881-cca821bc60791f149b70a41dd2fba9ea&start=2593&end=5265","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334881-cca821bc60791f149b70a41dd2fba9ea/thumbnail_2593000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325083/North-Dakota/Committee-debates-340B-transparency-and-pharmacy-contracting-members-seek-more-data-before-acting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325083-75af0e478347d1ca8b57a4b24cd5bcc6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197334&Signature=GkW5Qp63JtqtFNPdG3Fq3ySQdbZ2by0j44eFB4FzdKuy3g2PlqaN~QGc7mmgQFJrq~rPcC~nUWnX1iGdsZXbxTlrfV3Q8Jp9j1Og1yRMpDEAU6g1QhJVDjL1QehrsRX~46haybcGCP-KKqN1hu9JwyL6IQjqfopbTp~7IZVww~gQ89BnHQ4Zb2gp0wPto9Bza0NpJxvvl58eOFURQ0O~59iNtN0Tx0f9ppmEvOW8UA8Y7vjvlvOPCG~m0GW0Tle5CSIfXs29x-ZyrgAIIxDzad4pSAMm~JLl1qUYAZn6nr6r2GTh5wHsZ5lVfDeSf79Wpt9axx8fYUG96fRso0Oobg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Lawmakers, hospital representatives, pharmacists and industry advocates debated proposed state measures tied to the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program during the Industry, Business and Labor Committee hearing.

Testimony focused on two themes: whether hospitals and covered entities must report how they use savings from 340B-discounted drugs, and whether covered entities should be limited to contracting with pharmacies that have a physical presence in North Dakota. Proponents pressed for disclosure; hospitals and some pharmacies urged caution.

Don Larson of PhRMA described two proposed amendments designed to increase transparency: (1) restrict covered-entity contracts to pharmacies based in North Dakota, and (2) require reporting of acquisition cost, payments received from insurers and total remuneration retained by contract pharmacies. “We would be happy to, work with you on anything else there,” he told the committee.

Advocates asked for state reporting because they said federal audits and program rules do not show local flows of money. “What we’re asking for is to understand what they’re getting the drugs for, what they’re selling them for, so we know what the difference is, what they’re doing with the money as they pocket that difference,” Larson said, citing other states that have pursued similar transparency measures.

Pharmacists and hospital representatives urged care in imposing new reporting. Mike Schwab of the North Dakota Pharmacists Association said federal regulators already perform audits and that HRSA conducts about 200 audits nationwide each year. “In the last 10 years, they’ve conducted 13 audits in North Dakota; 6 of those were found in noncompliance,” Don Larson told the committee during his testimony. Tim Blasell of the North Dakota Hospital Association said hospitals use 340B savings to provide charity care, expand services and support rural health infrastructure and that those benefits are often indirect.

Committee members said they wanted more concrete data before mandating wide reporting or limiting contracting. Representative Koppelman and others said they would support reporting that shows how much of the 340B-related revenue is retained by pharmacies versus health systems; Koppelman asked for a breakdown of remuneration retained by contract pharmacies versus that retained by covered entities.

Lawmakers also questioned narrow limits on contract pharmacies, with some members worrying about specialty drugs not available through in-state pharmacies and border-community impacts. The hospitals’ trade group asked for time to consult members on the logistics of compliance before the committee adopts any reporting regime.

