[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6049949,"mediaKeyId","3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046","parentId",3506338,"title","Committee backs 340B transparency and use rules after marathon debate, with protections for rural providers","audioSeconds",2245,"startMs",4576000,"endMs",6821000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046&start=4576&end=6821","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046/thumbnail_4576000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6049949/Colorado/Committee-backs-340B-transparency-and-use-rules-after-marathon-debate-with-protections-for-rural-providers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6049949-6b7bc54646842dbf4b7febcd7900a9e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437383&Signature=Sq09N-cF5U~7s4P~g55LvrqU6TIeMFIC5S~-JNfqGd1DO6C-RYLOUvafiMr4cwToYPBkkWcBuWp~lfZNa0BSimpzH7Pv7ZSr2WVpmfxeIUZ4Y6rmGfGiEQFs6f5TH6qdjUE~qMPyse8dTwvN~t28jSOUZ2d3aTmYKvSh28jrIgO2eJzLL53-NR7hQkLKFhcpptHoi3VShiByomgBOUYGBbEld-hid-3UqSqCQxpNN9Btfqt6A9jOBtOxF1eYJE~bBSf0ZIKjCkiyMV475gU3HN8wQLk6ZzNkHpxN6d5ssMJfhmEbHflfSOWbOLbb5qKoe7Nij7DwhZnleefeaa11tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-05-03T00:00:00Z","article","The House Health & Human Services Committee advanced a package of measures aimed at increasing transparency and restricting uses of net revenue from the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, adopting several sponsor amendments after extended testimony from hospitals, rural providers, pharmacies, patients and labor representatives.

Representative Brown and Representative Martinez, co-prime sponsors, framed the effort as an attempt to ensure that 340B savings intended to support low-income and uninsured patients are spent on direct patient services. Brown described key provisions added in committee: an 80% floor requiring that at least 80% of 340B net revenue be used for direct patient services or capital projects that maintain or increase access for low-income populations; exemptions for independent nonprofit hospitals under 50 beds; prohibitions on using 340B revenue for board compensation and for certain executive pay; and expanded reporting requirements modeled on another state’s approach.

Stakeholders offered sharply divergent testimony. Hospital systems and some industry groups warned that too-rigid restrictions could disrupt safety-net operations and questioned the feasibility of payer-specific reporting; hospital representatives also noted statutory community-benefit reporting that has been in place and a 2023 statute requiring community meetings on community benefits. Rural hospitals, community health centers and pharmacists emphasized that contract pharmacies and local access matter in geographically large areas and argued against restrictions that would limit where patients can fill prescriptions.

Representative Taggart and others stressed the program’s statutory origin: 340B is a federal program established to help low-income and uninsured patients, and state policy should preserve access for those populations. Sponsor amendments narrowed or clarified reporting fields to remove payer-specific data that hospitals said they could not reliably report, while retaining counts of prescriptions, aggregated acquisition cost of 340B drugs, aggregate payments received and aggregated contract-pharmacy overhead costs. An amendment also increased statutory protections for contract pharmacies and exempted very small nonprofit hospitals.

Committee members debated enforcement language and how the state would collect and publish data. Sponsors said much of the operational work would be managed by the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) under existing authority and that the Joint Budget Committee could request aggregated reports. Some members sought clearer public reporting to the General Assembly and a publicly accessible website; sponsors said they would work to restore or clarify public-reporting lines in follow-up drafting.

