SB 966 · 2023-24
Requires pharmacy benefit managers to get state licenses
Official subject Pharmacy benefits.
Vetoed Vetoed Sept. 28, 2024
Plain-language summary
Requires pharmacy benefit managers to apply for a Department of Insurance license by January 1, 2027, and file yearly reports on drugs, contracts and revenue. They must disclose all fees they receive. Violations bring civil penalties. Health plans and insurers cannot charge patients cost sharing above the actual rate paid for a drug.
Official summary · Legislative Counsel's Digest
Describes the final version (Enrolled, Sept. 3, 2024).
Read the official summary (12 paragraphs)
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (the Knox-Keene Act), a violation of which is a crime, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. The Knox-Keene Act requires a pharmacy benefit manager under contract with a health care service plan to, among other things, register with the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance.
This bill would additionally require a pharmacy benefit manager, as defined, to apply for a license from the Department of Insurance to operate as a pharmacy benefit manager no later than January 1, 2027. The bill would establish application qualifications and requirements, and would require initial license and renewal fees to be collected into the newly created Pharmacy Benefit Manager Account in the Insurance Fund, to be available to the department for use, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified, for costs related to licensing and regulating pharmacy benefit managers.
This bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to file with the department at specified annual intervals 2 reports, one of which discloses product benefits specific to the purchaser, and the other of which includes information about categories of drugs and the pharmacy benefit manager’s contracts and revenues. The bill would specify that the contents of the reports are not to be disclosed to the public. The bill would require the department, at specified annual intervals, to prepare 2 reports based on the reports submitted by pharmacy benefit managers, and would require the department to post its reports on the department’s internet website.
This bill would impose specified duties on pharmacy benefit managers and requirements for pharmacy benefit manager services and pharmacy benefit manager contracts. The bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to disclose to the Department of Insurance all types of fees it receives and how the fees are calculated.
The bill would make a violation of the above-specified provisions subject to specified civil penalties. The bill would establish various filing and service requirements when a proceeding is brought for a violation of specified requirements by a pharmacy benefit manager. The bill would create the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Fines and Penalties Account in the General Fund, into which fines and administrative penalties would be deposited.
Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy that provides coverage for outpatient prescription drugs to cover medically necessary prescription drugs and subjects those policies to certain limitations on cost sharing and the placement of drugs on formularies. Existing law limits the maximum amount an enrollee or insured may be required to pay at the point of sale for a covered prescription drug to the lesser of the applicable cost-sharing amount or the retail price, and requires that payment apply to the applicable deductible. Existing law requires a plan or insurer that reports rate information to report specified prescription drug information to the relevant department no later than October 1 of each year.
This bill would prohibit a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2025, that provides prescription drug coverage from calculating an enrollee’s or insured’s cost sharing at an amount that exceeds the actual rate paid for the prescription drug, and would require a health care service plan contract to include specified cost-sharing provisions. The bill would require a plan or insurer to include additional information in its annual prescription drug data reporting, including the aggregate amount of rebates received by the pharmacy benefit manager for each drug. By expanding the scope of a crime under the Knox-Keene Act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would declare that it would not narrow, abrogate, or otherwise alter the authority of the Attorney General to maintain or restore competitive, fair, and honest markets and prosecute state and federal antitrust and unfair competition violations, among other violations, and would declare that the provisions of this bill are severable.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Official title
An act to amend Section 1367.243 of, and to add Sections 1367.2075 and 1367.2431 to, the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section 10123.205 of, to add Sections 10123.2045 and 10123.2051 to, and to add Division 6 (commencing with Section 17000) to, the Insurance Code, relating to pharmacy benefits.
Veto message · Sept. 28, 2024
The Governor's message, verbatim.
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 966 without my signature.
This bill would require the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to establish a licensing and oversight structure for Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and require PBMs and health plans to report additional data on prescription drugs.
The costs of many prescription drugs - brand name and generic - are too high, and these prices continue to trend upwards. Together with the Legislature, we have taken action to address this problem. We created CalRx to bring in-demand pharmaceutical products to the market with low, transparent pricing, starting with biosimilar insulin and naloxone. We also worked together in 2022 to establish the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) to collect, analyze, and publicly report data on total health care expenditures with the goal to achieve California health care that is accessible, affordable, equitable, high-quality, and universal.?
Without a doubt, the public and the Legislature need a clearer understanding of how much PBM practices are driving up prescription drug costs. I commend the author for working to further tackle this issue through regulating PBM participation in the pharmacy delivery system. Currently, PBMs manage all aspects of prescription drug services for California's commercial health care market. I believe that PBMs must be held accountable to ensure that prescription drugs remain accessible throughout pharmacies across California and available at the lowest price possible. However, I am not convinced that SB 966's expansive licensing scheme will achieve such results.
My Administration is committed to increasing access and lowering the costs of prescription drugs. As such, I am directing the California Health and Human Services Agency to propose a legislative approach to gather much needed data on PBMs next year, which can be considered in conjunction with data from our entire health care delivery system. There is some existing transparency regarding prescription drug prices provided through the reporting required by SB 17 (Hernandez, Chapter 603, Statutes of 2017) and the establishment of the Healthcare Payments Database. However, we need more granular information to fully understand the cost drivers in the prescription drug market and the role that PMBs play in pricing. Specifically, California should collect comprehensive information from the pharmacy delivery system about the total cost of care for providing individual prescription drug products, including but not limited to wholesale acquisition costs, fees, payments, discounts, and rebates paid to and received by PBMs.
These next steps, together with the CalRx program and the Office of Health Care Affordability's work, will offer a multi-pronged approach to improving affordability of prescription drugs in California.
For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Gavin Newsom
Timeline
- Jan. 24, 2024 Introduced
- May 20, 2024 Passed Senate 39 yes, 0 no
- Aug. 28, 2024 Passed Assembly 70 yes, 0 no
- Sept. 9, 2024 Enrolled and sent to the Governor
- Sept. 28, 2024 Vetoed by the Governor
Full official history (34 actions)
- Jan. 24, 2024 Introduced: Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
- Jan. 25, 2024 From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 24.
- Feb. 14, 2024 Referred to Coms. on B., P. & E. D. and HEALTH.
- April 5, 2024 Set for hearing April 15.
- April 16, 2024 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 3605.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
- April 17, 2024 Set for hearing April 24.
- April 18, 2024 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
- April 25, 2024 From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3755.) (April 24).
- April 29, 2024 Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
- May 3, 2024 Set for hearing May 13.
- May 13, 2024 May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
- May 14, 2024 Set for hearing May 16.
- May 16, 2024 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3965.) (May 16).
- May 16, 2024 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- May 20, 2024 Passed Senate: Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 4023.) Ordered to the Assembly.
- May 21, 2024 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
- June 3, 2024 Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.
- June 12, 2024 June 18 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
- June 18, 2024 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
- June 26, 2024 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
- July 3, 2024 From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 2).
- July 3, 2024 Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
- Aug. 7, 2024 August 7 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
- Aug. 15, 2024 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 15).
- Aug. 19, 2024 Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
- Aug. 20, 2024 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- Aug. 22, 2024 Read third time and amended.
- Aug. 22, 2024 Ordered to third reading.
- Aug. 28, 2024 Passed Assembly: Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 70. Noes 0. Page 6716.) Ordered to the Senate.
- Aug. 28, 2024 In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
- Aug. 29, 2024 Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 1. Page 5637.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
- Sept. 9, 2024 Enrolled and sent to the Governor: Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
- Sept. 28, 2024 Vetoed by the Governor: Vetoed by the Governor.
- Sept. 28, 2024 In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.