Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Recommendations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon drug affordability board debates PBM oversight, 340B audit and scope changes ahead of November vote
Summary
At its Oct. 15 meeting the Oregon Prescription Drug Affordability Board continued drafting legislative recommendations, debating a proposal to form a study group on pharmacy benefit managers and a staff‑requested audit of the federal 340B program. Members split over whether to expand the board’s scope, with final voting language to be drafted for the November meeting.
The Oregon Prescription Drug Affordability Board spent much of its Oct. 15 meeting refining policy recommendations it will vote on in November, focusing on pharmacy benefit manager oversight, a proposed study of the federal 340B program and whether the board should broaden or even pause its current work.
The board considered a set of proposals that ranged from targeted technical changes to broader structural options. Board member John Murray urged the group to recommend forming a legislative work group to study a single PBM for Medicaid and CCOs and to examine spread pricing and PBM fee structures. "I have a pharmacy transaction detail from a patient that said their insurance paid $113.16… the true cost of the medicine was $4.89," Murray said, using that example to argue for transparency reforms and a study process that would bring plans, PBMs and pharmacies to the table.
Why it matters: The board’s recommendations will feed into the annual legislative report the PDAB sends to the Oregon Legislature. Staff said it will consolidate similar proposals and draft voting language for the board's November meeting; formal votes on recommendations are scheduled for next month.
Supporters and skeptics voiced competing views. Dr. Dan Hartung and several members favored folding detailed PBM and delivery‑system ideas into a study or work group, arguing the board lacks either the time or the statutory authority to implement some consequential changes immediately. "Rolling them up into a larger recommendation to study this issue and making sure that someone puts forth some sort of larger policy recommendation for maybe the longer session makes sense to me," Hartung said. He also recommended the board ask the legislature to consider auditing or commissioning an analysis of the 340B program to better track revenues and rebates tied to certain covered entities.
Industry and advocacy commenters who addressed the board offered divergent emphases. Daria McGrew, representing PhRMA, supported staff steps to protect trade secret information during reviews and urged transparency that accounts for the whole supply chain. Consumer advocates including Jessica McBride of the Oregon Coalition for Affordable Prescriptions and Auden Friedman of OSPIRG urged the board to press for stronger tools — pointing to Colorado’s recent upper payment limit action as an example — and to prioritize policies that reduce patient out‑of‑pocket costs.
Board governance emerged as a secondary but sharp theme. Vice Chair Amy Burns said she had drafted language questioning whether the PDAB, as currently constituted, is producing actionable results; some members later disavowed a desire to fault staff and instead urged restructuring or scope expansion rather than disbanding. Chair Shelley Bailey noted the board has produced tangible outcomes, citing the 2024 insulin copay cap and PBM reporting improvements, while acknowledging members’ frustration with data lags and implementation hurdles.
What's next: Staff committed to consolidating overlapping recommendations, drafting clear voting language and sharing a rubric form board members can use to score drugs individually. The board will review consolidated materials in November and expects to conduct formal votes in January for drugs under review. The next meeting is set for Nov. 19, 2025.
