Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medicaid Pharmacy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears bill to let Medicaid favor lower net-cost brand drugs over generics
Summary
A Senate committee heard testimony on SB 119, which would let New Hampshire Medicaid prefer brand-name drugs when net cost after rebates is lower than generic alternatives; Medicaid officials said the change could save the state money without changing patient benefits.
Sen. James Gray introduced Senate Bill 119 on behalf of the sponsor, saying the proposal would give the Medicaid program flexibility to prefer the lowest net-cost drug after rebates, even if that drug is brand-name.
The bill would allow Medicaid to choose the drug option with the lower net cost once manufacturer rebates and other adjustments are taken into account. Henry Littman, the state's Medicaid director, told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee that the proposal would align Medicaid purchasing with net-cost realities and allow the program to maintain a stronger, single pharmacy drug list across managed care organizations.
"Generics often are cheaper, but they're not always cheaper," Littman said. He told the committee that using net cost to select preferred products would not change patient benefits and would strengthen program economy while preserving access.
Littman summarized the department's current fiscal analysis for the state general fund, saying the projected budgetary impact is savings that ramp over time: about $1.1 million in fiscal 2026, $3.4 million in fiscal 2027 and roughly $4.5 million in fiscal 2028. He said pharmacy spending has grown as a share of Medicaid medical spend, and the change is intended to be a cost-management tool.
The bill also contains new language directing the Medicaid program to review certain over‑the‑counter conversions and newly available medical devices annually, to permit the department to consider those products if the net cost to the program is favorable.
Committee members asked questions about how brand rebates can make brand drugs less expensive than generics in Medicaid. Littman explained that manufacturers commonly provide rebates and assessment-fee arrangements that reduce net brand costs and that Medicaid typically receives preferential discounting because of its purchasing scope.
After public testimony the committee took procedural steps on the bill. The committee moved into executive session on SB 119 for deliberation, then returned and recorded a consent action to move the bill forward. The committee recorded voice votes of "aye"; no roll-call tallies were available in the hearing transcript.
Why it matters: The bill is targeted at Medicaid program purchasing rules rather than changing patient coverage; supporters including the Medicaid director framed it as a budget tool to preserve benefits while capturing available discounts. Opponents did not appear in the hearing record provided.
LITIGATION, OVERSIGHT: Committee members requested the fiscal note and actuarial work supporting the savings estimates; the Medicaid director said the fiscal note was in progress and would be provided to the committee.
