Senate Bill 821 passed this week in the House Public Health Committee. I’m glad to co-author this legislation that better defines pharmacy benefits management as it relates to the Patient’s Right to Pharmacy Choice Act to help lead the charge to protect our locally owned and managed hometown pharmacies.
This act, which was signed into law in 2019, evened the playing field for our local pharmacies and their customers. It established an advisory council of professionals with expertise in pharmacy to oversee pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). These entities enjoyed benefits such as access to lower-priced drugs and reimbursements after sale, and they were accused of using anti-competition and deceptive marketing tactics – all things that disadvantaged our smaller, local pharmacies.
Now that the act has been in place for more than a year, we see some areas where updates are needed. SB 821 broadens some definitions and modifies the prohibition on PBMs. Health insurers or PBMs are prohibited from incentivizing or requiring customers to differentiate between in-network pharmacies, whether that pharmacy is in a preferred or non-preferred network, a retail pharmacy, mail order pharmacy, or any other type of pharmacy.
Ṫhe measure also specifies that a pharmacy provider contract will not prohibit, restrict, or penalize a pharmacy or pharmacist for disclosing to an individual any health care information that the pharmacy deems appropriate regarding risks or alternatives to the prescription drug being dispensed, the availability of alternative therapies, the decision to authorize or deny services, and the process that is used to authorize or deny healthcare services. The measure allows a pharmacy or pharmacist to discuss information regarding the total cost of pharmacist services for a prescription drug or selling a more affordable alternative to the covered person.
This allows our local pharmacists the freedom to discuss medication and health care alternatives and costs with their customers. Most people don’t realize all that goes on behind the scenes between big-box pharmacists and local hometown pharmacies and the restrictive regulations in place that quite honestly at times are anti-free market. PBMs are often abusive toward our hometown pharmacists and have led an aggressive campaign of misinformation resulting in several contacts to my office. I’m glad to join with other lawmakers to fight for the rights of customers and our local business owners.
On a separate topic, I must voice my disappointment in the vote of the State Board of Education last week to settle a 2017 lawsuit and allow charter schools to receive local funding from sources, including county ad valorem tax revenue.
Many school officials and lawmakers are questioning the legality of the State Board’s decision.
Currently, traditional brick and mortar schools alone receive this local funding. The more local funding they receive, the less state funding they get. Public charter schools get more state aid because they don’t receive any local funding. The concern is this will hurt our traditional schools by taking more from their funding without keeping the formula even.
The argument can be made that public, brick-and-mortar charter schools do need a dedicated building fund source, but virtual charter schools do not have the same need. To address this issue in the short term, the House Common Education Committee this week advanced a bill that specifies charter schools will not receive these local dollars. Instead, we are looking at using medical marijuana tax revenue as a dedicated source for building funds for brick-and-mortar charters.
Please reach out to me anytime at mike.dobrinski@okhouse.go v or (405) 557-7407. It is my honor to represent you at our State House.
Mike Dobrinski represents District 59 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, which includes Dewey and parts of Blaine, Canadian, Kingfisher and Woodward counties.