Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drug Pricing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs Price Act after hours of testimony but vendors and industry warn of access risks
Summary
The committee reported HB 697 favorably after debate and testimony from independent pharmacists and life‑science and pharmaceutical industry representatives who supported reforms to PBM practices but warned that a most‑favored‑nation pricing mechanism could disrupt supply and access.
The House Budget Committee voted to report HB 697, the Price Act, favorably after extended questioning and public testimony about international reference pricing, pharmacy economics and downstream access.
Representative Kinkar Johnson, the bill sponsor, said the bill would set a most‑favored‑nation pricing policy, address pharmacy benefit manager contracting practices, and require insurers to freeze formularies when manufacturers hold a price constant for a year. During questioning, Representative Overdorf asked which foreign countries would be used as benchmarks; the sponsor said the bill uses nations with roughly 60% of U.S. GDP that have multi‑payer systems and are not single‑payer countries, and that implementation would rely on a phased rollout including a third‑party contractor and oversight by state agencies.
Independent pharmacists and industry witnesses offered sharply different views. Barney Bishop of SPAR, representing independent pharmacists, supported the bill and urged protections for neighborhood pharmacies, including a carve‑out to use NAIDAC pricing plus a dispensing fee to prevent independent pharmacies from being paid below cost. Eric Larson, president of the Florida Pharmacy Association and an independent pharmacy owner, said the association supports transparency provisions but warned the most‑favored‑nation provision could force pharmacies to sell at prices below acquisition cost unless there are guardrails ensuring manufacturers and wholesalers continue to supply the U.S. market at capped prices.
Mark Glickman of BioFlorida, representing life sciences employers, and Sharon Lamberton for a pharma trade organization opposed the foreign‑reference approach. They argued the U.S. supply chain and nationally negotiated contracts are not compatible with state‑level foreign reference pricing and warned it could reduce access to new therapies; Lamberton suggested alternative state reforms—such as routing negotiated rebates to patients at the pharmacy counter and changing PBM compensation models—to deliver savings without harming access.
Members expressed mixed views; Representative Tannen said she supported affordability but worried about effects on independent pharmacies and access, while sponsor Kinkar Johnson emphasized the stated problem that 20% of Floridians sometimes ration or go without medications and urged refining the bill’s language to achieve savings for Floridians.
The committee closed debate and reported HB 697 favorably; the transcript records a roll call and chair announcement but does not consolidate an exact numeric tally in the excerpt provided.
