SB 368 creates a new state-level prescription drug pricing transparency regime. The bill directs pharmaceutical manufacturers to notify state regulators when certain price thresholds are crossed, obliges supply‑chain participants to provide component pricing data on request, authorizes audits, requires public posting of disclosures, and establishes enforcement tools and an enforcement fund.
The measure aims to give regulators, payers, and the public a clearer view of what drives drug prices in Louisiana — potentially informing oversight, enforcement, and premium-setting — while attaching civil penalties and audit costs to reporting entities and vesting the attorney general with independent enforcement authority.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 368 triggers mandatory reporting when a drug's wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) rises above a CPI-linked threshold or when a new drug enters the market above Medicare Part D's specialty threshold. Manufacturers must supply an explanation and detailed cost breakdown; the Department of Insurance and LDH can then demand component pricing from other supply‑chain actors, audit submissions, and publish the results.
Who It Affects
Pharmaceutical manufacturers, affiliated manufacturers, PBMs, rebate aggregators, wholesale distributors, group purchasing organizations, health plans operating in Louisiana, and state regulators (Department of Insurance and Louisiana Department of Health).
Why It Matters
The bill forces disclosure of production, R&D, and marketing cost components that are usually confidential; it could change negotiation dynamics between payers and manufacturers, expose rebate and formulary practices to scrutiny, and create new compliance and litigation exposure for industry actors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 368 sets two types of triggers that compel manufacturer notice: (1) a year‑over‑year rise in a drug’s wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) that exceeds the percentage change in the prescription‑drug component of the Consumer Price Index; and (2) the introduction of a new drug into Louisiana where the WAC exceeds the Medicare Part D specialty drug threshold. When either occurs, the manufacturer must notify the state insurance commissioner and the LDH secretary within 30 days.
After the initial notice, the commissioner and LDH have 30 days to issue a joint request for pricing‑component data per pricing unit to all ‘‘reporting entities’’ in the supply chain. Those reporting entities — a broadly defined group that includes PBMs, wholesalers, rebate aggregators, GPOs, affiliated manufacturers, and others between the manufacturer and pharmacy — then have 60 days to provide the requested component‑level data.
Each submission must include a signed certification attesting to its accuracy.The bill specifies the substance of manufacturer disclosures: a narrative explanation for the increase (including whether it was a response to rebates, discounts, or formulary requirements), total and per‑unit production costs, and a multi‑part breakdown of research and development expenses (explicitly separating public‑funded R&D, after‑tax manufacturer R&D, and third‑party R&D). Marketing and advertising costs must be apportioned between consumer‑directed and prescriber‑directed activities, and the manufacturer must report the portion targeted to Louisiana.The two agencies must publish the information provided under the statute on their websites and may audit reported data; the audited entity pays audit costs.
Failure to comply is treated as an unfair trade practice and triggers referral to the attorney general, who has independent authority to sue for restitution and treble damages and to contract outside counsel. The bill also creates a special enforcement fund to receive civil recoveries and to finance enforcement activity, with remaining balances designed to be returned to policyholders under a program developed by the commissioner and attorney general.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Trigger mechanism: A manufacturer must notify state regulators within 30 days when a drug’s WAC increases faster than the year‑over‑year change in the prescription‑drug CPI component, or when a new drug’s WAC exceeds the Medicare Part D specialty threshold.
Required manufacturer disclosures include a narrative explanation for the price change, total and per‑unit production costs, R&D broken out by public funding and after‑tax private spending, and marketing costs apportioned to consumers, prescribers, and Louisiana‑specific activity.
Process and deadlines: regulators have 30 days after a notice to request component pricing data from all reporting entities; those entities have 60 days to respond and must provide a signed certification of accuracy.
Enforcement and remedies: failure to provide required information is an unfair trade practice; the commissioner and LDH refer noncompliance to the attorney general, who may pursue restitution, treble damages, and attorney fees.
Audits and funding: the Department of Insurance and LDH may audit submissions (with audited entities bearing audit costs) and civil recoveries flow into a Pharmacy Benefit Manager Enforcement Fund to finance enforcement and potentially return unexpended monies to policyholders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Enforcement authority and Enforcement Fund
The existing enforcement section is amended to clarify the commissioner’s power to enforce the new subpart and to expand the attorney general’s independent authority to investigate and sue, including contracting outside counsel. The statute creates a dedicated Pharmacy Benefit Manager Enforcement Fund to receive civil awards and settlements, pay enforcement costs (subject to appropriation), and return leftover balances to policyholders under a program designed by the commissioner and attorney general. Practically, this centralizes fines and civil recoveries, creating a dedicated revenue stream to support oversight while tying use of funds to the state’s budgeting rules.
