To enact sections 3962.01, 3962.02, 3962.03, 3962.04, 3962.05, 3962.06, 3962.07, 3962.08, 3962.09, 3962.10, 3962.11, and 3962.12 of the Revised Code to prohibit various types of health care entities from being under common ownership.
HB905 would create a new chapter of the Revised Code to restrict common ownership among certain health care-related businesses in Ohio. The bill generally prohibits a person from simultaneously owning both a health plan issuer or pharmacy benefit manager and a health care provider or management services organization, and separately prohibits simultaneous ownership of a wholesale distributor of dangerous drugs or medical devices and a health care provider or management services organization. The measure defines the covered entities broadly enough to include hospitals, physician practices, pharmacies, home health agencies, ambulatory surgical facilities, and other providers with a national provider identifier.
The bill includes limited exceptions and transition rules. It would not apply to ownership arrangements that serve only people outside Ohio, and entities already in violation on the effective date would have one year to divest the conflicting ownership interests or two years to stop providing services in the state. The Secretary of State would be required to issue compliance guidelines, and several state agencies would be consulted in that process. The bill also creates enforcement tools, including civil actions by the attorney general, agency oversight and investigation authority, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of profits, with recovered funds placed in a new health care conglomerate separation fund.
HB905 would also create a private right of action for individuals harmed by a violation of the ownership restrictions, allowing damages and equitable relief. In addition, the attorney general could seek to stop a person from creating ownership interests that would lead to a violation before the structure is fully formed. The bill directs the new fund to be used first to return certain disgorged amounts and then, as directed by the General Assembly, to support enforcement by state officers and agencies with jurisdiction over the underlying conduct.
The bill’s overall impact would be significant for Ohio’s health care market because it would force divestiture or operational separation for entities that combine provider, payer, pharmacy benefit manager, distribution, or management services functions under common ownership. It would also expand state oversight of health care corporate structures and create new statutory remedies and enforcement mechanisms affecting insurers, PBMs, providers, distributors, and related management companies.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, and the bill is listed as introduced in the House Health Committee. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at limiting vertical integration and perceived conflicts of interest in health care ownership, but the absence of transcript or vote data means there is no recorded public sentiment in the materials provided. The main likely point of contention is whether the ownership bans would improve competition and patient interests or instead disrupt existing business models, reduce efficiency, and impose costly divestitures on integrated health care systems.
HB905 would add a new set of statutory restrictions in the Revised Code governing common ownership across health care providers, health plan issuers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale drug and device distributors, and management services organizations. It would create new compliance, enforcement, and reporting duties for the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Department of Insurance, Department of Medicaid, Department of Health, Department of Taxation, and State Board of Pharmacy, while also establishing a new health care conglomerate separation fund to receive disgorged profits and support enforcement.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize from the available materials. From the bill’s structure, the proposal appears to reflect concern about consolidation and conflicts of interest in health care, but the materials do not show whether lawmakers or stakeholders were supportive or opposed. The bill is still at the introduction stage in the House Health Committee.
The central policy dispute is likely over whether banning common ownership among these health care entities would protect competition, reduce conflicts of interest, and benefit patients, or whether it would interfere with integrated care delivery and existing business arrangements. Another likely point of contention is the breadth of the definitions, which could capture large health systems, physician groups, PBMs, distributors, and management services organizations, and the bill’s requirement that existing structures either divest within one year or exit the Ohio market within two years. The private right of action, attorney general enforcement, and disgorgement penalties may also draw concern from affected businesses because they create substantial legal and financial exposure.