Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Federal Policy

Trump Administration Weighs 340B Drug Program Transparency Pilot

Trump Administration Weighs 340B Drug Program Transparency Pilot

If the pilot moves forward, it would be the first federal mechanism requiring hospitals to document whether 340B discounts reach the low-income patients the program was designed to serve.

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · June 25, 2026

The Trump administration is considering a pilot program that would impose new disclosure requirements on participants in the 340B Drug Pricing Program, a federal initiative established under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 256b) that requires drug manufacturers to sell outpatient medications to qualifying hospitals and clinics at discounts averaging 25 to 50 percent below market price, according to reporting by the Washington Examiner published June 25, 2026.

The 340B program was created by Congress in 1992 to help safety-net providers — including disproportionate-share hospitals, federally qualified health centers, and rural referral centers — stretch federal resources and provide medications to low-income and uninsured patients. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the program, reported in its most recent data that more than 50,000 covered entity sites participate in 340B nationally.

Critics of the program, including the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) in its June 2023 Report to Congress, have documented that a significant share of 340B hospitals do not pass discounts through to patients at the point of sale, instead retaining the spread between the discounted acquisition cost and the full reimbursement rate billed to insurers and Medicare. MedPAC estimated that 340B hospitals received approximately $9.8 billion in discounts in 2021, per that same report, while patient-level benefit tracking has remained largely absent from program requirements.

Hospital industry groups, including the American Hospital Association, have opposed transparency mandates in the past, arguing in public comments submitted during prior HRSA rulemaking proceedings that current reporting requirements are sufficient and that additional disclosure burdens would strain safety-net providers. Drug manufacturers, including members of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have separately pursued litigation and congressional lobbying seeking program reforms; PhRMA's 2025 Lobbying Disclosure Act filings, available at lda.senate.gov, recorded $14.2 million in total lobbying expenditures across all issues for that year.

The specific structure, timeline, and statutory authority for the proposed pilot have not been formally announced in the Federal Register as of June 25, 2026, and no notice of proposed rulemaking has been published by HRSA. What remains unknown is which covered entity categories would be included in the pilot, whether participation would be voluntary or mandatory, and how patient-level discount data would be collected and verified. A formal HRSA rulemaking notice or a presidential executive order published in the Federal Register would be the public records that would answer those questions.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com