header photo

Legislative/SPAN

Committee Chair
Luke Hvass
Hometown: St. Paul, Minnesota
Undergraduate: Creighton University
Why I get involved: To apply something I am passionate about to ASP
Goals for my committee: Educate others on current pharmacy legislation
Favorite Drug: Benicar- because it smells like frosting!
Favorite candy: Sour Patch Kids
Contact: lukehvass@creighton.edu

 

Legislative Update - 11-7-2007

Kansas Legislation to Limit Dispensing of Controls by Aundrea Bell

Kansas is meeting in December to discuss adopting a proposal to limit the amount of controlled substances that can be dispensed at any one time (K.A.R. 68-20-23). This regulation would allow pharmacists, technicians or interns to dispense only a 93 day maximum supply of any controlled substance. More info at: http://www.accesskansas.org/pharmacy/leg.html

Bill Aims for Negotiating Clout for Pharmacists taken from NPA e-News

Without debate, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would exempt independent pharmacists from antitrust laws so they could collaborate in negotiating contracts with health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers. Sponsored by Anthony Weiner, D-NY, the measure (HR 971) is a response to pharmacists' complaints that low reimbursement rates and payment delays as a result of the new Medicare drug benefit (PL 108-173) have forced them out of business. The panel adopted two amendments by Darrell Issa, R-CA, and a manager's amendment by Weiner. One Issa amendment would narrow the bill's definition of independent pharmacy to those having less than 10 percent of the market share of a Medicare Part D prescription drug region. The other would affirm the's oversight authority of independent pharmacies. The Weiner amendment would give the measure a five-year sunset and require a Government Accountability Office study and report on its impact and recommendations for extension. Some pharmacists have said that PBMs are intentionally delaying payments and offering low reimbursements to make heavy profits. PBMs deny those accusations. The PBMs and other bill opponents, including the FTC, say it would drive up costs to consumers and the federal government. The bill is not needed, they say, because pharmacists can reject the terms of a contract with PBMs if they choose. The Association of Community Pharmacists web site notes that the bill "would establish a balanced playing field between pharmacies and PBMs, would reduce the pressure on the government to regulate reimbursement rates and reduce prices for consumers." (Source: CQ Today By Caitlin Webber, CQ Staff)