An Act Implementing Recommendations Of The Bipartisan Drug Task Force.
HB 7192 is a broad prescription-drug cost and supply-chain bill implementing recommendations of the Bipartisan Drug Task Force. It adds new duties for pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), including a statutory obligation of good faith and fair dealing, written disclosure of conflicts of interest, and a requirement that PBMs offer health plans the option of being charged the same price the PBM pays a pharmacy for a drug beginning in 2026. The bill also expands and clarifies existing protections against gag clauses and certain recoupment practices, and it requires health carriers to report more information about rebate practices and PBM/mail-order pharmacy pricing and profits.
The bill also creates several study and advisory bodies and directs state agencies to pursue additional drug-cost strategies. It establishes a task force on prescription drug shortages and a working group on pharmacist compensation for clinical services, and it creates an Advisory Council on Pharmaceutical Procurement to advise on state drug purchasing. The Department of Administrative Services is directed to negotiate bulk drug prices for certain state agencies, and the state may use federal Medicare drug price benchmarks as a guide in negotiations. The Department of Social Services is also directed to seek federal authorization for lower-cost generic GLP-1 drugs for HUSKY Health members.
A major portion of the act sets up a framework for a possible Canadian prescription drug importation program. The Department of Consumer Protection must first study feasibility, then, if feasible and federally approved, the state may seek FDA authorization to import certain prescription drugs from Canada under detailed safety, traceability, testing, and reporting requirements. The bill limits which drugs could be imported, requires laboratory testing and recordkeeping, and gives the commissioner enforcement tools including cease-and-desist orders, recalls, embargoes, and civil penalties.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial: it amends existing insurance and pharmacy statutes, creates new reporting obligations for insurers and PBMs, authorizes new state procurement and importation initiatives, and establishes multiple new advisory and study mechanisms. It also gives agencies discretion to adopt regulations and to coordinate with other states through purchasing compacts, which could affect how Connecticut buys prescription drugs for state programs and how private health plans and PBMs operate in the state.
Overall, the sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable and bipartisan, with large majorities in committee and on the floor. The broad support suggests agreement on the goal of lowering prescription drug costs and improving transparency, though the existence of some no votes indicates at least some concern about the bill’s regulatory reach, administrative complexity, or the feasibility of importation and pricing mandates. The main points of contention are likely the PBM pricing requirements, the scope of state intervention in drug purchasing, and the risks and practicality of a Canadian importation program versus more incremental cost-control measures.
The act amends Connecticut insurance, pharmacy, and state procurement law by imposing new PBM conduct standards, expanding insurer reporting on rebates and pricing, and authorizing state agencies to pursue bulk purchasing, price benchmarking, and a potential Canadian drug importation program. It also creates new task forces and advisory bodies, and directs the state to study and potentially implement additional drug-cost reduction strategies affecting health carriers, pharmacies, state agencies, and HUSKY Health members.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the legislative process, with strong favorable votes in committee and overwhelming passage in both chambers. The vote pattern suggests general agreement on the need to address prescription drug affordability and supply issues, while the smaller number of dissenting votes indicates some reservations about the bill’s regulatory and operational scope.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the new obligations placed on pharmacy benefits managers, especially the good-faith standard, pricing parity requirement, and expanded transparency rules, as well as the feasibility and safety of a Canadian prescription drug importation program. Some lawmakers may also have been concerned about the administrative burden on state agencies, the confidentiality of proprietary pricing data, and whether state-directed purchasing and benchmarking would actually produce savings.