Arkansas Senate Bill SB489

Arkansas 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/27/23
• Refer: 3/27/23

Caption

To Amend The Law Concerning Maximum Allowable Cost Lists To Define A Similarly Situated Pharmacy, Clarify How A Pharmacy Benefits Manager Provided Its Maximum Allowable Cost List, And Establish A Private Right Of Action.

Impact

The bill impacts state laws related to pharmacy operations by mandating that pharmacy benefits managers grant access to their MAC lists to all pharmacies subject to those lists. This ensures that pharmacies have the necessary information to respond effectively to pricing models. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that these lists should be formatted in a way that is easy for pharmacies to understand, akin to national average drug acquisition costs. Hence, pharmacies gain greater insight into the costs associated with the drugs they dispense, potentially leading to more competitive pricing and better service delivery to patients.

Summary

Senate Bill 489 is designed to amend existing laws surrounding Maximum Allowable Cost (MAC) lists in the state of Arkansas. It establishes definitions pertinent to the pharmacy sector, specifically defining what constitutes a 'similarly situated pharmacy.' This term refers to pharmacies that dispense the same drug within ten days of another pharmacy and receive reimbursements within a margin of five percent. The goal of these definitions is to clarify how pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) provide their MAC lists to pharmacies, thereby enhancing transparency in the pricing structures that pharmacies face when accessing medications.

Contention

Notably, SB489 establishes a private right of action for pharmacies or pharmacists that may violate provisions involving MAC lists, allowing them to enforce their rights through legal channels such as the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This feature is contentious as it may lead to increased litigation against pharmacy benefits managers, which could change the relationship dynamics between independent pharmacies and larger PBM organizations. Supporters of this provision argue it protects smaller pharmacies from unfair practices, whereas opponents might contend this could create an environment ripe for litigation, particularly in an already strained healthcare system.