WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 1170

Relating to: prescription drug cost reporting by manufacturers, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Clint Anderson and 18 co-sponsors

Wisconsin AB 1170 would require prescription drug manufacturers to report pricing and cost data to the state, funded by an appropriation and enforced by penalties.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 1170

Summary of Assembly Bill 1170 (Session 2025, Wisconsin)

Proposed by: Wisconsin Assembly (Sponsors listed in provided material)
Co-sponsors: Multiple members of the Assembly and Senate

Status noted: Introduced March 19, 2026; referred to the Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care. Fiscal estimate received April 9, 2026. (Note: legislative actions may have progressed since this summary; verify current status.)

1) Purpose and Intent

  • AB 1170 Relates to prescribing drug cost reporting by manufacturers, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty.
  • The bill appears to mandate reporting requirements for prescription drug manufacturers regarding the costs or pricing of their products, with an appropriation to support the program and penalties for non-compliance.
  • The overarching aim is to increase transparency around prescription drug costs in Wisconsin, enabling better understanding of price drivers and informing policymakers, payers, and the public.

2) Key Provisions and Changes

While the full statutory text is not provided here, the bill’s title and summary indicate:

  • Prescription Drug Cost Reporting by Manufacturers
    • Manufacturers of prescription drugs would be required to report certain cost, pricing, or related information to a designated Wisconsin state entity or agencies.
    • Reports likely include data about price increases, wholesale acquisition costs, list prices, discounts, rebates, and other factors affecting drug pricing.
  • ** appropriation**
    • The bill includes an appropriation, allocating state funds to implement and administer the reporting program. This could cover data collection systems, staff, auditing, and related activities.
  • ** Penalty Provision**
    • A penalty mechanism would apply to non-compliance or failure to provide required information. Penalties could include civil fines, administrative actions, or other sanctions defined by the statute.
  • ** Administration and Oversight (Implied)**
    • A state agency (potentially a health-related department or a designated body) would administer the program, collect data, and possibly publish reports or dashboards.
  • ** Data Handling and Confidentiality (Implied)**
    • Provisions may address data confidentiality, handling of sensitive pricing information, and potential public reporting formats.

Note: Specifics such as the exact data elements required, reporting frequency, submission format, agency responsibilities, exact penalty amounts, and the precise scope of the penalties would be detailed in the bill’s text.

3) Who and What Would Be Affected

  • Prescription Drug Manufacturers: Primary subject of the reporting requirement. They would need to provide predefined data elements to the state.
  • Wisconsin State Agencies: Likely including the department tasked with health, aging, or a dedicated health data/price transparency unit, responsible for collecting, analyzing, and possibly publishing information.
  • Public Stakeholders: Policymakers, researchers, insurers, healthcare providers, and the general public could gain access to cost data and trends, improving price transparency and policy deliberations.
  • Potential Economic Impacts: Data collection and reporting requirements could affect compliance costs for manufacturers and may influence pricing discussions and policy responses at the state level.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction Date: March 19, 2026.
  • Referral: Referred to the Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care for consideration.
  • Fiscal Implications: A fiscal estimate has been issued (April 9, 2026), indicating anticipated costs associated with implementing and administering the program.
  • Next Steps: The bill would proceed through committee hearings, potential amendments, and floor votes in the respective chamber(s). If passed, it would proceed to the other legislative chamber and, if approved, to the governor for signature.

5) Potential Implications and Considerations

  • The bill promotes price transparency by requiring manufacturers to disclose cost-related data.
  • The appropriations and penalties reflect a serious state intent to enforce compliance and fund program operations.
  • Exact data elements, reporting timelines, and thresholds for penalties will determine the program’s burden on industry and its usefulness for policy analysis.
  • Public availability and accessibility of the reported data will influence how effectively stakeholders can use the information for decision-making.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary once you provide the bill’s specific text or key data elements, or we can compare it with similar price-transparency bills in other states.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.