No committee vote was taken on the 340B-related measures. Members asked sponsors and stakeholders to continue negotiations and to provide draft amendments the committee could consider at a later date.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Industry, Business and Labor Tuesday, Feb 18, 2025 8:37 AM - 10:58 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers and stakeholders debated a bill aimed at state action on the federal 340B drug-pricing program, focusing on transparency, in-state contract pharmacies and reporting; no final vote was taken and parties were asked to refine amendments.","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},6325088,"House Industry, Business and Labor committee rejects litigation-financing licensing bill after debate on disclosures and criminal penalties",2406,64000,2470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334881-cca821bc60791f149b70a41dd2fba9ea&start=64&end=2470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334881-cca821bc60791f149b70a41dd2fba9ea/thumbnail_64000.jpg","/articles/6325088/North-Dakota/House-Industry-Business-and-Labor-committee-rejects-litigation-financing-licensing-bill-after-debate-on-disclosures-and-criminal-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325088-a1f52991fc1260c153234b14724de9f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197334&Signature=aRsqfODGyAkL7na-8ziQmoU06MNHVFd9TF17ExIdKw~7EHbk1YiaBUXnSCz18L13gWMOoguQkhe4YJHvVjRwgeNLVV-VlGFNKDoIolBO8WlAFDbMb95pDTpH17yY1ijlVjI8sZqv6tnWwrCIMGF84rI0zhuRLeU0VSAHi2qE3q597rIRkN9qvCHVUbvVk1H5iWH~N8I2AaWm4vIIaaELMP1NNLnV37~pVhEB6D41MmrFeW1ld8KmRDucVftLUHQU9ZEvKx6vbF-Hxrp1HniDei3Huj4m1qk5HqE2iDP3jHyZR0H2wnA5AC01H77eq1VZOibDfAnyLSvidBZtDgq3Uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee voted to recommend a “do not pass” on House Bill 1372, a proposal to license and regulate litigation financers, after lawmakers and witnesses clashed over criminal penalties and contract-disclosure requirements.

The committee rejected the bill after members said they did not have a workable compromise on key provisions, including whether the financing agreements should be treated as loans and whether full litigation-financing contracts should be discoverable in civil cases.

The bill’s supporters and the Department of Financial Institutions told the committee the department’s existing regulatory tools — licensure, examinations and civil penalties — would be used to police financers. “We would establish a license in the process to grant, revoke, deny a license, and the appeals process. [The department] would also have the ability to go in and examine the financing company,” said Ms. Krebs of the department. She told the committee standard regulatory provisions were added back into the draft, including reporting, civil money penalties and confidentiality rules.

Opponents disputed other parts of the bill. “The problem is this bill itself calls it a loan half a dozen times, so it kind of conflicts with itself,” said Ms. Krebs, referencing language in the draft that at times describes litigation-financing contracts as loans. Several lawmakers pressed for clearer language to avoid triggering consumer-loan statutes or APR disclosure rules.

Attorneys who represent plaintiffs said they feared mandatory disclosure of financing contracts would upend civil-procedure norms and could prejudice juries. “This actually changes what we call the rules of civil procedure, and it would then require this component,” said Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, arguing the bill’s disclosure requirement would make financing contracts discoverable and potentially usable at trial. Hall suggested the committee allow an acknowledgement that financing exists but keep the contract itself protected from ordinary discovery and evidence rules.

Industry representatives urged narrower distinctions between commercial and consumer legal funding. “We have proposed an additional language…that would clarify once again the areas between those two types of financing,” said Blair Thorson of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, offering model text used in other states.

Committee members also debated criminal exposure for attorneys and whether the bill might inadvertently criminalize conduct by lawyers. Ms. Krebs said the department intended civil enforcement of licensees, not prosecution of attorneys, and that legislative intent could clarify that criminal penalties apply only to licensees and their associates.

After discussion the committee voted on a motion for a “do not pass” recommendation. The roll call recorded the following votes in favor of the do-not-pass motion: Chairman Mori (yes); Vice Chairman Aussley (yes); Vice Chairman Johnson (yes); Representative Bail (yes); Representative Brown (yes); Representative Finley Deville (yes); Representative Grinberg (yes); Representative Casper (yes); Representative Koppelman (yes); Representative Ruby (yes); Representative Shots (yes); Representative Shower (yes); Representative Ulmer (yes). The motion carried.

Committee members said they wanted to give parties more time to work through competing drafting and policy concerns. Lawmakers invited department staff, trial attorneys and industry groups to continue negotiations and promised to revisit the issue when the committee has a refined draft.

Votes at a glance

• House Bill 1372 — Licensing and regulation of litigation financers — Committee recommendation: Do not pass (roll call recorded above).

The committee did not advance the bill; sponsors and stakeholders were encouraged to negotiate changes and return with a clarified draft.","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee voted not to advance a bill to license and regulate litigation financers after extended debate over whether contracts are loans, potential criminal penalties, and mandatory disclosure of funding agreements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates 340B transparency and pharmacy contracting; members seek more data before acting

House Industry, Business and Labor committee rejects litigation-financing licensing bill after debate on disclosures and criminal penalties