Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care


September 2016


New 340B Dispute Resolution Process: Will It Level the Playing Field?







For more information about this e-Alert, please contact:


Mary Beth Blake


Email | Bio


Lauren Z. Groebe


Email | Bio


Travis F. Jackson


Email | Bio


Emily Shaw


Email | Bio


Kyle A. Vasquez


Email | Bio


To learn more about our Health Care practice, to contact one of our Health Care attorneys, or for more Health Care Intelligence, click here.



Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care Polsinelli - Health Care View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  


LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast

On August 12, HRSA published a formal proposed rule regarding a 340B Drug Pricing Program administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process. The rule can be found here. HRSA's use of the administrative rulemaking process is a rare occasion given its perceived limited rulemaking authority granted by Congress. It is critical that stakeholders review HRSA's proposal to consider how it would impact current and future 340B-related disputes, and to determine if the proposed rule goes far enough to level the 340B pricing playing field.

The proposed ADR rule implements a law which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish and implement a binding ADR process for certain disputes arising under the 340B program. When finalized, this proposed rule appears to replace the 340B Program's guidelines on the informal—and seldom used—dispute resolution process. We encourage covered entities, manufacturers and other stakeholders to carefully review the ADR proposal and submit comments on or before October 11, 2016.

The following are key highlights from HRSA's proposal:

  • The ADR process is limited to three subject matters, [more...]

  • Decisions of the 340B ADR Panel would be binding, [more...]

  • Covered entities may have the right to file civil actions challenging ADR decisions [more...]

  • HRSA proposed a 3-year time bar [more...]

  • Multiple covered entities may consolidate claims [more...]

  • Covered entities may obtain additional information from manufacturers via the ADR process [more...]

  • Comments are due on or before October 11, 2016

ADR Panel Composition and Purpose
The rule proposes to create a decision-making body, referred to as the 340B ADR Panel, to resolve claims between covered entities and manufacturers regarding overcharges, diversion, and duplicate discounts.
[ For full details, please click here. ]

Initiating the ADR Process
The party filing the claim must include documentation sufficient to support its claim. It is unclear in the proposed rule what burden must be met by the filing party in order to proceed to the ADR process.
[ For full details, please click here. ]

Consolidation of Claims and Data Requests
Pursuant to statutory requirements, the proposed rule permits the consolidation of multiple claims against the same entity brought by covered entities or manufacturers.
[ For full details, please click here. ]

3-Year Time Limitation
The rule proposes a claim filing deadline of three years from the date of the sale or payment at issue. This timeframe is meant to be consistent with the record retention expectations for the 340B program.

Agency Decision-Making Process
Once the 340B ADR Panel has reviewed the claim and all supporting documentation provided by all parties involved, it will prepare a draft agency decision letter detailing the Panel's findings and conclusions regarding the alleged violation(s).
[ For full details, please click here. ]

HRSA Seeks Comments
HRSA is soliciting comments...
[ For full details, please click here. ]

To view or print the full alert, please click here.

For More Information

For questions regarding this information, please contact the authors, a member of Polsinelli’s Health Care practice, or your Polsinelli attorney.







Atlanta  Boston  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Houston  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington








real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 800 attorneys in 19 offices, serving corporations, institutions, and entrepreneurs nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service*, the firm has risen more than 50 spots over the past five years in the Am Law 100 annual law firm ranking. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, mid-market corporate, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* 2016 BTI Client Service A-Team Report







Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Polsinelli is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2016 Polsinelli PC.

Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli Health Care Technology Health Care