California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB265

Introduced
1/31/17  
Introduced
1/31/17  
Refer
2/13/17  
Report Pass
3/27/17  
Report Pass
3/27/17  
Refer
3/28/17  
Report Pass
4/25/17  
Report Pass
4/25/17  
Refer
4/27/17  
Refer
4/27/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Report Pass
5/10/17  
Refer
5/11/17  
Refer
5/17/17  
Refer
5/17/17  
Report Pass
5/26/17  
Report Pass
5/26/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Engrossed
5/31/17  
Refer
6/1/17  
Refer
6/1/17  
Refer
6/14/17  
Refer
6/14/17  
Report Pass
6/22/17  
Report Pass
6/22/17  
Refer
6/22/17  
Refer
6/22/17  
Report Pass
6/27/17  
Report Pass
6/27/17  
Refer
6/27/17  
Refer
6/27/17  
Report Pass
7/6/17  
Enrolled
9/13/17  
Enrolled
9/13/17  
Chaptered
10/9/17  

Caption

Prescription drugs: prohibition on price discount.

Impact

AB 265 modifies the Health and Safety Code to enforce stricter controls regarding the pricing of prescription drugs by manufacturers in California. The bill mandates that if a generic version of a drug is available at a lower cost, manufacturers cannot reduce patient expenses such as copayments or deductibles for the brand-name versions. Exceptions to this rule exist for certain circumstances, including step therapy compliance or rebates to state agencies, which aim to maintain accessibility while ensuring fiscal responsibility within state healthcare spending.

Summary

Assembly Bill 265, also known as the Prescription Drug Discount Prohibition Act, aims to regulate pricing practices within the pharmaceutical industry by prohibiting prescription drug manufacturers from offering discounts, repayments, or other means of reducing out-of-pocket expenses for individuals, in cases where lower cost generic alternatives are available and designated as therapeutically equivalent. The legislation navigates the balance between allowing patients access to necessary medications and discouraging practices that may lead to higher healthcare costs.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 265 is mixed. Proponents argue that it protects consumers from the potentially exploitative pricing practices of drug manufacturers, thereby enhancing competition and facilitating access to affordable healthcare. On the other hand, critics voice concerns that such restrictions might inadvertently stifle innovation and limit patient choices, particularly in situations where branded medications may offer distinct benefits over their generic counterparts.

Contention

Critics of the bill often express worries related to the implications of having limitations on manufacturer incentives for developing new medications. The concern is that prohibiting discounts on brand-name drugs could lead to reduced investment in pharmaceutical research and development. Proponents of the bill counter these claims, emphasizing the necessity of consumer protection in a highly regulated market, particularly when ensuring that pricing remains fair and equitable for all California residents.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB29

Pharmacy benefit managers.

NC H163

Pharmacy Benefits Manager Provisions

SD HB1135

Provide for transparency in the pricing of prescription drugs.

SD SB163

Address transparency in prescription drug pricing.

WI SB50

Health care costs omnibus, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)

WI AB62

Health care costs omnibus, granting rule-making authority, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)

NJ S3604

Authorizes use of healthcare platforms providing discounted prices for payment of prescription and non-prescription drugs or devices and for telehealth and telemedicine services.

NJ A5212

Authorizes use of healthcare platforms providing discounted prices for payment of prescription and non-prescription drugs or devices and for telehealth and telemedicine services.