Pharmacy Benefit Prompt Pay Act; bring forward and prohibit spread pricing.
SB 2678 is a broad pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) and prescription drug pricing transparency bill. It would prohibit spread pricing in Mississippi and require PBMs, drug manufacturers, and health insurers to submit recurring reports to the Mississippi Department of Insurance on drug costs, rebates, pricing changes, spending trends, and related financial information. The bill also requires the commissioner to create a public-facing website to publish reported information, while protecting trade secrets and other confidential business information from disclosure.
The bill further strengthens oversight of PBMs by requiring disclosure of ownership affiliations with pharmacies, full pass-through of rebates and other manufacturer payments to plan sponsors or employers, and annual reporting of rebate recipients. It also authorizes the Department of Insurance to investigate, subpoena records, conduct audits, and impose monetary penalties for violations. In addition, it adds anti-retaliation protections for pharmacists and pharmacies that exercise rights under the law, and it applies many of its requirements to the PBM serving the Mississippi State and School Employees Health Insurance Plan.
The bill would expand Mississippi’s regulatory framework for PBMs and prescription drug benefit administration by adding new reporting, disclosure, audit, and enforcement requirements under the Insurance Department’s authority. It would codify a ban on spread pricing, require contract language acknowledging that ban, and create new obligations for manufacturers and insurers to disclose pricing and utilization data. The bill also brings forward and potentially amends several existing code sections in the Pharmacy Benefit Prompt Pay Act, the Pharmacy Audit Integrity Act, and the Prescription Drugs Consumer Affordable Alternative Payment Options Act, while also referencing insurance code provisions governing department jurisdiction and supervision.
The bill text and available context suggest a generally reform-oriented, pro-transparency, and pro-pharmacy sentiment. Its structure indicates an effort to curb PBM practices viewed as increasing drug costs, improve reimbursement fairness, and give regulators and the public more visibility into pricing and rebate flows. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials; however, the bill’s extensive reporting mandates, disclosure requirements, and limits on PBM contracting practices imply that PBMs and affiliated entities would likely view it as burdensome or restrictive.
The main points of contention are likely to be the prohibition on spread pricing, the breadth of required financial and pricing disclosures, and the extent of regulatory oversight and penalties. PBMs may object to mandatory reporting of rebates, fees, ownership affiliations, and audit access, especially where the bill requires public posting of information while also trying to protect proprietary data. Drug manufacturers and insurers may also resist the new reporting obligations and the bill’s potential effect on pricing strategies, while pharmacies and consumer advocates are likely to support the anti-retaliation provisions, prompt-pay protections, and limits on PBM reimbursement practices.