Nevada bill SB 265, which would have required pharmaceutical companies that make diabetes drugs to disclose information on insulin pricing, profits, and costs, and to publicly post that information, was vetoed by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandovol cited concerns over “nascent, unproven, and disruptive” changes to state healthcare policy.
A Nevada bill (SB 265) that would have required pharmaceutical companies that make diabetes drugs to disclose information on insulin pricing, profits, and costs and publicly post that information, was vetoed by Nevada’s governor on June 2, 2017.
Republican Governor Brian Sandoval cited concerns over “nascent, unproven, and disruptive” changes to state healthcare policy in vetoing the bill, which was one of 20 pieces of legislation that the governor had to sign or veto or it would become law without his signature. The bill had passed the Nevada Senate 19-2 and the Assembly 26-14 in May.
The bill would have lowered the cost of certain essential diabetes drugs, such as insulin, by requiring companies that make the drugs to report costs of production and marketing along with any rebates they provided. Additionally, the bill included language that would have mandated pharmaceutical sales representatives to annually report details of interactions with physicians, including who they visited and what samples or gifts they provided.
Governor Sandoval said certain parts of the bill were “laudable” and “well-intentioned,” and sought to address legitimate concerns about access to affordable drugs. But he said that the bill posed serious risks of unintended and potentially detrimental consequences for patients in the state and could possibly lead to rising healthcare costs. “There must be compelling evidence that the benefits are worth the risks,” he said, before he would support a bill as “uncertain” as SB 265. Sandoval said the bill’s mandated 90-day notice of price increases could create a perverse incentive for some to stockpile drugs to maximize profits and give purchasers, wholesalers, and secondary distributors of drugs greater financial incentive to restrict access to drugs. The bill also failed to address the role played by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in prescription drug prices, the governor said.
Sandoval noted he had received hundreds of constituent calls and letters and opposition to the bill from groups such as the Epilepsy Foundation and the Nevada Cancer Research Foundation.
The bill’s sponsor, state senator Yvanna Cancela (D-Las Vegas), said she was deeply disappointed in the governor’s decision to veto a bill with significant bipartisan support that would have potentially led the nation in taking on high drug costs. Nevada’s Senate majority leader Aaron Ford said that the governor’s veto had put the interests of major pharmaceutical companies ahead of the 1 million patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
The Biosimilar Void: 90% of Biologics Coming Off Patent Will Lack Biosimilars
February 5th 2025Of the 118 biologics losing exclusivity over the next decade, only 10% have biosimilars in development, meaning a vast majority of biologics have no pipeline, which limits savings potential for the health care system.
The Banking of Biosimilars: Insights From a Leading Health Economist
February 4th 2025Biosimilars have the potential to reduce health care costs and expand patient access, but economic and policy barriers affect adoption, explored James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, MSc, associate professor at the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, in an interview.