Florida subcommittee advances HB 697, a state 'most‑favored‑nation' drug‑pricing plan, on 15‑1 vote

Representative Kinkard Johnson, the sponsor, presented HB 697, the Prescription Reduction Incentive and Competition Enhancement (PRICE) Act, as a market‑based plan to lower prescription costs for Floridians by creating a state policy that references lower prices in comparable foreign markets and strengthens oversight of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) contracting practices. "The PRICE Act will set up a most favored nation drug cost policy for our state," Johnson said, describing protections for formularies and limits on PBM practices.

The committee spent extended time probing implementation and access risks. Representative Bartleman asked how the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) and the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) would implement the law and what contingency plans would exist if implementation reduced availability of critical medicines, citing concerns from oncology providers. Johnson said she would work with members to add language to protect patient access and noted the bill’s MFN formula excludes countries without sufficient volume and adjusts for usage.

Witnesses presented competing views. Michael Power of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) said PBMs support affordable access but opposes portions of the bill concerning formulary design, affiliate manufacturers and pharmacist discretion to decline dispensing, warning those provisions could disrupt adherence for complex therapies. Sharon Lamberton of PhRMA argued the bill would amount to a state price control, risk patient access and harm innovation, and urged alternatives such as passing rebates through to patients and changing PBM payment models. "It's imposing a state based price control system to import prices from another country, and it's not the solution," Lamberton told the committee.

Barney Bishop of Small Business Pharmacies Aligned for Reform (SPAR) urged passage, calling PBM contracts secretive and saying independent pharmacies have been driven from business. Bishop cited industry figures and urged reimbursement tied to NADAC plus a percentage and a dispensing fee to protect small pharmacies.

Debate among members reflected the competing priorities. Supporters framed the bill as necessary to rein in what some members described as excessive PBM profits and to deliver savings to consumers. Skeptical members and witnesses cautioned that if reimbursement does not cover acquisition costs or if manufacturers or wholesalers fail to supply drugs at the new payment levels, pharmacies or oncology providers could stop stocking critical medications, producing shortages or access disruptions.

After limited further amendments and a motion to extend the meeting by 15 minutes, the subcommittee took a roll‑call vote. Clerk Enola recorded 15 yeas and 1 nay; Chair Anderson announced the bill "recorded favorably." The committee adjourned following the vote.

The bill will move forward in the legislative process; members stressed they expect continued stakeholder work on implementation language to protect access to specialty and oncology medications while seeking to lower costs for patients.