Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pbm Drug Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor withdraws request for committee vote on drug bill after $18 million fiscal estimate
Summary
Senate Bill 140, presented as a step to reduce drug costs by limiting some utilization management for generics and biosimilars, drew debate over an $18 million fiscal note; sponsor declined to ask the committee for a vote.
Senate Bill 140, introduced by Senator Boyd, drew questions after a consultant reported an $18 million fiscal impact tied to changes in utilization management and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices. Boyd told the Insurance & Commerce Committee he believed the fiscal estimate misinterpreted the bill's exception for pharmacy and therapeutics committees but would not press for a vote because of the high number on the fiscal note.
"We've got a supposed fiscal impact of $18,000,000," Boyd said, and added he would not ask the committee to vote on the bill while the green-sheet fiscal note stood. He explained that his legislation is intended to limit some PBM use of utilization-management tools for generics and biosimilars while preserving an exception when a pharmacy and therapeutics committee can show a cost-effective reason to keep a brand product.
Committee members asked for clarification of how PBMs operate and how rebates and formulary decisions can affect costs. Boyd described PBMs' evolution from claim adjudicators to entities that negotiate formularies and collect rebates from manufacturers. He said he disagreed with the fiscal estimate but did not have time in the session to rebut it.
Ending: The sponsor said he would not request a committee vote at this meeting; the bill remains under consideration pending further work on the fiscal estimate and technical language.
