California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators in Sacramento seem to agree: Prescription drug prices are too high. But lawmakers and the second-term governor are at odds over what to do about it, and a recent proposal could trigger one of the biggest health care battles in Sacramento this year.
A California bill awaiting its first hearing would subject drug industry intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, to licensing by the state Department of Insurance. And it would require them to pass along 100% of the rebates they get from drug companies to the health plans and insurers that hire them to oversee prescription drug benefits.
But the proposal, which would impose some of the toughest PBM regulations in the nation, faces at least one major hurdle: Newsom. He vetoed a similar measure last year, unconvinced it would lower consumer costs. He signaled his intent to offer an alternative but has yet to reveal it.
Any fight over PBM reform promises to be a pricey one. Interest groups on both sides spent at least $7 million combined lobbying California lawmakers and the Newsom administration on health care last year, according to records filed with the secretary of state.
“This bill directly threatens the profitability of PBMs going forward,” said Ge Bai, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins University who has tracked similar bills in other states. “These bills are really the result of an interindustry dog fight, and these are ridiculously fierce fights because PBMs control revenue for pharmacies, as well as for manufacturers.”
The country’s top three PBMs —CVS Caremark, affiliated with Aetna; UnitedHealth Group’s Optum Rx; and Express Scripts, owned by Cigna — control roughly 80% of prescriptions in the United States, according to the Federal Trade Commission. In theory, they leverage their buying power to extract steep discounts from drug manufacturers and pass savings along to insurance companies and employers who provide health coverage.
But as prescription drug prices continue to spiral and federal efforts to control them stall, state lawmakers are focusing on PBMs, which help insurers decide which drugs their plans cover and how much patients will pay out-of-pocket to get them. However, they have been stymied by the drug industry’s secretive ecosystem of rebates, reimbursements, and obscure fees, thwarting efforts to lower drug costs.
In addition to California, PBM proposals have been introduced this legislative session in Arkansas, Iowa, and at least 20 other states as of Feb. 10, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. All 50 states and Washington, D.C., have some sort of PBM regulation on the books.
And although President Donald Trump has criticized PBMs and vowed to “knock out the middleman,” his recent actions undoing moves to lower prescription drug prices have left some health care experts skeptical that meaningful reform will come from Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, state data shows California health plan drug costs have grown by more than 50% since 2017. California insurers spent 11% more on pharmaceuticals in 2023 than in 2022, with specialty and brand-name drugs driving the increase.
Both Newsom and bill author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) have said PBMs play a role in high drug prices. While Wiener wants to ban some of their practices outright, Newsom has so far taken a more measured approach, calling for more disclosure and pointing to his plan for the state to manufacture its own generic drugs, which has yet to get off the ground.
In vetoing Wiener’s 2024 bill, which passed in a near-unanimous bipartisan vote, Newsom said he was unconvinced that licensing PBMs would improve affordability for patients and instead directed his administration to “propose a legislative approach” to gather more data from PBMs. In a statement, Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross noted that “Big Pharma backed the vetoed bill” and said the Democratic governor, in partnership with the legislature, will take action to address PBMs this year. She declined to elaborate.
In his January budget proposal, Newsom said his administration was “exploring approaches to increase transparency” in the entire drug supply chain, not just PBMs.
Industry representatives say they’re being unfairly targeted with transparency laws and regulations and blame pharmaceutical companies for setting high drug prices.
“The PBM is taking the risk on price variation, and it allows the client to have certainty on what they’re going to be paying,” said Bill Head, an assistant vice president of state affairs for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents PBMs. “We’re hired because it works. It saves money at the end of the day.”
He said PBMs pass on more than 95% of the rebates they receive from drugmakers — a number health policy researchers say is hard to verify.
Consumer advocates say drugmakers simply raise their prices to maintain profits and PBMs charge insurers far more for many medicines than pharmacies are paid to actually dispense them, a practice known as spread pricing.
A January report by the Federal Trade Commission found the three biggest PBMs appeared to steer the most profitable prescriptions away from competitors and to their affiliated pharmacies, which they reimbursed at markups exceeding 1,000% for some drugs, including some used to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, and serious lung conditions. Over a six-year period, the analysis found, those PBMs and their affiliated pharmacies made roughly $8.7 billion in additional revenue by marking up prices on a sample of 51 specialty drugs.
Wiener’s latest bill, SB 41, would ban such markups, as well as spread pricing, and bar PBMs from receiving performance bonuses based on drug rebates. Similar provisions were stripped out of last year’s bill in the final days before its passage.
“These are practices that only PBMs are engaging in and they’re causing harm, reducing consumer choice, increasing drug costs, and it’s time to address them,” Wiener said. “I’m not going to let that idea just evaporate because of one veto.”
Clint Hopkins, who has co-owned Pucci’s Pharmacy in Sacramento since 2016, said he often deals with complaints from frustrated patients who don’t understand drug pricing schemes and restrictions set by pharmacy benefit managers.
He’s had to turn away customers whose drugs can cost him hundreds of dollars in losses each time they’re filled and says spread pricing is helping drive independent pharmacies out of business.
“I’m not asking to be paid more. I am asking to be paid fairly — at cost or above.”
Under current law, California requires PBMs to disclose some information about drug rebates, and other information, to its clients. That data is often labeled as proprietary to the companies, leaving an incomplete picture of the supply chain, said Maureen Hensley-Quinn, a senior program director at the National Academy for State Health Policy.
PBM representatives say pharmacies, insurers, and other actors in the supply chain should have to disclose information about their profits and practices, too.
“You want to look under the hood?” Head said. “We’re open to that, but let’s look under everybody’s hood.”
Bai said lawmakers are likely going after PBMs because insurers are one portion of the supply chain that they have the power to regulate. But she warned such legislation could cost consumers more if drugmakers and pharmacies remain unchecked. A better approach, Bai suggested, would be to bar PBMs entirely from managing benefits for generic drugs, one of their biggest revenue sources.
“In health care, there’s no saint and there’s no villain. Everybody’s trying to make money,” Bai said. “These fights will bring no benefit to patients unless we go to the root.”
This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.Some elements may be removed from this article due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about available photos or other content, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.