Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PBM Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee releases PBM‑disclosure bill after mixed testimony on federal overlap
Summary
The committee voted to release Assembly bill 46 57 requiring PBM disclosures; PBM trade groups pointed to recent federal and state reporting requirements and asked the legislature to avoid duplicative, costly reporting while pharmacy and independent owners urged transparency.
The Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee voted to release Assembly bill 46 57, a measure aimed at increasing transparency from pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) to health‑plan sponsors, after hearings that featured conflicting perspectives from PBMs, carriers and community pharmacy advocates.
Heather Castong, speaking for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, said PCMA supports "actionable data" that is understandable and useful to plan sponsors but emphasized that federal law already requires extensive PBM reporting. "The Consolidated Appropriations Act...requires that PBMs report on a variety of drug data, formulary decision making rationale, and our contracts," she said, and urged the committee to consider distinctions created by federal law.
Ward Sanders of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans told the panel that plans already request a high degree of information from PBMs and that the recently enacted federal Consolidated Appropriations Act (2026) contains many similar requirements. He asked whether the state bill intends to require plan‑specific or aggregated data and warned that overly prescriptive state reporting could impose costs without added value.
Supporters such as independent pharmacy advocates argued the bill would end opaque price‑spreading and protect community pharmacists from unfair reimbursement tactics. The chair called for a roll‑call vote; the clerk recorded No votes from Assemblyman Meyer, Assemblywoman Flynn, Assemblyman Clifton and Assemblyman Oth, and the motion carried to release the bill.
The committee discussion focused on the bill's scope — whether it duplicates federal disclosure and whether it should require other supply‑chain participants (manufacturers, wholesalers) to provide data that would allow a fuller view of drug‑pricing drivers. Witnesses offered to work with sponsors on drafting to ensure disclosures are actionable for plan sponsors and do not create privacy or competitive concerns.
