Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Breaking Down the Proposed Omnibus Guidance – Covered Entity Eligibility, Registration & Termination

By Alyce Katayama & Elizabeth Gebarski on September 17, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

As promised, the blog will be taking an in-depth look at discrete topics included in the proposed 340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus Guidance (“Guidance”), which was published August 28, 2015. The proposed Guidance touches on almost every aspect of the 340B Program, including covered entity (“CE”) eligibility; the patient definition; Group Purchasing Organization prohibitions; contract pharmacies; duplicate discounts; and CE audits. It also includes enhanced program integrity requirements for CEs, contract pharmacies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the 340B Program. Today’s blog will take a look at CE eligibility, registration, and termination.

Bus

Let’s start with the basics. Only CEs are eligible to participate in the 340B Program. These CEs are both non-hospital (e.g., STD clinic) and hospital (e.g., children’s hospital) entities. The proposed Guidance delineates the eligibility elements that have been established by the law, existing regulations, and past guidance. Once an eligible CE registers in the 340B Program, it is listed on the public 340B database. The registration conditions, deadlines, and procedures remain the same as outlined in previous guidance.  As is the current practice, CEs must immediately notify the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) regarding any changes in eligibility and CEs will still be required to annually recertify with HRSA.

Program integrity is a key focus of the proposed Guidance, as will be discussed in more detail in blogs to come.  As part of the annual registration process, CEs are required to certify the accuracy of their database information and their compliance with 340B Program’s statutory requirements. By certifying compliance, a CE attests that it: (1) employs effective business practices to ensure and monitor ongoing compliance, including self audits where appropriate; (2) maintains accurate 340B database information; and, (3) notifies HRSA if it is no longer eligible for the Program or has violated any Program requirement.

Where this proposed Guidance deviates is in regard to re-enrollment in the 340B Program after a CE has lost eligibility. Upon a loss of eligibility, the CE must immediately stop purchasing and using 340B drugs at the terminated site(s), which includes child sites tied to the “parent” CE’s enrollment (as will be discussed in more detail in blogs to come). HRSA requests that the CE provide the reason for the loss of eligibility, the effective date for the loss of eligibility, and the date of the last 340B drug purchase for a terminated CE, child site, or contract pharmacy. For example, a disproportionate share (DSH) hospital-CE loses 340B Program eligibility immediately upon filing a Medicare cost report that demonstrates the hospital does not meet the hospital’s disproportionate share adjustment percentage, which is an element of eligibility for DSH hospitals. The day on which that cost report was filed is the day on which the hospital’s participation in the 340B Program is terminated.

The proposed Guidance plans to allow a CE that has lost eligibility to re-enroll in the 340B Program during the next regular enrollment period after it has satisfactorily demonstrated to HRSA that it will comply with all statutory requirements moving forward and has completed, or is in the process of offering repayment to affected manufacturers, as necessary. HRSA specifically is seeking comments on what type of information a CE would submit to HRSA to demonstrate compliance to re-enroll in the 340B Program.

If you want to be heard on this issue, you need to submit comments to HRSA on or before October 27, 2015 – make sure to include the Regulatory Information Number, 0906–AB08. The To Be or Not to 340B Blog will continue to break down other sections of the proposed Guidance in upcoming posts. Stay tuned for more details!

Photo of Alyce Katayama Alyce Katayama

Alyce Katayama had more than 30 years of experience representing both institutional and individual clients on a wide range of business issues in the health care industry. She dealt regularly with issues surrounding the 340B Drug Discount Program and the Sunshine Act.

Read more about Alyce KatayamaEmailAlyce's Linkedin Profile
Photo of Elizabeth Gebarski Elizabeth Gebarski

Elizabeth Gebarski focuses her practice in the areas of hospital and health law. Her practice includes advising clients on regulatory and compliance issues, business development, and licensing issues. She is well-versed in providing 340B Drug Pricing Program regulatory, compliance, audit, and contract support…

Elizabeth Gebarski focuses her practice in the areas of hospital and health law. Her practice includes advising clients on regulatory and compliance issues, business development, and licensing issues. She is well-versed in providing 340B Drug Pricing Program regulatory, compliance, audit, and contract support to covered entities, contract pharmacies, and other key stakeholders.

Read more about Elizabeth GebarskiEmailElizabeth's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    To Be or Not to 340B Blog
  • Organization:
    Quarles & Brady LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo