Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prescription Drugs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor pulls drug coverage bill after $18 million fiscal note; cites PBM interpretation dispute
Summary
Sen. Boyd withdrew Senate Bill 140 after state fiscal staff estimated an $18 million impact; sponsor said PBM and consultant interpretations differ from his reading of the bill’s exceptions.
Sen. Boyd introduced Senate Bill 140 as a measure intended to lower drug costs by limiting utilization management for generics and biosimilars, but he withdrew the bill after a fiscal note estimated an $18 million cost.
“In short, Navitus said that the bill would eliminate utilization management for generics and biosimilars,” Boyd told the Insurance & Commerce Committee, referencing the state’s pharmacy benefit manager. The sponsor said his bill includes an exception that permits continued use of brand or reference products if a pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee determines a cost‑effective reason for doing so.
Boyd said he disagreed with the consultant’s interpretation and the resulting fiscal estimate. “I think it clearly had language that said that if you have a P&T committee and there was a cost‑effective reason that you could do that. So I don't know if we just have a misinterpretation, but I'm not gonna ask this committee to vote on something with an $18,000,000 fiscal impact,” he said and asked the committee to pull the bill.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about how PBMs evolved to control formularies and about why generics could be calculated with higher projected costs under current rebate and formulary arrangements. The sponsor and witnesses discussed rebates, PBM practices, and concerns about transparency. No committee vote was taken on SB 140.
