Prescription drug pricing; prohibiting certain action. Effective date.
SB 1030 would create the “340B Drug Pricing Nondiscrimination Act” and expand Oklahoma’s existing pharmacy-choice and PBM oversight laws to protect entities participating in the federal 340B drug pricing program. The bill defines key terms such as 340B drug, 340B entity, manufacturer, distributor, pharmacy, and pharmacy benefits manager, and then prohibits health insurers, PBMs, and other third-party payors from reimbursing 340B entities at lower rates, imposing special fees or audit burdens, requiring 340B-specific billing modifiers except where required for Medicaid, or otherwise interfering with a patient’s choice to receive drugs from a 340B entity. It also bars exclusion from networks or contract terms that discriminate against 340B participants, and it prevents manufacturers and distributors from denying or limiting 340B pricing for drugs dispensed through contract pharmacy arrangements.
The bill would amend Title 36 of the Oklahoma Statutes, including the Patient’s Right to Pharmacy Choice Act and related PBM enforcement provisions, to add explicit protections for 340B entities and contract pharmacies. It would also strengthen enforcement authority for the Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner, authorize civil fines of $100 to $10,000 per violation, require reporting and disclosure of rebate and pricing data, and make claims processed for 340B entities final at adjudication. The bill expressly excludes Oklahoma Medicaid reimbursement rules from some of its new prohibitions and states that it should not be read to conflict with federal law or to override limited-distribution drug requirements.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears designed to be protective of pharmacies, hospitals, and other covered entities that rely on 340B pricing, while also increasing transparency and enforcement against PBMs and payors. The overall tone of the bill is regulatory and pro-provider, with a focus on preventing discriminatory reimbursement and contracting practices.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on PBMs, insurers, and manufacturers, especially provisions barring lower reimbursement, special billing requirements, network exclusions, and limits on contract-pharmacy access. PBMs and payors may object to the bill’s reporting, audit, and disclosure mandates, as well as the Attorney General’s expanded enforcement role and civil penalties. Another potential issue is the interaction with federal law and Medicaid administration, since the bill includes savings clauses and exceptions to avoid conflict, but those boundaries could still be disputed in implementation.