Ohio House Bill HB448

Ohio 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/15/25

Caption

To enact section 3902.65 of the Revised Code to apply prescription drug rebates to cost-sharing requirements.

Summary

HB 448 would add a new section to Ohio insurance law requiring health plan issuers to use prescription drug rebates when calculating a covered person’s cost-sharing at the point of sale. In practical terms, the bill says the consumer’s copay, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing amount must be based on a drug price reduced by 100% of all rebates received, or expected to be received, in connection with that prescription drug. The measure also allows insurers to reduce cost-sharing by more than the minimum required amount, but does not require them to do so. The bill defines key terms such as “rebate” and “price protection rebate” broadly to include negotiated price concessions, performance-based concessions, and certain administrative costs that reduce the insurer’s liability for a prescription drug. It also excludes the state employee public benefit plan from the definition of “health plan issuer,” and directs the superintendent of insurance to enforce the law only to the extent allowed under applicable law. Violations would be treated as unfair and deceptive insurance practices under Ohio’s insurance code.

Impact

If enacted, HB 448 would amend the Revised Code by creating section 3902.65 and changing how prescription drug cost-sharing is calculated for insured consumers in Ohio. It would require health plan issuers to pass rebate value through to the point of sale when determining a member’s out-of-pocket cost, potentially lowering prescription drug costs for some patients. The bill also imposes confidentiality rules on rebate information, making such documents nonpublic records and restricting disclosure of product-, manufacturer-, and pharmacy-specific rebate data. Enforcement would fall under Ohio’s existing unfair and deceptive insurance practice provisions.

Sentiment

The bill appears to be consumer-cost focused and likely intended to address high out-of-pocket prescription drug costs by ensuring rebates benefit patients directly at the pharmacy counter. Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. The available context suggests a policy approach aimed at transparency and cost relief rather than a partisan or procedural controversy.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are likely to be the requirement that insurers apply 100% of rebates to cost-sharing calculations, the confidentiality restrictions on rebate information, and the administrative burden of implementing point-of-sale rebate pass-through. Insurers and pharmacy benefit intermediaries may object to the bill’s operational complexity, possible effects on contracting, and limits on disclosure, while consumer advocates would likely support the measure as a way to reduce prescription drug expenses. The exclusion of the state employee plan and the directive that the superintendent regulate only to the extent permitted by law may also raise questions about scope and enforceability.