1 week Ago
In rural Colorado, where hospital closures and provider shortages threaten access to care, the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program is a lifeline. It requires that drug companies sell certain medicines to safety-net providers at significantly reduced prices, creating a financial cushion that helps rural hospitals serve their communities more effectively. For rural hospitals, 340B is more than a discount — it’s a tool to create savings for both patients and hospitals.
These savings, while principally designed to lower the cost of drugs for at-risk patients, also allow local providers to reinvest in staff, infrastructure, and critical services that otherwise might be out of reach. But over the last decade the 340B program has seen excesses and abuses that have diverted billions from the program’s original intent. After more than a decade of program operations, it’s time to thoughtfully examine how we can fine-tune 340B to ensure it remains true to its original purpose: supporting hospitals that serve the underserved and creating cost savings for patients in need.
This legislative session, Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-71 (SB71) and Senate Bill 25-124 (SB124) spark an important dialogue about that future. SB71 would ostensibly protect the contracts that hospitals enact with pharmacies to deliver 340B drugs to their patients. Providers believe this kind of protection is necessary to ensure there are no restrictions or regulations on how they can serve patients through the 340B program.
Many feel, however, that this bill would only expand the power and reach bad actors have in the 340B system to misuse the program and divert profits meant to serve rural and at-risk communities. SB124, meanwhile, addresses a growing public concern — transparency in how 340B savings are used. The bill requires nonprofit hospitals to disclose how program proceeds are spent and includes guardrails that prioritize affordability for low-income patients.
This includes specific protections to ensure proceeds from 340B profits go toward helping vulnerable patients and that the program doesn’t become just a financial strategy but remains a patient-centered safety net. Crucially, SB124 recognizes what many in rural healthcare already know: rural hospitals are community anchor institutions, deeply embedded in and responsive to the needs of the populations they serve. These facilities operate with lean margins and rely on programs like 340B to stay afloat and to invest in care that goes well beyond prescriptions.
While both SB71 and SB124 have merit, SB124 would help ensure that the communities the 340B program is meant to serve come first. Both bills raise necessary and valid concerns, and each contributes to a larger conversation about how 340B can best serve Colorado’s hospitals and patients moving forward. Now is not the time to abandon or restrict this program; it’s the time to reform it.
With collaboration, stakeholder input, and a shared commitment to health equity, Colorado can strengthen 340B’s foundation — ensuring it remains a meaningful benefit for rural hospitals and the patients who rely on them. The debate over these bills offers a timely opportunity to re-align the program with its core mission, ensuring its long-term sustainability and positive impact. Let’s get this right — not just for policy’s sake, but for the communities that depend on us to deliver care, compassion, and a system that works.
Andrea Calhoon is a dedicated rural advocate with extensive contributions in rural community infrastructure. Through roles in healthcare, local government, and behavioral health, Andrea has been a part of numerous successful projects that have strengthened and grown the Northeast Colorado community. She resides in Phillips County.
.
