Requires the commissioner of health to include in annual reports information regarding the cost and increase in cost of the ten prescription drugs on which the state expends the most money and which have had certain costs increased by fifty percent or more over the past five years or by ten percent or more during the previous calendar year.
S05399 amends the Public Health Law to expand the annual reporting duties of the commissioner of health regarding the state’s preferred drug program. The bill requires the commissioner, in consultation with the drug utilization review board, to include in annual reviews a list of the ten prescription drugs on which the state spends the most money and whose wholesale acquisition cost has risen by at least 50 percent over five years or 10 percent over the prior calendar year. For each drug, the report must show the percentage increase, rank the drugs by size of increase, identify the time period triggering inclusion, and state the state’s total spending on each drug in the most recent calendar year.
The bill also requires a second list covering the ten highest-cost drugs to the state after rebates and other price concessions, using the same increase thresholds and ranking requirements. In addition, manufacturers of drugs appearing on either list must submit a report explaining the factors behind the price increase, including manufacturing and materials costs, research and development, marketing, advertising, and patient assistance spending, along with the share of the increase attributable to each factor, the role of those factors, and the manufacturer’s most recent annual revenue and net profit. The bill further updates reporting on savings to the state and local governments, supplemental rebates, and the education and outreach program tied to the preferred drug program.
The bill’s practical impact is to increase transparency around prescription drug pricing and the fiscal effects of the state’s drug purchasing program. It would not directly set drug prices or change coverage rules, but it would require more detailed public reporting by the Department of Health and impose new disclosure obligations on manufacturers whose drugs experience significant price increases. It also broadens the reporting of savings and rebates, which could affect oversight of Medicaid and other state drug expenditures.
Overall sentiment appears supportive of greater accountability and cost transparency in prescription drug spending, although no committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials. The bill’s structure suggests a policy focus on monitoring drug price inflation and identifying the drivers of high-cost medications, which is typically framed as consumer- and taxpayer-protection legislation. Any likely contention would center on the burden placed on drug manufacturers to disclose pricing rationale, profit, and revenue information, as well as whether the reporting requirements are sufficient to address underlying drug cost growth.
This bill amends section 277 of the Public Health Law, which governs reporting related to the preferred drug program, by adding detailed annual reporting requirements on high-cost prescription drugs and manufacturer explanations for price increases. It also revises related reporting on state, county, and New York City savings, supplemental rebates, and education/outreach activities. The affected parties include the Department of Health, the drug utilization review board, prescription drug manufacturers, and state and local government purchasers that rely on the preferred drug program.
No votes or committee discussion transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to summarize. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed positively as a transparency and oversight bill aimed at understanding prescription drug price increases and state spending. The overall policy tone is accountability-oriented, with the main emphasis on reporting rather than direct regulation.
The most likely point of contention is the new reporting burden on manufacturers of drugs that appear on the state’s high-cost lists, including disclosure of cost drivers, revenue, and net profit. Manufacturers may view these requirements as intrusive or administratively burdensome, while supporters are likely to argue that the information is necessary to explain large price increases and public spending. A secondary issue is whether enhanced reporting alone will meaningfully address rising drug costs, since the bill does not impose price caps or purchasing restrictions.