AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 26.1-27-03 and 26.1-27.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to licensing for administrators of life and health insurance and pharmacy benefit managers.
Summary
HB 1087 updates North Dakota law governing administrators of life and health insurance and pharmacy benefit managers. The bill amends section 26.1-27-03 to clarify that a person may not act as, or hold themselves out to be, an administrator for life, annuity, or health coverage provided by a self-funded plan without a license issued by the Insurance Commissioner. It retains the existing framework for application fees, annual renewal fees, licensing standards, and disciplinary authority, while changing terminology from “certificate of authority” and “certificate of registration” to “license” in the affected sections.
The bill also amends section 26.1-27.1-02 so that a pharmacy benefit manager may not operate in North Dakota unless it holds a license as an administrator under chapter 26.1-27. In practical terms, the measure ties PBM authorization to the administrator licensing system and reinforces the commissioner’s oversight of entities handling insurance administration and pharmacy benefit management functions.
Impact
HB 1087 primarily affects the licensing and regulatory structure for insurance administrators and pharmacy benefit managers under North Dakota Century Code chapters 26.1-27 and 26.1-27.1. It does not create a new regulatory program so much as it modernizes terminology and aligns the PBM licensing provision with the administrator licensing framework. The bill preserves existing penalties, fees, qualification standards, and enforcement tools administered by the Insurance Commissioner, including denial, suspension, revocation, and fines.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 92-1 and the Senate 47-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests the measure was likely viewed as a technical or clarifying update rather than a major policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only recorded dissent was a single no vote in the House, but no explanation is provided. Any potential point of contention would likely have centered on the continued requirement that pharmacy benefit managers be licensed through the insurance administrator framework and on the Insurance Commissioner’s enforcement authority, though the vote totals suggest these issues did not generate significant debate.