New Hampshire House Bill HB1566

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/14/21
• Refer: 12/14/21

Caption

Relative to the New Hampshire prescription drug affordability board.

Impact

The proposed changes in HB 1566 are significant, particularly considering the implications for the governance structure of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board. By switching to an unclassified position, the board may recruit individuals who bring greater expertise and experience, potentially enhancing its efficacy. The creation of a dedicated fund could facilitate smoother operations and provide the necessary resources to undertake administrative, legal, and technical support activities, specifically aimed at reducing the costs associated with prescription drugs in New Hampshire.

Summary

House Bill 1566, also known as the New Hampshire Prescription Drug Affordability Act, aims to revise the governance of the state's Prescription Drug Affordability Board. The bill proposes to transition the position of the executive director from a classified to an unclassified role, thereby adjusting the employment framework and granting the board greater flexibility in leadership. Furthermore, it proposes the establishment of a dedicated fund to support the operational costs associated with the board's activities, allowing it to address challenges related to drug affordability effectively.

Sentiment

Debate around HB 1566 appears to be largely supportive, with many stakeholders acknowledging the need to improve the state's approach to prescription drug affordability. Proponents argue that it promotes greater accountability and responsiveness within the board. However, there are concerns regarding the unclassified nature of the director's position, which could potentially lead to less oversight and continuity in leadership, drawing criticism from some advocacy groups and legislators wary of increased discretion in state appointments.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the lack of defined funding sources for the proposed administrative fund, raising questions about the financial sustainability of the board's activities. Furthermore, while proponents see the changes as necessary for enhanced governance, critics caution that the restructuring might unintentionally reduce the board's accountability due to the flexible nature of the unclassified position. This reflects a broader tension between the need for operational efficiency and the desire for robust oversight in state healthcare governance.