After votes on technical amendments and a procedural consolidation motion related to overlapping bills, the committee advanced the amended language to the Committee of the Whole. Sponsors and some members described the result as a compromise that increases transparency and sets spending expectations while preserving rural access; others on the committee objected that enforcement language had been pared back and said additional work is needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Health & Human Services [May 03, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","After lengthy testimony and multiple amendments, the committee voted to advance amended Senate Bill 124 (and related provisions) to the Committee of the Whole, adopting reporting and spending-use requirements for 340B net revenue and exemptions for certain small nonprofit hospitals and pharmacies.","taxTitle","Health & Human Services, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",77850,"location","Colorado","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},6049954,"Committee advances narrower obesity coverage bill after debate over drugs and costs",2216,2037000,4253000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046&start=2037&end=4253","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046/thumbnail_2037000.jpg","/articles/6049954/Colorado/Committee-advances-narrower-obesity-coverage-bill-after-debate-over-drugs-and-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6049954-c0e51294ae35209c678842ce13a63fa3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437383&Signature=AYjMFO2qm51HoBTQNHs4y1hsPsJanvBQ6vgbVAtaeiy5KwWqG~GpM4JFhU6ajBGmSCQZ1xVmYGHf89uwwv9TP18a4m3Q0GjEZUQEu7xXvyCbKMY2yPHLTwWvAd0uSuqo1dV1BQ7UU09M4kTnB-sItY1Tn2v8VGYNGsu4KeZZ8lmq3yOsUpYeq1095DpfXHz1aQikC2iuQ9yFr-3TVs9pG3f2D6PIIVd-ZCR8KeSeN266woxUCt2Y8bDPCbdp3qoS05hkRXC9GA90D25eYVrN42M9Oj6ssWu8rbcDFUYBDepUCKdctufAO4v3fOf7QmB2yDoEbu2yuY5aLgiKOChDDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Health & Human Services Committee voted to advance a narrowed version of Senate Bill 48 that would require certain large-group health plans to cover behavioral therapies, the National Diabetes Prevention Program (NDPP) or a comparable program, and bariatric surgery, while making coverage of GLP‑1 and other weight-loss medications an employer option.

Representative Mabry, one of the sponsors, opened the bill by citing rising obesity rates and state cost estimates. “The Colorado obesity rate is projected to increase … and the Colorado Department of Health estimates that obesity costs our state $1,600,000,000 annually,” she said. As introduced the bill included requirements across individual, small and large group markets and Medicaid for broader coverage, but sponsors said they negotiated a narrower approach to avoid large fiscal exposures.

Representative Brown, the co-prime sponsor, described the final bill as “a scaled back approach” that preserves options for employers to include GLP‑1 medications in the health plans they offer while ensuring large employers can obtain coverage for diabetes prevention and treatment services. Brown said an amendment requested by the Department of Personnel and Administration allows use of programs “substantially similar to the National Diabetes Prevention Program.”

Witnesses were divided. The Colorado Association of Health Plans opposed the bill’s structure, citing the high cost of GLP‑1 drugs and concerns about rate filings and pools if carriers must offer two plan variants (with and without medication coverage). Jason Hoffer of the association warned of precedent in other states and cited estimates of significant premium increases in comparable jurisdictions.

Health-care clinicians and professional associations testified in favor of coverage for medical nutrition therapy and preventive services. Joanna Cummings, a registered dietitian representing the Colorado Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said medical nutrition therapy delivered by credentialed dietitians provides individualized care and can yield cost savings. Doctor Adam Gildan, an internist and obesity specialist, supported increased access to medications and told the committee the new drugs represent a major shift in clinical practice; he noted limitations in Medicaid access and urged careful utilization controls.

Committee members focused questions on three themes: whether employers already can include these benefits and why statutory language is needed; the fiscal implications of covering medications in Medicaid and the individual market; and how coverage would interact with other legislation on medical nutrition therapy licensing. Representative Johnson repeatedly asked why employers could not simply negotiate plans with carriers and whether an opt-in approach would suffice; sponsors said the bill ensures the option is available to employers of varying sizes and plan structures.

Following testimony and a single technical amendment, the committee adopted the NDPP-or-comparable amendment and advanced SB 48 to the Committee of the Whole by a 7–6 vote. Several committee members said they supported the bill’s goals but remained concerned about costs and the bill’s narrower scope relative to the initial proposal.

