North Dakota Senate Bill SB2156

North Dakota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/6/23
• Refer: 1/6/23
• Report Pass: 2/9/23
• Engrossed: 2/13/23
• Refer: 2/17/23
• Report Pass: 3/6/23
• Enrolled: 3/9/23
• Passed: 3/15/23

Caption

The drug use review board and medical assistance prior authorization.

Impact

The bill seeks to amend the way prior authorization is handled, targeting a specific set of drugs that require approval before they can be dispensed to patients. By implementing strict criteria for drug eligibility, SB2156 aims to ensure that patients receive safe and appropriate medications while also managing costs for the healthcare system. It emphasizes collaboration between healthcare providers and the drug use review board to facilitate timely approvals, potentially improving patient care by minimizing delays in accessing necessary medications.

Summary

Senate Bill 2156 pertains to the implementation and amendment of a prior authorization program regarding drug coverage for medical assistance recipients in North Dakota. It proposes changes to specified sections of the North Dakota Century Code, focusing on the establishment of a drug use review board and the responsibilities associated with it. One of the primary objectives of the bill is to enhance the statewide process for assessing drug efficacy and managing the medications prescribed to patients, particularly those who rely on public healthcare assistance.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment regarding SB2156 appears to be constructive, with broad support among legislators evidenced by the unanimous votes in both the House and Senate. Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, seem to welcome the focus on systematic drug reviews and prior authorizations, seeing it as an avenue to provide better-calibrated healthcare services. However, there may be concerns about the administrative burdens and potential delays in patient care associated with stricter authorization processes.

Contention

Debate surrounding SB2156 primarily centers on the balance between regulatory oversight and patient accessibility to medications. Critics may argue that increased prior authorization requirements could inadvertently limit patient access to essential drugs or introduce bureaucratic delays, while proponents assert that such measures are necessary for effective healthcare management. The tension between cost control, patient well-being, and operational logistics will likely be an ongoing discussion as the bill is implemented.