California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 1010 — Health care: prescription drug costs.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Calderon.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance (DOI) . Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers to file specified rate information with DMHC or DOI, as applicable, for health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies in the individual or small group markets and for health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies in the large group market. This bill would require health care service plans or health insurers that file the above-described rate information to report to DMHC or DOI, on a date no later than the reporting of the rate information, specified cost information regarding covered prescription drugs, including generic drugs, brand name drugs, and specialty drugs dispensed as provided. The information reported would include, but not be limited to, the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs and the 25 most costly drugs by total plan or insurer spending. DMHC and DOI would be required to compile the reported information into a report for the public and legislators that demonstrates the overall impact of drug costs on health care premiums and publish the reports on their Internet Web sites by October 1 of each year. Except for the report, DMHC and DOI would be required to keep confidential all information provided pursuant to these provisions. Because a willful violation of the Knox-Keene Act is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, effective January 1, 2018, except as provided, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is increasing the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug during any 12-month period by 25% or more based upon the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug and pursuant to a specified schedule, or by more than $10,000. The bill, effective January 1, 2018, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing, 3 days before the commercial availability of the drug, state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is introducing a new prescription drug to market at a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment. The bill would require a manufacturer, within 30 days of notification of a price increase, or notification of the introduction to market of a prescription drug that has a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment, to report specified information regarding the drug price to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and would require a manufacturer who fails to provide the required information to be subject to an administrative penalty of $1,000 per day for every day after the 30-day notification period. The bill would also require a pharmacy benefit manager that receives notice of a price increase consistent with these provisions to provide notice of the price increase to its contracting public and private purchasers, as provided. The bill would define "pricing information," as specified, would deem it to be confidential information, as specified, would provide that the information is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and would require or authorize, as specified, other entities to disclose the information under a certain condition. The bill would make the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development the entity charged with implementing and enforcing these provisions and would require that office to publish specified information collected pursuant to these provisions on its Internet Website. The bill would repeal these provisions by January 1, 2022. Existing law requires, for large group health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies, each health care service plan or health insurer to file with DMHC or DOI the weighted average rate increase for all large group benefit designs during the 12-month period ending January 1 of the following calendar year, and to also disclose specified information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market. This bill would add to that disclosure of information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market, the requirement for health care service plans or health insurers to disclose specified information regarding the cost of covered prescription generic drugs but excluding generic specialty drugs, brand name drugs, excluding brand name specialty drugs, and brand name and generic specialty drugs dispensed at a pharmacy, network pharmacy, or mail order pharmacy for outpatient use and regarding the use of a pharmacy benefit manager, as prescribed. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Calderon.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (August 11).

  5. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.

  6. August 10 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  7. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  8. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (June 28).

  9. June 21 hearing postponed by committee.

  10. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  11. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  12. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 10. Page 4099.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  13. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 4001.) (May 27).

  15. Set for hearing May 27.

  16. May 2 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  17. Set for hearing May 2.

  18. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 3559.) (April 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  19. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  20. Set for hearing April 13.

  21. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  22. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.

  23. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Chiu · Cosponsor
  • Hernandez · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Hernandez

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Chiu

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 2000
Unaffiliated 10006
Republican 0002
Total 12008
% of votes cast 60%0%0%40%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Weber — Yea
Chang — Not Voting
Daly — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Obernolte — Not Voting
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0100
Unaffiliated 12302
Total 12402
% of votes cast 67%22%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Nay
Olsen — Not Voting
Rodriguez — Yea
Waldron — Not Voting
Burke — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Nay
Wood — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 25 Yea · 10 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 23905
Democratic 2100
Total 251005
% of votes cast 63%25%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Bates — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Not Voting
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Nay
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Nay
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Huff — Not Voting
Nielsen — Nay
Pan — Not Voting
Vidak — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

healthcare health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1010 do?
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene Act) , provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance (DOI) . Existing law requires health care service plans and health insurers to file specified rate information with DMHC or DOI, as applicable, for health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies in the individual or small group markets and for health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies in the large group market. This bill would require health care service plans or health insurers that file the above-described rate information to report to DMHC or DOI, on a date no later than the reporting of the rate information, specified cost information regarding covered prescription drugs, including generic drugs, brand name drugs, and specialty drugs dispensed as provided. The information reported would include, but not be limited to, the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs and the 25 most costly drugs by total plan or insurer spending. DMHC and DOI would be required to compile the reported information into a report for the public and legislators that demonstrates the overall impact of drug costs on health care premiums and publish the reports on their Internet Web sites by October 1 of each year. Except for the report, DMHC and DOI would be required to keep confidential all information provided pursuant to these provisions. Because a willful violation of the Knox-Keene Act is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill, effective January 1, 2018, except as provided, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is increasing the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug during any 12-month period by 25% or more based upon the wholesale acquisition cost of the drug and pursuant to a specified schedule, or by more than $10,000. The bill, effective January 1, 2018, would require a manufacturer of a prescription drug to notify in writing, 3 days before the commercial availability of the drug, state purchasers, health care service plans, health insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers if it is introducing a new prescription drug to market at a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment. The bill would require a manufacturer, within 30 days of notification of a price increase, or notification of the introduction to market of a prescription drug that has a wholesale acquisition cost of $10,000 or more annually or per course of treatment, to report specified information regarding the drug price to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and would require a manufacturer who fails to provide the required information to be subject to an administrative penalty of $1,000 per day for every day after the 30-day notification period. The bill would also require a pharmacy benefit manager that receives notice of a price increase consistent with these provisions to provide notice of the price increase to its contracting public and private purchasers, as provided. The bill would define "pricing information," as specified, would deem it to be confidential information, as specified, would provide that the information is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and would require or authorize, as specified, other entities to disclose the information under a certain condition. The bill would make the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development the entity charged with implementing and enforcing these provisions and would require that office to publish specified information collected pursuant to these provisions on its Internet Website. The bill would repeal these provisions by January 1, 2022. Existing law requires, for large group health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies, each health care service plan or health insurer to file with DMHC or DOI the weighted average rate increase for all large group benefit designs during the 12-month period ending January 1 of the following calendar year, and to also disclose specified information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market. This bill would add to that disclosure of information for the aggregate rate information for the large group market, the requirement for health care service plans or health insurers to disclose specified information regarding the cost of covered prescription generic drugs but excluding generic specialty drugs, brand name drugs, excluding brand name specialty drugs, and brand name and generic specialty drugs dispensed at a pharmacy, network pharmacy, or mail order pharmacy for outpatient use and regarding the use of a pharmacy benefit manager, as prescribed. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 1010?
SB 1010 is sponsored by Chiu and Hernandez.
What is the current status of SB 1010?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1010?
Track SB 1010 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1010

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1010

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →