Part 2 of a Two-Part Series About One of the Most Important and Contentious Areas of the 340B Program. Read Part 1 here.
An attorney for a South Carolina health center asked a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., last month to reverse a lower court decision that left the longstanding 340B program definition of “patient” in effect—a definition that the health center says is at odds with the 340B statute’s actual requirements.
An attorney for a South Carolina health center asked a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., last month to reverse a lower court decision that left the longstanding 340B program definition of “patient” in effect—a definition that the health center says is at odds with the 340B statute’s actual requirements.
Please Login or Become a Paid Subscriber to View this Content
If you are already a paid subscriber, please follow the steps below.
