HB 898, the “Continuing Insulin Safety Net Act,” would create a new article in Georgia’s public assistance laws requiring insulin manufacturers to operate a patient assistance program for qualifying Georgia residents. The program would provide an eligible individual with a 90-day supply of insulin at no charge, renewable in 90-day increments for up to one year and renewable annually if eligibility continues. Manufacturers would also have to establish at least one alternative affordability plan, such as cost-sharing assistance or an emergency/urgent supply mechanism, and provide program information, a hotline, and dedicated personnel to respond to applicants, pharmacies, healthcare providers, and the Department of Community Health.
The bill sets eligibility rules based on Georgia residency, income at or below 400% of the federal poverty guidelines, and limits on other coverage. It excludes people enrolled in medical assistance or certain federally funded prescription drug benefits, but includes a limited pathway for some Medicare Part D enrollees who have spent at least $1,000 on prescription drugs in the current year. Eligible individuals would apply directly to the manufacturer, receive a prompt eligibility decision, and use an eligibility statement at a pharmacy to obtain insulin. Pharmacies would then order the insulin from the manufacturer and dispense it, with the option to collect up to a $50 copayment per 90-day supply to cover dispensing costs.
The bill would also add administrative oversight and enforcement provisions. The Department of Community Health would review appeals of ineligibility determinations, develop informational materials and satisfaction surveys, maintain confidentiality of applicant data, and receive annual reports from manufacturers and pharmacies. Manufacturers that fail to comply could face significant monthly administrative penalties, starting at $200,000 and increasing to $600,000 per month for continued noncompliance. Fraudulent attempts to obtain benefits under the program would be punishable as misdemeanors or felonies depending on the value involved.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is supportive or at least noncontroversial, but the bill does not show committee debate, recorded votes, or amendments in the provided materials. Based on the text, the measure is framed as a consumer-access and affordability bill aimed at people who need insulin and may be underinsured or uninsured. The structure suggests an intent to create a safety net rather than a broad entitlement, which may appeal to advocates for diabetes access while also imposing substantial obligations on manufacturers and pharmacies.
Notable points of potential contention include the mandate that private insulin manufacturers provide free product and absorb compliance costs, the large administrative penalties for noncompliance, and the eligibility restrictions that exclude many people with existing coverage. The bill also raises operational questions for pharmacies and manufacturers regarding ordering, shipping, renewals, and verification of eligibility. The limited exception for some Medicare Part D beneficiaries and the $50 pharmacy copayment cap may also be areas of policy debate.
HB 898 would amend Chapter 4 of Title 49 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated by adding a new article governing insulin access through manufacturer-run patient assistance programs. It would impose new duties on insulin manufacturers, pharmacies, and the Department of Community Health, while creating new eligibility, appeal, reporting, confidentiality, and enforcement provisions. The bill would also create new misdemeanor and felony penalties for fraud and authorize substantial administrative fines for manufacturer noncompliance.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the available materials. The bill text itself indicates a pro-access, pro-affordability policy approach focused on helping Georgia residents obtain insulin, suggesting likely support from health access advocates. At the same time, the bill’s mandatory manufacturer obligations and penalties suggest it could draw opposition from industry or those concerned about administrative burden and cost.
The main points of contention are likely to be the requirement that manufacturers provide insulin at no charge through a state-mandated assistance program, the size of the penalties for noncompliance, and the scope of eligibility restrictions. Manufacturers may object to the financial and operational burden, while patient advocates may question whether the income and coverage exclusions leave out too many people in need. Pharmacies may also have concerns about dispensing logistics, copayment collection, and reimbursement limits, and policymakers may debate the treatment of Medicare Part D enrollees and the interaction with other public and private coverage.