An Act amending the act of September 27, 1961 (P.L.1700, No.699), known as the Pharmacy Act, further providing for definitions, for licensing of pharmacists and for unlawful acts; and providing for pr . . .ice disclosure.
Summary
SB95 amends Pennsylvania’s Pharmacy Act and adds a new price-disclosure requirement. Based on the bill caption and legislative history, the measure updates statutory definitions, revises pharmacist licensing provisions, and expands the list of unlawful acts under the Pharmacy Act. It also creates a framework requiring disclosure of prescription drug prices, with the apparent goal of improving transparency for consumers and purchasers at the pharmacy counter.
The bill’s practical effect is to change how pharmacies, pharmacists, and related entities operate under state law. It likely requires pharmacies to provide clearer pricing information for prescription drugs and may impose compliance obligations tied to how prices are communicated. Because the bill was enacted as Act No. 34 of 2025, it now has the force of law and amends the existing Pharmacy Act rather than creating a separate standalone regulatory scheme.
Impact
SB95 modifies the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Act by revising definitions, licensing rules for pharmacists, and prohibited conduct, while also adding prescription price disclosure requirements. This affects pharmacists, pharmacies, and potentially pharmacy benefit-related practices by establishing new transparency obligations and enforcement standards. The bill becomes part of the state’s statutory framework governing pharmacy practice and consumer-facing drug pricing.
Sentiment
The legislative history shows strong overall support for the bill. It advanced through Senate and House committees and floor votes with broad bipartisan approval, including several unanimous committee actions and large majorities on final passage. The Senate ultimately concurred in House amendments, indicating general agreement on the bill’s substance and final form.
Contention
There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the bill did draw some opposition in the House on floor votes, where final passage was not unanimous. The most likely points of concern were the added compliance burdens on pharmacies, the scope of required price disclosure, and how the new rules would be implemented or enforced. Even so, the recorded votes suggest these objections were limited and did not prevent enactment.