Hartford Business Journal

36 HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM | MAY 4, 2026 Opinion & Commentary OTHER VOICES Legislative proposal threatens CT's life sciences sector, patient access to critical medicines By Jodie Gillon C onnecticut has long been a leader in protecting patient access to testing and medicines. Our state is also one of the largest innovation centers where those medi- cations are discovered, researched and manu- factured. Therapies discovered here — such as the COVID vaccine — save lives around the world, and it's impera- tive we safeguard both patient access as well as the compa- nies investing in these treatments. The approximately 300 organiza- tions that comprise BioCT understand that balancing patient access while protecting innovation can be the most challenging legislative burden. We applaud our well-intentioned legislators. However, as lawmakers race to put forth policies before the end of the session, proposals may have unintended consequences that both impede patient access and stifle inno- vation, or even upend any investment in underserved populations such as the rare disease space. Senate Bill 494 focuses on a federal program known as 340B. Established in the 1990s, the program was designed to improve access to medications for low-income and vulnerable patient populations, including those who are uninsured or residing in rural or medi- cally underserved areas. Under the program, prescription drug manufacturers sell their products to designated "covered entities" (i.e., certain hospitals and Federally Quali- fied Health Centers) at steep discounts, in some cases pennies on the dollar. In return, the health care facilities are required to use those savings to directly benefit patients, including by providing access to affordable therapies and additional services that are needed by these vulnerable patient populations. The reduced-cost medications are available to patients through designated contract pharmacies. The program initially improved health outcomes and expanded access, and our industry remains supportive of its original intent. It was well-intentioned and addressed a critical need, but over time it has experienced significant growth and misuse. Due to a lack of oversight on the federal level, the number of contract pharmacies used by covered entities has skyrocketed with a significant number of them not being located in the communities the law was intended to serve. Of the more than 450 contract pharmacies intended for low-income Connecticut residents, 31% are located outside the state. And of the in-state 340B pharmacies, none are located in marginalized areas. Senate Bill 494 would effectively require drug manufacturers to sell deeply discounted drugs to an unlim- ited number of contract pharmacies, including pharmacies outside of Connecticut, used by covered entities in the state. Additionally, any attempt by a manufacturer to limit the number of contract pharmacies servicing Connecticut covered entities would be strictly prohibited and face fines of up to $50,000 per violation. This would not meaningfully improve access to low-cost medications in Connecticut, but it could discourage investment in the state's life sciences sector as more sales are subject to discounted pricing. There's also an impact on indepen- dent pharmacies. Roughly 70% of contract pharmacies are large chains, making it difficult for independent pharmacies to compete and putting many at risk of closing. These concerns come at a time when the life sciences industry is already facing significant challenges. Developing medications is, by nature, a risky business. It typically takes 10 to 15 years and roughly $1 billion to $3 billion of investment to get a prescrip- tion drug to market. Moreover, drug manufacturers are navigating a challenging federal policy and funding environment. As states move to respond, it is important to recognize that the 340B program is regulated at the federal level — helping ensure manufacturers are not subject to a patchwork of state requirements or disincentivized from operating in certain markets. Startup biotech companies — the bulk of Connecticut's ecosystem — are at the greatest risk under this bill due to the economic uncertainty it would create during a period when they typically have no revenue and are seeking funding. Venture capitalists typically invest in all industries and therapeutic areas. If an area such as drug development becomes more uncertain, they will shift their portfolio and focus on AI or digital health. State regulations unsupportive of the flow of funding could have a reverberating effect for many years. As the legislative session nears its May 6 end, I urge lawmakers to focus on policies that deliver clear bene- fits for patients and improve health outcomes, and to avoid passing a bill that could harm both patients and the industry while driving up costs for Connecticut residents and businesses. Jodie Gillon is the president and CEO of BioCT, an industry associa- tion representing Connecticut's life sciences sector. EXPERT'S CORNER Lessons from Kit Kat: What 400,000 stolen chocolate bars did for crisis communications Jodie Gillon By Andrea Obston A ttention America: Twelve tons of stolen Kit Kats are still out there somewhere, and so are 60 tons of publicity. No. It wasn't an April Fool's joke. Indeed, thieves in late March made off with over 400,000 Formula 1-themed Kit Kats from a truck traveling between a factory in Italy and Poland. And the smart folks at Nestle managed to turn it into pure PR gold that the internet keeps on loving. Not long ago, most companies would have kept silent in a situ- ation like this. They would issue a brief initial statement, making clear that they were aware of the situation and were working with the proper authorities. Nestle did that and more. They made a smart move from the start by quickly confirming the theft. Then they leaned into the situation with humor, tying it into their "Have a break" brand platform. Their initial official statement confirmed the theft, adding "The good news: there are no concerns for consumer safety." They kept things going in press interviews when a spokesperson said, "We've always encouraged people to have a break with Kit Kat, but it seems thieves have taken the message too literally and made a break with more than 12 tons of our chocolate." The story was amplified on social media with a YouTube video of a "security convoy" of trucks, playing off the joke even further. That gave other brands and creators the launching pad for their humorous posts and memes. Everyone from Del Taco to Dollar Tree jumped on this. Hundreds of humorous posts and memes flooded across every platform. Dominos released an "official statement" sharing their thoughts and condolences, adding, "On a completely unrelated note, we're pleased to announce we'll now be selling a new Kit Kat pizza." For my money, the best was Ryanair's post featuring one of their planes with a smiling face stuffed with five Kit Kat bars. Given the truly random, weird and wonderful nature of this situation, are there any communi- cations lessons the rest of us can glean from it? Or do PR pros just have to wait around for someone else to hijack a truckload of another beloved food? Nope. There are things to learn. Lesson No. 1: Tell Your story before anyone else does Nestle took control of the narrative immediately, confirming the loss and the fact that they were working with the proper authorities. They didn't leave it to law enforcement to explain the situation. That would have focused the conversation on the crime and possibly on their inadequate security. Lesson No. 2: Have fun, but show you're taking the crisis seriously Here's where Nestle had the perfect balance. They made it clear that they were taking the theft seriously. They were working with law enforcement and their supply chain partners to solve the crime, find the perpetrators and recover the merchandise. They emphasized that playing along with the internet fun wasn't distracting them from the business side of the Andrea Obston

• Cover