Search

The California drug transparency bill (SB-17), signed into law in October 2017, seeks to promote transparency in pharmaceutical pricing, enhance understanding about pharmaceutical pricing trends, and assist in managing pharmaceutical costs. This article examines the legal and regulatory aspects of SB-17, explores legal challenges to the law, compares it to other state efforts to address rising drug prices, and discusses how California can maximize the impact of SB-17 by coupling the law with other incentives. While SB-17 might not significantly reduce drug prices, the new law represents a meaningful step for one state seeking to negotiate the political and legal boundaries of state action to rein in drug prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prices paid in 2019 by Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans in hospital outpatient departments were double those paid in physician offices for biologies, chemotherapies, and other infused cancer drugs (99-104 percent higher) and for infused hormonal therapies (68 percent higher). Had these plans excluded hospital clinics from their networks, channeling all of the infusions to physician offices, they would have saved $1.28 billion per year, or 26 percent of what they actually paid. Had they relied on cost-sharing incentives to channel infusions to physician offices--with either uniform 20 percent coinsurance or reference pricing--they would have realized savings but increased the financial burden on patients who received care at the higher-price hospital clinics. Under 20 percent coinsurance, patients' payment obligations for care at hospital clinics would have exceeded those for care in physician offices by a median of 67 percent for biologies, 72 percent for chemotherapies, 87 percent for hormonal therapies, and 75 percent for other cancer drugs. Large savings are potentially available to commercial insurers from shifting cancer infusion care to nonhospital settings, but cost-sharing burdens could become very high for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]