The bill would require PBMs to be licensed by the California State Board of Pharmacy and provides for greater transparency in PBMs’ dealings with health plans. The proponents of the bill argue that by allowing the Board to regulate PBMs would provide pharmacies with redress when wronged by aggressive PBM practices. In addition, the bill would allow for greater oversight over PBM practices in the state.
The bill will be heard in the Assembly Business & Professions committee and CPhA is currently compiles pharmacies’ stories and personal experiences of working with PBMs. Your support is needed to help AB 315 (Wood) pass. You may share your experience here.
So far, I know only one state that requires PBMs to be licensed as pharmacies: Georgia. The Board of Pharmacy in Georgia treats PBMs as pharmacies and may inspect their premises whether they are located within or outside the state. Unfortunately, I do not have enough contacts with Georgia to tell you that this law had been beneficial to pharmacies or improved PBM practices in the state. It’s also unclear how the Board enforces this law. If you know more on this PBM-licensure law and its impact on pharmacies, please share below.
You may access the full text of the California bill here.