BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair


          AB 369 (Huffman) - Health care coverage: prescription drugs.
          
          Amended: July 3, 2012           Policy Vote: Health 5-2
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: Yes
          Hearing Date: August 13, 2012                          
          Consultant: Brendan McCarthy    
          
          SUSPENSE FILE.
          
          
          Bill Summary: AB 369 would prohibit health plans and health 
          insurers from requiring a patient to try and fail on two pain 
          medications before allowing the patient to access the pain 
          medication (or generic equivalent) originally prescribed by the 
          patient's medical provider.

          Fiscal Impact: 
              One-time costs of about $40,000 (Managed Care Fund) to the 
              Department of Managed Health Care to review compliance by 
              health plans. 

              Minor costs to the Department of Insurance to review 
              compliance by health insurers.

              Negligible costs to CalPERS to provide pharmacy benefits to 
              its subscribers.

              Unknown potential costs increases to Medi-Cal managed care 
              plans (50 percent General Fund, 50 percent federal funds). 
              The Department of Health Care Services indicates that it 
              expects there to be some fiscal impact of the bill, but it 
              is not able to quantify any potential cost increases at this 
              time. The Department is concerned that limiting the use of 
              step therapy will lead to greater use of more expensive pain 
              medication, when, in some cases, less expensive medications 
              may provide relief.

          Background: Under current law, health plans are regulated by the 
          Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers are 
          regulated by the Department of Insurance. Health plans and 
          health insurers in the state are not currently required to cover 
          pharmacy benefits, but they are subject to certain regulatory 








          AB 369 (Huffman)
          Page 1


          requirements if they do offer coverage.

          Health plans and insurers (or subcontracted pharmacy benefit 
          managers) sometimes required patients to use a process known as 
          "fail first protocol" or "step therapy" for certain types of 
          drugs, particularly for drugs used to treat pain. Under a fail 
          first protocol, before a patient can access a specific 
          medication prescribed by the provider, the patient must first 
          attempt to use one or more alternative medications. As those 
          medications fail to give relief from pain (or have any other 
          intended impact) the patient progresses to the next medication. 
          The use of fail first protocols varies between health plans and 
          insurers, with different drugs covered by such protocols and 
          different numbers of steps required.

          Proposed Law: AB 369 would limit the ability of health plans and 
          health insurers to use fail first protocols or step therapy, 
          when the health plan or insurer provides pharmacy benefits.

          Specifically:
              The bill would prohibit health plans and insurers from 
              requiring a patient to try and fail on more than two pain 
              medications before the patient can access the medication (or 
              its generic equivalent) that was initially prescribed by the 
              patient's medical provider.
              The bill would require the provider to determine the length 
              of time required to judge whether a pain medication has 
              failed to give relief.
              The bill specifically would not prohibit a health plan or 
              insurer from charging copayments or deductibles or limiting 
              maximum coverage for pharmacy benefits. The bill would not 
              require coverage of drugs not on a health plan or insurer's 
              formulary or prohibit generic drug substitution for brand 
              name drugs.

          Staff Comments: Under the federal Patient Protection and 
          Affordable Care Act, health coverage provided in the small group 
          or individual market (including through health exchanges) must 
          provide essential health benefits. The Affordable Care Act 
          specifies the general categories of benefits that must be 
          provided, which includes prescription drugs. Under federal 
          guidance, the states will be able to select an essential health 
          benefits benchmark plan. After 2014, all coverage provided in 
          the small group and individual markets must provide coverage 








          AB 369 (Huffman)
          Page 2


          equal to or greater than the coverage provided by the benchmark 
          plan. 

          Under federal law, individuals purchasing coverage through 
          health benefit exchanges will be eligible for subsidies, based 
          on income, paid by the federal government.

          Under federal law, if a state imposes a benefit mandate after 
          January 1, 2012 that exceeds the benefits provided by the 
          essential health benefits benchmark plan, the state is 
          responsible for providing the subsidies for coverage of that 
          mandated benefit.

          While the bill places some constraints on the ability of health 
          plans and health insurers to use fail first protocols to manage 
          usage, the bill does not mandate health plans or health insurers 
          to provide any additional benefits to patients. Therefore, it is 
          unlikely that this bill would be construed as imposing a benefit 
          mandate under the Affordable Care Act.