Wisconsin Senate Bill SB1149

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

SB1149 would create a new prescription drug cost reporting system for manufacturers of brand-name and generic drugs sold in Wisconsin. It requires manufacturers to give the Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance advance notice, with a written justification, before certain large price increases or before introducing high-cost drugs into the state. The notice thresholds differ for brand-name and generic drugs, and the bill also requires annual reporting on price concessions to pharmacy benefit managers and on manufacturer-sponsored assistance programs. The bill directs DHS to publish the submitted justification materials on its website, analyze the reported information, and issue a public report on drug-pricing trends, including at least one annual public hearing. It also creates a new statutory appropriation for DHS to administer the program and adds 2.0 full-time equivalent positions funded by general purpose revenue. Manufacturers would have to certify their submissions under penalty of perjury, and failure to file required notices or reports could result in forfeitures of up to $10,000 per day past due.

Impact

SB1149 would add a new section to the statutes governing prescription drug pricing transparency and would expand DHS responsibilities by requiring collection, publication, analysis, and public reporting of manufacturer pricing data. It would affect drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and consumers by making pricing justifications and assistance-program information publicly available and by creating compliance obligations tied to price increases and high-cost drug introductions. The bill also includes a new appropriation and staffing authority for DHS to carry out these duties.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a transparency and consumer-protection proposal aimed at addressing drug price increases. The introduced sponsorship list suggests support from a sizable group of Democratic senators and representatives, but the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. No direct recorded debate is available here, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized as supportive among sponsors but not successful in enactment.

Contention

The main likely points of contention are the reporting burden on manufacturers, the disclosure of pricing and rebate-related information, and the public posting of justification documents that may be viewed as commercially sensitive. Manufacturers may object to the advance-notice requirements, the scope of required justifications, and the daily forfeiture penalty for noncompliance. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of pharmacy benefit manager concessions and manufacturer-sponsored assistance programs, which could raise concerns about confidentiality, administrative complexity, and whether the reporting thresholds are too broad or too low.