California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 29 — Pharmacy benefit managers.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

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

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 requires a pharmacy benefit manager that reimburses a contracting pharmacy for a drug on a maximum allowable cost basis to provide the contracting pharmacy with specified information regarding the data used to determine the maximum allowable cost of a drug. This bill would require, except as provided, a pharmacy benefit manager to disclose certain information to a purchaser, including, among other things, the aggregate amount of rebates, retrospective utilization discounts, and other income that the pharmacy benefit manager would receive from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler in connection with drug benefits related to the purchaser. The bill would excuse a pharmacy benefit manager from making these disclosures unless the purchaser agrees to keep any proprietary information disclosed to it pursuant to these provisions confidential, as specified. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. This bill would require pharmacy benefit managers to be licensed by the department and would require a pharmacy benefit manager to report to the department, on a quarterly basis, regarding its compliance with the standards provided by the act. The bill would require the department to develop the application forms and standards for determining eligibility for a pharmacy benefit manager license and would require the department to set the licensing fee, as provided. The bill would also provide the department with the authority to enforce the provisions of the act and would make a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a pharmacy benefit manager a crime. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a pharmacy benefit manager would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

  4. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended.

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (May 9).

  10. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  11. Read second time and amended.

  12. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (May 2).

  13. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  14. Re-referred to Coms. on B. & P. and HEALTH pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  15. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  16. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  17. Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and B. & P.

  18. From printer. May be heard in committee January 5.

  19. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Nazarian · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Nazarian

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

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 AB 29 do?
Existing law requires a pharmacy benefit manager that reimburses a contracting pharmacy for a drug on a maximum allowable cost basis to provide the contracting pharmacy with specified information regarding the data used to determine the maximum allowable cost of a drug. This bill would require, except as provided, a pharmacy benefit manager to disclose certain information to a purchaser, including, among other things, the aggregate amount of rebates, retrospective utilization discounts, and other income that the pharmacy benefit manager would receive from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler in connection with drug benefits related to the purchaser. The bill would excuse a pharmacy benefit manager from making these disclosures unless the purchaser agrees to keep any proprietary information disclosed to it pursuant to these provisions confidential, as specified. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. This bill would require pharmacy benefit managers to be licensed by the department and would require a pharmacy benefit manager to report to the department, on a quarterly basis, regarding its compliance with the standards provided by the act. The bill would require the department to develop the application forms and standards for determining eligibility for a pharmacy benefit manager license and would require the department to set the licensing fee, as provided. The bill would also provide the department with the authority to enforce the provisions of the act and would make a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a pharmacy benefit manager a crime. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a pharmacy benefit manager would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 AB 29?
AB 29 is sponsored by Nazarian.
What is the current status of AB 29?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 AB 29?
Track AB 29 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 29

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 AB 29

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →