Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1170

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to create 20.435 (1) (fp) and 146.901 of the statutes; Relating to: prescription drug cost reporting by manufacturers, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)

Summary

AB1170 would create a new prescription drug cost reporting regime for drug manufacturers in Wisconsin. It requires manufacturers of brand-name and generic drugs to give advance notice to the Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) before certain large price increases or before introducing high-cost drugs into the Wisconsin market. The notice must be filed at least 30 days in advance and include a written justification with supporting documents and research addressing cost-effectiveness, comparable drug prices and effectiveness, expected sales performance, and the effect of rebates or discounts on pricing decisions. The bill also requires annual reporting on the value of price concessions provided to pharmacy benefit managers for drugs subject to notice, as well as annual reporting on manufacturer-sponsored assistance programs, including eligibility criteria, program terms, the number of prescriptions provided, and the total market value of assistance to Wisconsin residents. DHS would be required to publish the justification materials on its website, analyze the submitted information, issue a public report on drug pricing trends, and hold at least one annual public hearing on the findings. The bill creates a new statutory section, 146.901, and adds an appropriation and two full-time positions for DHS to administer the program.

Impact

AB1170 would add new disclosure and reporting obligations for prescription drug manufacturers operating in Wisconsin, affecting both brand-name and generic drug pricing practices. It would also expand DHS and OCI oversight of drug pricing by requiring advance notice of certain price increases and new drug introductions, public posting of manufacturer justifications, and ongoing state analysis of pricing trends. The bill includes a GPR appropriation of $184,200 in each of fiscal years 2025-26 and 2026-27 and authorizes 2.0 additional DHS positions. Manufacturers that fail to comply could face forfeitures of up to $10,000 per day past due.

Sentiment

The bill appears to be framed as a consumer transparency and drug affordability measure, with its structure suggesting support for greater public scrutiny of pharmaceutical pricing and manufacturer assistance programs. However, no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the policy direction is generally pro-transparency and pro-oversight, but the absence of debate records limits assessment of broader legislative sentiment.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of manufacturer disclosure requirements, the burden of compliance, and the public release of pricing justification materials. Drug manufacturers may object to mandatory advance notice, detailed reporting of concessions to pharmacy benefit managers, and publication of proprietary pricing rationale. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, consumer protection, and state oversight of drug costs. The penalty structure and the requirement for annual public hearings could also be debated as either necessary enforcement tools or as regulatory overreach.