Notification triggers and timeline
This subsection sets the two concrete triggers that require manufacturer notice: a WAC increase exceeding the prescription‑drug CPI change in any 12‑month period, and introduction of a new drug priced above the Medicare Part D specialty threshold. The manufacturer must notify both the insurance commissioner and LDH secretary within 30 days of the triggering event. Framing the trigger around CPI links reporting to an inflation benchmark rather than a fixed percentage, while referencing Medicare Part D for specialty status imports a federal pricing benchmark into state law.
Required content of manufacturer disclosures
Manufacturers must provide a substantive explanation for price changes and a detailed cost accounting: total and per‑unit production costs, an itemized R&D accounting distinguishing public funding and after‑tax private R&D, third‑party R&D contributions, and an apportioned marketing/advertising ledger separating consumer‑facing and prescriber‑facing activities and the portion directed at Louisiana. These targeted categories are unusual in state law and aim to pierce commonly held commercial confidentiality around cost structure and marketing spend.
Requests to reporting entities, response deadlines, certification, audits, and enforcement
Within 30 days of receiving a manufacturer notice the commissioner and LDH jointly request pricing‑component data per pricing unit from all reporting entities; those entities then have 60 days to respond with the requested data and a signed accuracy certification. The statute treats non‑compliance as an unfair trade practice under Louisiana consumer protection law and requires referral to the attorney general. Separately, DOI and LDH may audit submissions and shift audit costs to the audited entity. These provisions create a tight, regulator‑driven information pipeline and attach both civil and audit cost consequences to noncompliance.
Public posting, annual reporting, definitions, and technical repeal
The agencies must publish collected information on their websites, and produce a joint annual report enumerating trends, the top 25 costliest and most‑prescribed drugs, and the 25 largest year‑over‑year increases. The statute defines key terms — 'reporting entity,' 'affiliated manufacturer,' and 'prescription drug' — broadly to capture PBMs, wholesalers, rebate aggregators, and other intermediaries. The bill also repeals the prior §1870(B)(5), which had set a 15% threshold and a commissioner‑defined 'significant price increase,' thereby replacing that regime with the new CPI‑linked trigger and specialty threshold.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Louisiana consumers and insured patients — increased public access to drug price components and annual reports could improve transparency about what drives premiums and out‑of‑pocket costs.
- State regulators (Department of Insurance and LDH) — gain statutory authority to request granular supply‑chain data, audit submissions, and publish findings that support oversight and policymaking.
- Health plans and payers — receive data that could strengthen bargaining leverage and help explain premium changes tied to drug cost trends.
- Attorney General and enforcement teams — acquire an explicit referral path, civil remedies (including treble damages), and a funded enforcement vehicle to pursue complex pricing violations.
- Researchers and advocacy groups — the public posting requirement supplies data for independent analysis of pricing trends and policy proposals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pharmaceutical manufacturers — must meet rapid reporting timelines, disclose sensitive cost components (including per‑unit production costs and R&D splits), and face referrals, civil exposure, and audits.
- PBMs, rebate aggregators, wholesalers and other reporting entities — will incur data‑collection, compliance, and audit costs to assemble and certify pricing‑component responses.
- Smaller manufacturers and third‑party R&D partners — may struggle to produce the required level of granularity or to bear audit costs, raising competitive disadvantages versus larger firms.
- State agencies — though able to charge audit costs to audited entities and access the enforcement fund, DOI and LDH must still operationalize requests, vet complex cost reports, and manage public disclosures, adding administrative workload.
- Insurers and employers — may face secondary effects if disclosure triggers market reactions (e.g., pricing adjustments, changed formulary negotiations) that affect premiums or benefit design.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: the public interest in piercing opaque price-setting practices and empowering regulators versus the industry's need to protect commercially sensitive cost information and avoid regulatory burdens that could dampen investment or product availability. SB 368 leans strongly toward disclosure and enforcement but leaves open how to balance transparency with legitimate trade‑secret and measurement concerns in practice.
SB 368 forces disclosure of granular cost and marketing data that many firms regard as commercially sensitive. The statute does not include a formal, detailed confidentiality or trade‑secret protection regime for submissions; while audit costs are shifted to reporting entities, the public posting requirement risks revealing competitively useful information unless regulators redact or withhold specific trade secrets under other authority.
That imbalance raises immediate procedural questions about how DOI and LDH will handle redaction requests, FOIA conflicts, and legal challenges under state and federal trade‑secret law.
Measurement and enforcement challenges are also real. The bill uses WAC as the baseline pricing measure and a CPI prescription‑component trigger—both imperfect proxies for net prices paid after rebates, fees, and chargebacks.
Manufacturers may argue that WAC and the required cost categories do not reflect the commercial realities of net pricing, which could lead to disputes over what to disclose and how to apportion multi‑product R&D or marketing spend. Finally, the reliance on civil referrals and treble damages vests significant discretionary power in the attorney general; aggressive enforcement could deter market entry or provoke litigation over statutory scope and the accuracy certification standard.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.