In Review: There was a Subcommittee Commerce meeting last Tuesday on SSB 3079, which is the Iowa Division of Insurance’s “clarifying” PBM bill. Much like PCMA did in the House the week prior, we testified with concerns about the bill in relation to the fees and retaliation provisions. The bill received a unanimous do-pass recommendation with amendments. PCMA provided language to Senator Mike Klimesh (R), and he requested that we provide him with an average of the actual cost that the PBM incurs for credentialling/re-credentialing. Finally, there was a Subcommittee Health and Human Services Meeting on SF 431, which is based on the Cicero Institute’s model bill that they say is the next generation of price transparency. PCMA testified in opposition to the bill and stated we felt that prescription drugs be excluded from the bill. Numerous members, insurers and even a provider were testifying in opposition to the bill. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee recommended passage with amendments.

Up Next: PCMA has requested from member companies information related to the fees they charge relative to credentialling and re-credentialing so we can provide a range of the fees charged. We would also like information as to what the average cost the PBM will incur related to this issue so we can be responsive to Sen. Klimesh’s request.  HF 626, which is the continuity of care bill, will have a Subcommittee Meeting in Senate Commerce on Monday afternoon. Wellmark has requested an amendment that if a drug’s list price in a calendar year increases more than the consumer price index, the language shall not apply.

If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Mack at mmack@pcmanet.org.