SB493

The introduced proposal placed the cost-disclosure rule in Insurance Code Chapter 1369, addressed both insurers and PBMs and listed numerous plan categories with a federal-waiver provision. The Senate substitute instead proposed an Occupations Code rule barring pharmacies from accepting restrictive agreements or policies, and added communications with plan sponsors. The engrossed version retained that approach. These earlier mechanisms are not the enacted text. Introduced proposal; Senate substitute; All versions.

The House substitute moved the rule to Insurance Code Chapter 4151, imposed the cost-disclosure prohibition on PBMs, expressly made restrictive network-contract provisions unenforceable, included communications with plan administrators and added renewals to the transition rule. It became the final act. The stand-alone floor-amendment index has no links, but the May 22 Senate journal prints the complete House substitute as the amendment and records concurrence. House substitute; Amendment index; Full House amendment and concurrence.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Patients may receive clearer information when paying without a prescription-benefit claim would cost less, and pharmacies gain room to discuss benefit and reimbursement problems directly with plan sponsors or administrators. The law protects communication; it does not require a pharmacy to offer a particular cash price, mandate a disclosure in every transaction, set reimbursement rates or guarantee lower drug costs. What the act does and does not require.

The March 17 introduced, March 28 Senate substitute and May 11 House substitute fiscal notes all anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact and assume state costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not estimate patient savings or effects on individual pharmacy revenue. Latest fiscal note.