Skip to content
Bills from the 2021–22 session

Assembly Bill 7

Pharmacy benefit managers, prescription drug benefits, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jan 21, 2021

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 15, 2022: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill generally requires pharmacy benefit managers to be licensed with the commissioner of insurance or to have an employee benefit plan administrator license under current law. The bill also establishes certain requirements on pharmacy benefit managers and certain health plans regarding their interactions with pharmacies and pharmacists. Under the bill, a pharmacy benefit manager is an entity that contracts to administer or manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of an insurer, a cooperative, or another entity that provides prescription drug benefits to Wisconsin residents.

Licensure of pharmacy benefit managers The bill requires a pharmacy benefit manager to be licensed either as a pharmacy benefit manager or as an employee benefit plan administrator, which is an existing license under current law, in order to perform the activities of a pharmacy benefit manager. The bill specifies that an entity that is both an employee benefit plan administrator and a pharmacy benefit manager need only have a single license as an administrator. To obtain a license, the pharmacy benefit manager must pay the applicable fee; supply a bond; provide its federal employer identification number;

Read the full summary

and show to the commissioner that the pharmacy benefit manager intends to act in good faith in compliance with applicable laws, rules, and commissioner's orders through certain competent and trustworthy individuals, to designate an individual to directly administer the prescription drug benefits, and, if not organized in Wisconsin, to agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioner and Wisconsin courts. Under the bill, pharmacy benefit manager licenses may be limited, suspended, or revoked for the same reasons as for employee benefit plan administrator licenses, which include that the pharmacy benefit manager is unqualified; repeatedly or knowingly violates laws, rules, or commissioner's orders;

endangers enrollees or the public; or has inadequate financial resources. After a pharmacy benefit manager's license is ordered suspended or revoked, the commissioner may allow the pharmacy benefit manager to continue to provide services for the purpose of providing continuity of care to existing enrollees. In addition to powers the commissioner has generally to implement and enforce insurance-related laws, the bill allows the commissioner to examine, audit, or accept an audit of a pharmacy benefit manager in the same manner as employee benefit plan administrators and insurers and to promulgate any rules to implement licensure of pharmacy benefit managers.

Pharmacy benefit manager regulation Unless federal law requires otherwise, a pharmacy benefit manager is prohibited in the bill from retroactively denying a pharmacist's or pharmacy's claim unless the original claim was fraudulent, the payment of the original claim was incorrect, the pharmacy services were not rendered by the pharmacist or pharmacy, the pharmacist or pharmacy violated state or federal law, or the reduction is permitted by contract and is related to a quality program. The bill limits recovery for an incorrect payment to the amount that exceeds the allowable claim. The bill requires every pharmacy benefit manager to submit annual transparency reports containing information specified in the bill to the commissioner. The bill sets requirements on a pharmacy benefit manager; insurer; defined network plan, such as a health maintenance organization; or a self-insured governmental health plan that is conducting an audit of a pharmacist or pharmacy.

Certain health plans, or pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of health plans, may require a pharmacy to fulfill certification or accreditation requirements in order to participate in the plan's network of providers. The bill requires a pharmacy benefit manager or a representative of a pharmacy benefit manager to provide to a pharmacy, within 30 days of receipt of a written request from the pharmacy, written notice of the certification or accreditation requirements as a determinant of network participation. The bill prohibits a pharmacy benefit manager or representative from changing its accreditation requirements more frequently than once every 12 months.

Current law requires pharmacy benefit managers to agree in their contracts to make certain disclosures regarding prescription drug reimbursement, including updating maximum allowable cost pricing information for prescribed drugs or devices at least every seven business days, reimbursing pharmacies or pharmacists subject to the updated maximum allowable cost pricing, and modifying information in the maximum allowable cost information in a timely fashion. Pharmacy benefit managers currently must also include in each contract with a pharmacy a process to appeal, investigate, and resolve pricing disputes in accordance with the specifics in current law. These current law requirements are unchanged by the bill.

Disclosures to consumers; cost-sharing limitation Under the bill, a health insurance policy or a governmental self-insured health plan may not, and a policy or plan must ensure that a pharmacy benefit manager does not, restrict a pharmacy from or penalize a pharmacy for informing an enrollee under the policy or plan of any differential between the out-of-pocket cost of a drug to the enrollee under the policy or plan and the cost an individual would pay for the drug without using insurance. Health insurance policies are referred to in the bill as disability insurance policies. The bill prohibits a policy, plan, or pharmacy benefit manager from requiring an enrollee under the policy or plan to pay more for a covered drug than either the cost-sharing amount for the prescription drug under the policy or plan or the amount the enrollee would pay for the drug without using insurance, whichever amount is lower.

The bill requires pharmacies to post a sign describing the pharmacist's ability to substitute a less expensive drug product equivalent or interchangeable biological product for the prescribed drug or biological product unless the consumer or the prescribing practitioner indicates otherwise. Under current law, a pharmacist is required to dispense either the prescribed drug or biological product or, if lower in price, a drug product equivalent or interchangeable biological product. The pharmacist is currently required to inform the consumer of the options available in dispensing the prescription. The bill requires each pharmacy to have available for the public a listing of the retail price, updated monthly or more often, of the 100 most commonly prescribed prescription drugs available for purchase at the pharmacy.

The bill also requires pharmacies to make available for the public information on how to access a list, created by the Pharmacy Examining Board, of the 100 most commonly prescribed generic drugs with the corresponding brand name, and the federal Food and Drug Administration's list of currently approved interchangeable biological products, which the Pharmacy Examining Board currently has to provide a link to on its Internet site.

