Parts Of HELP Bill Regulating PBMs Were Inspired By Montana Strategy
Published by Inside Health Policy
Senate health committee chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and ranking Democrat Patty Murray (WA) included measures regulating pharmacy benefit managers in their draft bill on lowering health care costs that were inspired by a state official’s work in Montana. While the state bill was vetoed by presidential candidate and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), the policy would have a much wider impact if it is adopted into Murray and Alexander’s legislation.
The two proposals that were based on Montana’s work are the ban on spread pricing and the requirement that PBMs pass through rebates to insurers.
Marilyn Bartlett, an insurance industry veteran, is the architect of Montana’s strategy to regulate PBMs. After leaving the insurance industry to administer the state employee health plan, she switched the state plan to a PBM that used more transparent practices. Bartlett estimates the switch saved $2 million by eliminating spread pricing and increased rebate revenue by $3.5 million the year after changing PBMs.
She now works for the state insurance commissioner’s office. Senate health committee staff reached out after hearing about Bartlett’s work, a spokesman for the insurance commissioner said.
Bartlett designed the state’s Senate Bill 71, which would have imposed transparency requirements on PBMs through insurers.
It was championed by Montana insurance commissioner Matt Rosendale, a conservative mainstay in Montana politics who challenged Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) in 2018. Rosendale also pushed several other measures on a variety of issues this session, which fostered resentment among Montana Democrats. Rosendale previously served as the state senate’s majority leader and has a history of animosity with Democrats on health care issues.
Outside of political considerations, Gov. Bullock said in a veto letter that he axed the legislation based on insurance industry concerns about enforcement. Lawmakers must vote to override or sustain the veto by June 14.
However, the U.S. Congress has more authority to directly regulate PBMs, so it would not need to rely on insurers for enforcement.
Montana was in a unique position to advise the U.S. Senate committee on PBM legislation because of the case study its state plan experiment produced and litigation the state pursued against the PBM industry, said Kyle Schmauch, a spokesman for Rosendale’s office.
A bill inspired by Montana’s SB 71 is also currently making its way through the Maine state legislature.
“I think looking at problems and ideas are more important at the federal level than looking at what bills become law,” Schmauch said. — Rachel Cohrs (rcohrs@iwpnews.com)
Click here to see the original article on the Inside Health Policy website.
Recent Posts
-
Senior Care Pharmacy Coalition Applauds Chairman Comer and House Oversight Committee for Shedding Light on Harmful PBM Practices, Encourages Congress to Advance PBM Reform Legislation Heard Today in House Energy and Commerce Committee Health Subcommittee
The Senior Care Pharmacy Coalition (SCPC), the leading national voice for the long-term care pharmacy community, released a statement today regarding the House Oversight Committee’s hearing on pharmacy benefit managers.
-
Stuck in the middle, LTC pharmacies could be dangerously squeezed by drug price negotiations
Any lower drug prices that result from White House efforts to negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries may lead to short-term gains for nursing homes, but there also could be a steep price to pay in the long-term, experts warned this week. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Tuesday announced the first 10 drugs covered by Medicare Part D that will be included in negotiations running through 2024. They are all commonly prescribed drugs that treat conditions ranging from diabetes to arthritis and heart failure.
-
Biden’s Plans to Reduce Cost of Medicare Drugs To Send Ripple Effects Through Nursing Home Industry
Following the Biden Administration’s bid this week to reduce the price of certain drugs – many of which are commonly used in nursing homes – experts are cautioning that the changes may negatively impact the bottomline of organizations in the sector. As Medicare Part D price negotiations for these drugs come into focus this week, the Senior Care Pharmacy Coalition (SCPC), for one, is warning that changes to Part D might cause “collateral damage” to long-term care pharmacies, the patients they serve and operator partners.
Stay in the Know
Get the latest news and updates on issues impacting the long-term pharmacy community.