Pharmacy News

Posted September 1, 2026

Quiet day for California Board of Pharmacy activity. The bigger story right now is 340B, where drug manufacturers pushed back against the program on three separate fronts this week, and mostly lost.

Manufacturers can’t switch to a rebate model without HRSA’s sign-off

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the federal government in a long-running dispute over how 340B discounts get delivered. Manufacturers that wanted to move from upfront discounts to a rebate model needed HRSA approval first, and didn’t have it. Read more at Frier Levitt →

HRSA is asking 340B providers about their contract pharmacy agreements

Sanofi has requested that certain 340B contract pharmacy agreements be disclosed, and HRSA has reached out to the providers involved. If your pharmacy holds a 340B contract pharmacy relationship, this is worth watching for what HRSA does next. Read more at 340B Report →

A federal judge dismissed AstraZeneca’s challenge to Colorado’s 340B law

It isn’t California law, but it’s the same fight (manufacturers trying to limit where 340B drugs can be dispensed) playing out state by state, and it’s another loss for the manufacturer side. Read more at 340B Report →

CMS is being pushed to drop a proposed cut to 340B payments

Hospital groups want CMS to abandon a proposed reduction to 340B payments under the outpatient payment rule, while two industry groups are backing the cut. The comment period is still open. Read more at 340B Report →

A federal 340B reform bill is drawing mixed reactions

Senator Bill Cassidy’s draft 340B reform legislation is getting pushback from providers over some of its proposed changes. Early stage, but a bill worth watching if you’re tracking federal reform. Read more at 340B Report →

Why isn’t a PBM’s own biosimilar showing up on its own formulary?

A recent analysis found that PBM-affiliated private-label biosimilars often aren’t covered on their own corporate siblings’ Medicare Part D formularies, even where you’d expect a built-in advantage. Useful context if you’ve ever wondered why. Read more at Drug Channels →

---

This update is general information about developments in pharmacy law and regulation. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it should not be relied on as a substitute for advice about your own situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you have a specific question about your pharmacy, call or write and we will talk about it properly.

Law Office of Bhavesh Desai | Bhavesh Desai, Pharm.D., Esq.
Yorba Linda, CA 92886 | (909) 618-7299

Three items from the end of August. The one that matters most is a $50 million settlement that shows where controlled substance enforcement is pointed, and it points at the pharmacy that filled the prescription and not only at the prescriber who wrote it.

Walmart pays $50 million over unlawful controlled substance prescriptions

The Department of Justice announced that Walmart agreed to pay $50 million to resolve allegations that its pharmacies filled thousands of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. The principle underneath the case is corresponding responsibility, which places a duty on the pharmacist who fills a prescription and not only on the prescriber who wrote it. That duty is the exposure retail and independent pharmacies most often underestimate, because it does not require proof that anyone at the pharmacy knew a prescription was fraudulent. It asks instead what the pharmacy should have caught. The settlement terms are worth reading for the compliance obligations attached to them, since obligations negotiated in a case this size tend to become the practical benchmark that regulators and DEA measure smaller pharmacies against later. Read more at the Department of Justice →

A fifth hospital sues CVS over 340B reimbursement practices

A fifth hospital has sued CVS over its handling of 340B savings. At five suits this stops being an outlier and starts being a pattern. The claims go to whether savings meant for covered entities were captured elsewhere in the chain, which is a question that reaches well past the parties in any one case. Covered entities, and pharmacies operating under contract pharmacy arrangements, have reason to follow how these develop, because the outcomes will shape what a defensible 340B arrangement is understood to look like. Read more at Frier Levitt →

California is using AI to support Medi-Cal reenrollment

Hooper Lundy has a short piece on California turning to artificial intelligence to support Medi-Cal reenrollment. Nothing here asks a pharmacy to do anything today. It is worth knowing anyway, because reenrollment mechanics decide who stays covered, and coverage churn arrives at the pharmacy counter as rejected claims and as patients facing costs they did not expect. The direction the state is moving on this is worth watching. Read more at Hooper Lundy & Bookman →

This update is general information about developments in pharmacy law and regulation. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it should not be relied on as a substitute for advice about your own situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you have a specific question about your pharmacy, call or write and we will talk about it properly.

Law Office of Bhavesh Desai | Bhavesh Desai, Pharm.D., Esq.
Yorba Linda, CA 92886 | (909) 618-7299