California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB41

Introduced
12/3/24  
Refer
1/29/25  
Refer
3/17/25  
Report Pass
4/24/25  
Refer
4/24/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
4/24/25  
Refer
4/30/25  
Refer
4/24/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Refer
4/30/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Refer
6/30/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Report Pass
7/16/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Refer
7/17/25  
Report Pass
7/16/25  
Report Pass
7/16/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  
Refer
7/17/25  

Caption

Pharmacy benefits.

Impact

The proposed legislation is poised to have a substantial impact on state healthcare laws, particularly by altering how PBMs conduct business with health insurers and health service plans. Starting January 1, 2026, the bill mandates that health insurance policies cannot calculate cost-sharing amounts that exceed the actual rate paid by the plan for prescription drugs. This provision aims to reduce out-of-pocket expenses for patients and promote pricing transparency. The bill also prohibits the practice of spread pricing by PBMs beginning in 2026, which could lead to reduced overall costs for healthcare providers and patients alike.

Summary

Senate Bill 41, introduced by Senators Wiener and Wahab, targets the operations of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and aims to reform the management of prescription drugs within health care plans in California. The legislation imposes significant restrictions on PBMs to ensure that they do not obstruct patients' access to medications and that they operate transparently in their business practices. Among other provisions, SB 41 mandates that PBMs may not require patients to use affiliated pharmacies exclusively and must not interfere with patients accessing prescriptions at contract pharmacies. This establishes a more patient-centered approach in pharmacy benefit management and aims to foster increased competition in the market.

Sentiment

There is a mixed sentiment surrounding SB 41. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to prevent unethical practices by PBMs that have historically prioritized profits over patient welfare. By ensuring that patients have unencumbered access to their medications and that pricing is fair and transparent, supporters believe this will ultimately enhance healthcare outcomes. Conversely, some critics express concerns that overly stringent regulations on PBMs may lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced availability of certain drugs or higher prices overall if PBMs cannot operate effectively within redefined constraints.

Contention

Notably, SB 41 has stirred discussions regarding the balance between regulation and market dynamics. Questions arise about how the implementation of these regulations might affect the negotiation power of PBMs with drug manufacturers, as well as the potential implications for pharmacies, especially independent ones. Additionally, there are concerns about the enforcement of these provisions and whether the Attorney General’s authority to impose civil penalties will be adequate to ensure compliance. As the bill progresses, these points of contention will likely be central in legislative debates.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB966

Pharmacy benefits.

CA AB913

Pharmacy benefit managers.

CA AB1286

Pharmacy.

CA SB524

Pharmacists: furnishing prescription medications.

CA AB425

Medi-Cal: pharmacogenomic testing.

CA AB1060

Health care coverage: naloxone hydrochloride.

CA AB317

Pharmacist service coverage.

CA AB2180

Health care coverage: cost sharing.

CA SB1089

Food and prescription access: grocery and pharmacy closures.

CA SB90

Health care coverage: insulin affordability.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.