Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuity Of Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 449 aims to preserve continuity of prior authorization and ease hospital discharge; providers praise, payers urge caution
Summary
SB 449 would preserve prior-authorizations across plan changes (continuity of approvals), prohibit re-running step therapy when a patient has completed it, and require 72-hour medication coverage at hospital discharge. Clinicians said the rules would prevent care interruptions; insurers raised concerns about covered vs excluded drugs and inter‑insurer data exchange. Committee adopted coordination language with earlier House bills and concurred the bill to the floor.
Sponsor Sen. Vince Ricci and proponents presented Senate Bill 449 as targeted fixes to everyday problems clinicians see: step-therapy resets when patients change plans, inability to fill discharge prescriptions over weekends, and redundant reauthorizations that consume clinic staff time.
Stacy Anderson, representing multiple provider groups, described provisions that prevent insurers from requiring patients to repeat completed step therapy when moving between plans and would provide a short supply (72 hours) of discharge medications to bridge patients to normal pharmacy operations. Kim Longcake and other clinicians emphasized the weekend-discharge problem: medically stable patients who need a time-sensitive prescription can face delays because prior‑auth staff or insurer reviewers are not available on weekends.
Supporters said these changes are modest and modeled on statutes in other states (testimony cited Wyoming and West Virginia examples). Opponents — including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Pacific Source, and PBM trade groups — argued concerns about covered-versus-excluded drugs, whether a short supply merely defers a tougher decision, and whether state rules will affect plans not subject to state regulation. Insurers also cautioned that mandating specific electronic prior-authorization standards could conflict with federal rules rolling out in 2026 and that mandating a particular standard by name risks obsolescence.
Committee staff proposed coordination instructions to align SB 449 with HB 398 and similar bills where language overlapped (for example, continuity-of-approval periods). The committee agreed to those conceptual changes and concurred the bill as amended. SB 449 now goes to the House floor with those coordination instructions in place.
