AB 315 California Assembly · 2017-2018 Regular Session

Pharmacy benefit management.

Summary
Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies by the California State Board of Pharmacy. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a crime. This bill would require a pharmacy to inform a customer at the point of sale for a covered prescription drug whether the retail price is lower than the applicable cost-sharing amount for the prescription drug, unless the pharmacy automatically charges the customer the lower price. If the customer pays the retail price, the bill would require the pharmacy to submit the claim to the plan or insurer in the same manner as if the customer had purchased the prescription drug by paying the cost-sharing amount when submitted by the network pharmacy. The bill would provide that the payment rendered by an enrollee would constitute the applicable cost sharing, as specified. The bill would provide that a violation of those provisions would not be grounds for disciplinary or criminal action. Existing law imposes specified requirements on an audit of pharmacy services provided to beneficiaries of a health benefit plan and defines a "pharmacy benefit manager" for those purposes as a person, business, or other entity that, pursuant to a contract or under an employment relationship with a carrier, health benefit plan sponsor, or other 3rd-party payer, either directly or through an intermediary, manages the prescription drug coverage provided by the carrier, plan sponsor, or other 3rd-party payer. The bill would require pharmacy benefit managers to exercise good faith and fair dealing. Among other things, the bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to notify a purchaser, as defined, in writing of any activity, policy, or practice of the pharmacy benefit manager that directly or indirectly presents a conflict of interest that interferes with the discharge of the pharmacy benefit manager's duty to the purchaser to exercise good faith and fair dealing. The bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to disclose, on a quarterly basis, and upon the request of the purchaser, certain information with respect to prescription product benefits specific to the purchaser, including, but not limited to, the aggregate wholesale acquisition costs from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler for certain therapeutic drugs and any administrative fees received from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler. The bill would exempt from those requirements proprietary information, as defined, if the purchaser fails to agree, in writing, to maintain that information as confidential. The bill would impose additional requirements on pharmacy benefit managers to disclose to pharmacy network providers or their contracting agents of any material change to a contract provision that affects, among other things, the terms of reimbursement. The bill would prohibit a pharmacy benefit manager from including in a contract with a pharmacy network provider or its contracting agent a provision that prohibits the provider from informing a patient of a less costly alternative to a prescribed medication. The bill would exempt from the above provisions a health care service plan or health insurer, or its affiliate, subsidiary, related entity, or contracted medical group, if it offers, provides, or administers pharmacy benefit management services only to enrollees, subscribers, policyholders, or insureds, as specified, and certain contracts under the Labor Code. On and after January 1, 2020, and until January 1, 2023, the bill would also establish a pilot project in the Counties of Riverside and Sonoma to assess the impact of health care service plan and pharmacy benefit manager prohibitions on the dispensing of certain amounts of prescription drugs by network retail pharmacies. In those counties, the bill would prohibit a health care service plan from prohibiting, or permitting any delegated pharmacy benefit manager to prohibit, a pharmacy provider from dispensing a particular amount of a prescribed medication if the plan or pharmacy benefit manager allows that amount to be dispensed through a pharmacy owned or controlled by the plan or pharmacy benefit manager, except as specified. The bill would require plans in those counties to report annually to the Department of Managed Health Care information and data relating to the pilot project. The bill would require the department to provide a summary of that data to the Governor and health policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Riverside and Sonoma. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. A willful violation of those provisions is a crime. Existing law requires health care service plans that cover prescription drug benefits and that issue cards to enrollees to issue to each of its enrollees a uniform prescription drug information card that, at a minimum, contains specified information, including information required by the benefit administrator or health care service plan that is necessary to commence processing a pharmacy claim and a telephone number that pharmacy providers may call for assistance. On and after January 1, 2020, the bill would impose additional requirements on health care service plans with regard to contracted pharmacy providers and pharmacy benefit managers. Among other things, the bill would prohibit a health care service plan from including in a contract with a pharmacy provider or its contracting agent a provision that prohibits the provider from informing a patient of a less costly alternative to a prescribed medication. The bill would require a health care service plan that contracts with a pharmacy benefit manager for management of any or all of its prescription drug coverage to require the pharmacy benefit manager to comply with specified provisions, register with the department pursuant to these provisions, and exercise good faith and fair dealing in the performance of its contractual duties to a health care service plan. The bill would require the registration of those pharmacy benefit managers with the department, as specified, and would authorize the department to set a fee for registration, as specified. The bill would establish enforcement provisions. The bill would also establish a Task Force on Pharmacy Benefit Management Reporting, until February 1, 2020, to determine what information related to pharmaceutical costs, if any, the department should require to be reported by health care service plans or their contracted pharmacy benefit managers. The bill would require the department to submit a report of the task force to specified persons and entities within the Legislature. Because a willful violation of these provisions by health care service plans would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2017
Committee Review
Aug 2018
Assembly Passage
Jun 2017
Senate Passage
Aug 2018
Signed into Law
Sep 2018
Introduced Feb 6, 2017 Signed Sep 29, 2018
Floor votes · Senate Aug 28, 2018 · Assembly Jun 1, 2017

How they voted

231
Passed · 8 other
Total votes 32
Aug 28, 2018
D Democratic21
18 Yea 1 Nay 2
85% Yea
R Republican11
5 Yea 6
45% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
40
Key actions
13
Committee
12
Amendments
7
Sep 29, 2018
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 29, 2018
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 6897.).
lower
Aug 28, 2018
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (23-1-8)
senate
Aug 28, 2018
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 24, 2018
Upper · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
Sep 1, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (September 1).
upper
Aug 21, 2017
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 11, 2017
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jul 10, 2017
Upper · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 5).
upper
Jun 22, 2017
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 14, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
upper
Jun 1, 2017
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (49-7-14)
assembly
May 30, 2017
Lower · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1775.)
lower
May 26, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (May 26).
lower
May 24, 2017
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
May 11, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 10, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 19, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 6, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
lower
Apr 5, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on B. & P. Read second time and amended.
lower
Feb 21, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on B. & P.
lower
Feb 7, 2017
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 9.
lower
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor

Sponsors