Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Medicaid Pharmacy Benefits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill to move Medicaid to a single PBM advances; sponsors say consolidation will lower drug prices

3803045 · May 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 389 would consolidate Medicaid pharmacy benefits under a single pharmacy benefit manager to improve purchasing leverage and reduce drug prices. Supporters said the change will streamline pricing and returns to the state; no opposition callers appeared during the committee hearing.

Senator Melanie Scheibel introduced Senate Bill 389 to the Committee as a technical but potentially high‑impact change to Medicaid’s pharmacy administration. The bill would move Nevada Medicaid from multiple pharmacy‑benefit managers (PBMs) to a single PBM administrator selected through state procurement.

Scheibel and the Department of Health Care Finance and Policy testified that a single PBM model is intended to create greater negotiating leverage with manufacturers, simplify pharmacy billing and pricing for pharmacists who now bill multiple PBMs for similar prescriptions, and return negotiated rebates and savings to the state Medicaid program. Department staff said the contract would be procured through state procurement and included transparency and reporting requirements for the selected PBM. Witnesses from administering entities (including Prime/administrators) described the role of a PBM administrator and supported the change as a method to direct negotiated savings back into the Medicaid program.

Supporters included clinical and specialty organizations (Nevada Society for Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery) and current PBM administrators who said they administer programs for state fee‑for‑service Medicaid populations. Written materials referenced programmatic savings potential; proponents described this as a cost‑saving policy although initial startup and procurement costs were noted.

No opposition testimony was taken in committee that day; neutral testimony was not recorded. In the committee’s work session, members moved to do pass the bill and assigned a floor sponsor (see actions).