On Tuesday, Minnesota senators squared off over a bill that would give state officials sharper tools to enforce the state's 340B drug-pricing protections. Supporters argued the proposal is about keeping rural hospitals and community pharmacies from shutting their doors, while opponents lit into the measure, with Alexandria Sen. Torrey Westrom denouncing it on the floor as "phony baloney."
What's in the bill
The measure, Senate File 3769, has a companion, HF3609, in the House, according to the Minnesota House of Representatives. It would remove the law's sunset and give the attorney general authority to treat manufacturer refusals to deliver discounted 340B drugs as unfair or deceptive trade practices, according to the Minnesota Senate DFL. The Judiciary Committee has already recommended the bill for passage and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. Backers say the enforcement language is aimed at stopping manufacturers from cutting off discounts to contract pharmacies and at preserving patient access across Greater Minnesota.
Why hospitals and pharmacies say enforcement matters
The Minnesota Department of Health's second annual 340B Covered Entity Report found that covered entities generated at least $1.34 billion in net 340B revenue in 2024, a jump the agency attributes largely to more complete reporting on office-administered drugs, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. The report notes that the largest hospitals account for most of that revenue, and providers say those 340B savings help fund services in rural and safety-net settings.
Floor fight underscores political divide
The simmering policy fight briefly boiled over into a personal clash when GOP Sen. Torrey Westrom and Senate President Bobby Jo Champion exchanged sharp words on the chamber floor. Video of the tense moment was posted by FOX 9. During debate, supporters framed the bill as a direct response to drug manufacturers that have refused to honor discount deliveries, while critics warned the state could be barging into complicated supply contracts and creating unintended consequences.
Legal context
Pharmaceutical trade groups have challenged similar laws in other states, but courts have so far backed state action. In Minnesota, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the state's 340B contract pharmacy law is not preempted by federal law, according to the American Hospital Association. Supporters of S.F. 3769 point to that judicial backdrop as a key reason they want explicit state enforcement authority spelled out.
What comes next
S.F. 3769 has been reported out of committee and placed on the Senate floor calendar, according to the Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Its House companion remains pending in committee as lawmakers line up additional hearings and testimony, according to the Minnesota House of Representatives. If the Senate moves the bill forward, it would head toward a conference committee or further floor votes, depending on amendments and whether the two chambers can reach agreement, according to the Office of the Revisor of Statutes.