Drug substitution The bill requires a health insurance policy, governmental self-insured health plan, or pharmacy benefit manager to provide advanced written notice to an enrollee of a formulary change that either removes a prescription drug from the formulary or reassigns a prescription drug to a higher benefit tier. A higher benefit tier is a tier with a higher deductible, copayment, or coinsurance than the tier the prescription drug had been assigned. The advanced notice required by the bill must be provided no fewer than 30 days before the expected formulary change, must include information on the procedure for the enrollee to request an exception to the formulary change, and need only be provided to those enrollees who are using the drug at the time the notification must be sent. A policy, plan, or pharmacy benefit manager is not required to provide advanced written notice if the prescription drug is no longer approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration; is the subject of a notice, guidance, warning, announcement, or other statement from the FDA relating to concerns about the safety of the drug; or is approved by the FDA for use without a prescription. A policy, plan, or pharmacy benefit manager is also not required to provide advanced written notice for the removal or reassignment of a prescription drug if the policy, plan, or pharmacy benefit manager adds to the formulary at the same or a lower benefit tier a generic prescription drug that is approved by the FDA for use as an alternative to the prescription drug or a prescription drug in the same pharmacologic class or with the same mechanism of action. A lower benefit tier has a lower deductible, copayment, or coinsurance than the prescription drug's current benefit tier.

The bill requires a pharmacist or pharmacy to notify an enrollee in a policy or plan if a prescription drug for which an enrollee is filling or refilling a prescription is removed from the formulary and the policy or plan or a pharmacy benefit manager acting on behalf of a policy or plan adds to the formulary at the same or a lower cost-sharing tier a generic prescription drug or a prescription drug in the same pharmacologic class or with the same mechanism of action. If an enrollee has had an adverse reaction to the prescription drug that is being substituted for an originally prescribed drug, the bill allows the pharmacist or pharmacy to extend the prescription order for the originally prescribed drug to fill one 30-day supply of the originally prescribed drug for the cost-sharing amount that applies to the prescription drug at the time of the substitution.

This proposal may contain a health insurance mandate requiring a social and financial impact report under s. 601.423, stats.

Who's behind it

35 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 35 are Republicans.

24 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 59 names

Authors (35)

Signed on in support (24)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 2 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Health vote on an amendment

Passed, 14 to 0 · Mar 11, 2021

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Health, Ayes 14, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly Committee on Health vote to recommend it

Passed, 14 to 0 · Mar 11, 2021

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Health, Ayes 14, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 15, 2022

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 12, 2021 to Mar 16, 2021

    22 more representatives signed on in support.

  3. Mar 11, 2021

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  4. Mar 11, 2021

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 14 to 0.

  5. Feb 10, 2021

    The committee held a public hearing.

  6. Feb 5, 2021 to Feb 9, 2021

    1 more representative and 1 senator signed on in support.

  7. Feb 3, 2021

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  8. Jan 28, 2021

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  9. Jan 28, 2021

    “Commissioner of Insurance report received pursuant to s.601.423(2), Wisconsin Statutes” (the official wording)

  10. Jan 26, 2021

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  11. Jan 22, 2021 to Jan 25, 2021

    1 more representative and 1 senator signed on in support.

  12. Jan 21, 2021

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Health.

  13. Jan 21, 2021

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jan 21, 2021 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Schraa, Dittrich, Duchow, Horlacher, Krug, Ramthun, Novak, J. Rodriguez, Spiros, Tauchen, Tittl, Armstrong, Brooks, Cabral-Guevara, Callahan, Edming, Gundrum, James, Kitchens, Kuglitsch, Loudenbeck, Magnafici, Moses, Mursau, Petersen, Plumer, Rozar, Skowronski, Snyder, Sortwell, Swearingen, Thiesfeldt, Tranel, Vorpagel and Zimmerman; cosponsored by Senators Felzkowski, Roth, Erpenbach, Bernier, Cowles, Darling, Feyen, Marklein, Ringhand, Smith, Wanggaard, Wirch, Ballweg, Jacque, Larson, Nass and L. Taylor

  2. Jan 21, 2021 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Health

  3. Jan 22, 2021 · Assembly

    Representative Wichgers added as a coauthor

  4. Jan 25, 2021 · Assembly

    Senator Johnson added as a cosponsor

  5. Jan 26, 2021 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Jan 28, 2021 · Assembly

    Commissioner of Insurance report received pursuant to s.601.423(2), Wisconsin Statutes

  7. Jan 28, 2021 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Feb 3, 2021 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. Feb 5, 2021 · Assembly

    Senator Bewley added as a cosponsor

  10. Feb 9, 2021 · Assembly

    Representative Dallman added as a coauthor

  11. Feb 9, 2021 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative Schraa

  12. Feb 10, 2021 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  13. Feb 10, 2021 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 2 offered by Representative Schraa

  14. Feb 11, 2021 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  15. Mar 11, 2021 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Health, Ayes 14, Noes 0

  16. Mar 11, 2021 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Health, Ayes 14, Noes 0

  17. Mar 11, 2021 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  18. Mar 11, 2021 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 3-16-2021 by Committee on Rules

  19. Mar 12, 2021 · Assembly

    Representatives Hintz, Spreitzer, Pope, Shankland, Sinicki, Goyke, Billings, Hebl, Andraca, Ohnstad, Brostoff, Baldeh, S. Rodriguez and Vining added as coauthors

  20. Mar 15, 2021 · Assembly

    Representatives Doyle, Conley, Emerson, B. Meyers, Considine, Subeck and Allen added as coauthors

  21. Mar 16, 2021 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  22. Mar 16, 2021 · Assembly

    Representative Hesselbein added as a coauthor

  23. Mar 15, 2022 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote