Senate Bill 416 (As Introduced)

Contact: Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs

Agency: Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Analysis

Topic: Listing Retail Price and Co-Pay on Prescription Drug Receipts
Sponsor: Senator Hammerstrom
Committee: Health Policy
Date Introduced: April 24, 2001
Date of Analysis: October 10, 2001

Position: The Department of Consumer and Industry Services supports the bill.

Background: MCL 333.17757(6) requires pharmacists to provide receipts to purchasers of prescription drugs which include specific information, namely the:

- brand name of the drug
- name of the manufacturer/supplier of the drug, if the drug does not have a brand name
- strength of the drug, if significant
- quantity dispensed, if applicable
- name and address of the pharmacy
- serial number of the prescription
- date the prescription was originally dispensed
- name of the prescriber
- name of the patient for whom the drug was dispensed
- price for which the drug was sold to the purchaser

The term "price" has been problematic for customers and pharmacies because price is a loose term which could apply to many things. Does "price" refer to the retail price or the price paid by the customer (i.e. co-pay)? Further, customers who wish to shop among pharmacies for competitive prices are not able to review their receipts for information which might assist them in making more informed choices. Hence, the term "price" would be expanded in the proposed bill to include both the retail price and the co-pay, if any, paid by the customer.

Description of Bill: The bill amends MCL 333.17757(6)(j) to read:

(j) The price for which the prescription drug was sold to the purchaser, including both the retail price and the co-pay, if any, paid by the purchaser.

Arguments For: Some customers pay co-pays based on a percentage of the retail price. For example, if a customer must pay a 10% co-pay based on the policies established by the customer's health care provider, a customer would pay $5.00 for a prescription which, without insurance, would retail for $50.00. Therefore, if the retail and co-pay prices are both included on the customer's receipt, the customer can make more informed choices on where to purchase his/her prescription drugs.

Arguments Against: Pharmacies which issue computer-generated receipts will incur costs when upgrading their automated programs to add new price information. It is expected, however, that these costs will be one-time costs, and not costs incurred routinely and over time.

Supporters/Opponents: The Michigan Pharmacy Association is generally supportive of the bill and is working with Senator Hammerstrom's office to determine the best term to replace the term, "retail price," which was included in the bill, as introduced. The term, "cash price" may be substituted as an amendment, but the MPA and Senator have not settled on the best terminology yet.

Fiscal Information: There is no fiscal impact for the Department beyond the cost of informing departmental staff.

Economic Impact: Again, it is likely that re-programming fees will be incurred for pharmacies utilizing automated receipt programs.

Administrative Rule Impact: This bill has no impact on administrative rules.