South Dakota 2024 Regular Session

South Dakota House Bill HB1147

Introduced
1/25/24  
Refer
1/25/24  
Report Pass
2/7/24  
Engrossed
2/12/24  
Refer
2/13/24  
Report Pass
2/21/24  
Enrolled
2/22/24  

Caption

Address discriminatory acts against entities participating in a 340B drug pricing program.

Impact

The legislation is anticipated to reinforce protections for 340B entities within South Dakota. By codifying the definition of discriminatory acts within the context of the pharmacy benefit management system, HB1147 aims to elevate the standard of practice and accountability for PBMs. The law will allow 340B entities to seek civil action against PBMs for breaches, potentially leading to enhanced access to necessary medications for underserved populations who rely on these programs for affordable healthcare.

Summary

House Bill 1147 aims to address and prevent discriminatory acts against entities participating in the 340B drug pricing program. It establishes that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and their affiliates cannot impose discriminatory contractual terms or practices on 340B entities when compared to non-340B entities. This includes requirements that could restrict a 340B entity's access to pharmacy networks or that impose additional costs and audit frequencies not applied to other pharmacies. The overarching goal of the bill is to promote fair treatment and equitable reimbursement practices for 340B entities, which are critical to ensuring affordable medication for low-income individuals.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB1147 appears to be generally supportive among healthcare advocates and entities involved in the 340B program, viewing it as a necessary measure to safeguard against exploitative practices in the prescription drug market. Conversely, there may be concerns from some PBMs regarding the changes, as it could impact their operational practices and reimbursement models. The bill has received unanimous support in voting, reflecting a strong bipartisan consensus on the importance of protecting access to medications for vulnerable populations.

Contention

While the bill has been well received, points of contention may arise regarding how the terms are enforced and the implications for how PBMs operate. Some stakeholders might argue that the language of 'discriminatory practices' could lead to excessive litigation or regulatory burdens on PBMs. Additionally, concerns regarding the balance of power between pharmacies and PBMs, as well as the overall impact on drug pricing and availability, will likely continue to be debated as the bill becomes law.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

WV HB4112

Provide consumers a choice for pharmacy services

UT HB0257

Pharmacy Benefit Amendments

AL SB93

Pharmacy Benefits Managers; providing additional regulation of practices

WV HB3068

Update the regulation of pharmacy benefit managers

AZ SB1330

Discount prescription drugs; pharmacies

NC H163

Pharmacy Benefits Manager Provisions

CA SB786

Prescription drug pricing.

UT HB0425

Health Insurance Benefit Amendments