The bill as amended does not require Medicaid to cover GLP‑1 medications; sponsors said including Medicaid produced an unsustainable fiscal note in earlier drafts. Sponsors said they intend future conversations about state employee plans but emphasized that the current draft is a compromise meant to preserve options for employers and evidence-based diabetes prevention services.","Sponsors pared back an initial expansive mandate and advanced Senate Bill 48 with amendments to require large-group insurers to offer behavioral therapy, diabetes prevention program coverage and bariatric surgery coverage, while allowing employers to opt in to GLP‑1 medication coverage.",{"_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},6049959,"House committee advances bill to codify Healthy Steps early-childhood program",1535,151000,1686000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046&start=151&end=1686","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506338-2cec3f75da94a0e32482ae71c6a35046/thumbnail_151000.jpg","/articles/6049959/Colorado/House-committee-advances-bill-to-codify-Healthy-Steps-early-childhood-program","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6049959-b5d684c94df6db492f99fc6f030c663f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437383&Signature=iEQh-P9zgWwr20C~dclKp-AYfgbW0P9RnWAJha~HheN4mZzcaJXvaRUaPiccmZUv7emFRlXfiCl13tawtSOC608Q1nYi0PplmEhQo3ahLAx16kSTQSiOzRYlo3aaARnzoTEwqW3smfRqhcIQT7Ho0yUhvCICeo8YxSU3-CHltXUZe2O0DebAsvWtF0DGY8GD2Y0Fd8Lb0aHbSDOIttyqazsf8vZmkjKjjPth6H~dcDZeflzReCeMWv8uucC5gccq-kI7I0QXItHa3qqs6TCFG3hP3qoDq2L4HeAMPstZUo2mysltNa5RDz-37iTnk435BfmPISmB49GqHzyxnt6W6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 17 to codify the Healthy Steps early-childhood program into the Colorado Department of Early Childhood advanced from the House Health & Human Services Committee by a favorable recommendation, the committee recorded.

The bill’s sponsors and witnesses told the committee the measure would recognize and define an existing pediatric primary-care program that embeds child-development and behavioral-health specialists into clinical teams to support children ages 0–3 and their caregivers. Representative Joseph, a bill sponsor, said the measure is designed “to support early childhood health programs in Colorado” and to solidify a program that currently operates in the community.

Healthy Steps, witnesses said, already operates in clinics statewide. Christina Walker, senior director of policy at the nonprofit Healthier Colorado, told the committee the program serves about 38,000 children in roughly 32 sites and that 71% of those children rely on Medicaid. Walker said current funding includes a mix of private philanthropy and $675,000 in state funding that supports six sites and has been level-funded since fiscal 2017–18.

Dr. Melissa Buchholz, director of the Healthy Steps program in Colorado and a clinical psychologist at Children’s Hospital, described the program’s clinical model and its work with families during routine well-child visits, giving an example of a family who was connected to housing resources and follow-up that led to improved stability. “Healthy Steps enhances primary care for families with young children, identifying both common and complex needs and working with families and medical providers to address those needs,” Buchholz said.

Committee members pressed sponsors and witnesses on three topics: whether the bill would mandate screenings, whether parents could opt out of additional assessments, and precisely which ages the statutory language would cover. Representative Johnson asked whether the program would “mandate” new mental-health screenings during routine well checks; Representative Zocai, a co-prime sponsor, responded that the bill “is not mandating any additional screenings” but would provide supports when concerns are flagged during appointments. On age coverage, sponsors clarified that the bill text as introduced references services for children ages 0 to 3 and said they would provide a definitive clarification if the committee requested it.

Members also asked about funding and administration. Sponsors said the bill, as written for committee, removes an initial fiscal note by making implementation contingent on available funding and by directing expansion to be supported through gifts, grants and donations or other funding mechanisms in coordination with the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and the Behavioral Health Administration. Walker confirmed the program can use Medicaid to pay for services when a child is eligible, and she and sponsors said they are exploring public–private partnerships and other funding sources but had not identified a new dedicated funding stream at the time of testimony.

After public testimony and questions, the committee voted to send the bill forward with a favorable recommendation to the Committee of the Whole.

Supporters argued the bill preserves an evidence-based program that brings developmental and behavioral specialists into pediatric settings and improves referrals and care coordination. Questions from members focused on limits of the state’s authority under the bill, precise age coverage, parental consent and how program expansion would be funded. No amendment was adopted during the committee’s deliberations.","The Health & Human Services Committee recommended Senate Bill 17 to the Committee of the Whole after testimony and questioning on whether the bill mandates screenings, how it will be funded and which agencies will participate.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs 340B transparency and use rules after marathon debate, with protections for rural providers

Committee advances narrower obesity coverage bill after debate over drugs and costs

House committee advances bill to codify Healthy Steps early-childhood program