Currently Viewing:
Currently Reading
California Law Will Put Limits on PBMs, Add Notice Requirements
October 04, 2018 – Mary Caffrey
This Week in Managed Care: September 21, 2018
September 21, 2018
Payers, Unions Protest Additional Cost Shift of ESRD Services in Opioid Bill
August 20, 2018 – Allison Inserro
What We're Reading: Zika's Long-Term Impact; Addiction Meds in Jails; Icahn Against Cigna
August 08, 2018 – AJMC Staff
Generics Generated Over $200 Billion in Savings in 2017
August 05, 2018 – Jaime Rosenberg
5 Things About Chronic Pain and Pain Management in the Age of Opioids
July 06, 2018 – Allison Inserro
Payers Have Room for Improvement in Delivering Pain Care, Study Says
June 22, 2018 – Allison Inserro
Adults Surviving Nonfatal Opioid Overdose Have Higher Risk of Death Later
June 20, 2018 – Allison Inserro
AJMC® in the Press, June 15, 2018
June 15, 2018 – AJMC Staff

California Law Will Put Limits on PBMs, Add Notice Requirements

Mary Caffrey
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) will have to disclose some information about their compensation and relationships with payers.
A new law signed last weekend by California Governor Jerry Brown will put new requirements on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) operating in the state and add notice requirements, according to information from the California Pharmacists Association (CPhA), which backed the law.

The law bars “gag clauses” that have prevented pharmacies from telling consumers when they would save money by paying cash for a prescription instead of obtaining it through insurance with a higher co-payment. Under the California law, if the customer pays the retail price, the pharmacy can still put the claim through the insurer and credit the amount paid toward the customer’s deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.

The law defines who is covered by its requirements, including players in the pharmacy chain such as health benefit plan sponsors or other third-party players that contract with PBMs. Under the law, according to a CPhA information sheet, PBMs must spell out any practice that could represent a conflict of interest with the PBM’s duty to these payers to “exercise good faith and fair dealing.”

Additionally, the bill calls for several notice requirements for PBMs if the payers seek them:
  • Aggregate wholesale acquisition costs from the manufacturer for each category with 3 or more drugs
  • Aggregate amount of rebates to the PBM by therapeutic category
  • Administrative fees from a pharmaceutical manufacturer
  • Whether the PBM has exclusive deals with a manufacturer to dispense a drug in exchange for economic benefits
  • Aggregate prescription utilization data for the purchaser’s enrollees
  • Aggregate payments from the PBM to pharmacies controlled by the PBM; a key provision in the wake of recent or planned mergers.
The bill calls for pilot projects to occur in 2 California counties, one each in Northern and Southern California, but it was not immediately clear what those projects would entail. A call to CPhA was not returned. California regulators will have to submit a report to the legislature in 18 months.

Related Articles

Pharma—PBM War on Drug Prices Picks Up Steam
5 Proposals in Alex Azar's Drug Price Plan
Ohio Tells Medicaid PBMs That 2019 Will Be a Time for Transparent Contracts
Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome the the new and improved, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up