Oklahoma Senate Bill SB1916

Oklahoma 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/24
• Refer: 2/6/24

Caption

Prescription drugs; creating the Oklahoma Patient Right to Know Act; authorizing pharmacists to request certain information on behalf of insured; establishing enforcement provisions. Effective date.

Impact

If enacted, the bill will require these entities to respond to pharmacists' requests within a specific timeframe of 30 days, providing crucial pricing information. Failure to comply will result in a penalty of $50 per day until the information is delivered, incentivizing timely disclosure. The fines imposed on non-compliant entities will be directed to the Insurance Department to support regulatory activities. This legislation is expected to amend existing healthcare laws to incorporate these new transparency requirements, potentially reshaping the interactions between patients, pharmacists, and healthcare providers.

Summary

Senate Bill 1916, known as the Oklahoma Patient Right to Know Act, aims to enhance transparency regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. It allows pharmacists, on behalf of patients, to request detailed information about the retail price allocation for prescription drugs from insurers, manufacturers, wholesale drug distributors, and pharmacy benefits managers. This initiative is intended to empower patients with more knowledge regarding the costs associated with their medications, aiding them in making informed decisions about their healthcare options.

Contention

While the bill is framed as a consumer protection measure, there may be contention related to its implementation and potential pushback from insurance companies and manufacturers concerned about the administrative burden and impact on their trade practices. Some stakeholders may argue about the repercussions of enforced transparency on pricing strategies within the pharmaceutical industry and how it could affect the availability of certain medications. Furthermore, discussions around the balance between empowering patients and imposing additional compliance costs on healthcare providers may emerge as key points of debate.