VA SB 668
Status unknownState pharmacy benefits manager; contractual provisions, report.
Virginia · 2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did VA SB 668 pass?
The current status of VA SB 668 is not known from the official record. Latest recorded action (2026-02-11): Continued to next session in Finance and Appropriations (14-Y 1-N)
What is VA SB 668 about?
State pharmacy benefits manager; contractual provisions; report. Requires the Department of Medical Assistance Services' contract with the state pharmacy benefits manager to (i) require that that ingredient-cost reimbursement is based on the national average drug acquisition cost, or if unavailable, the wholesale acquisition cost minus a discount set by the Department, plus a professional dispensing fee, determined by the Department; (ii) require real-time or near real-time transparency in drug costs, rebates collected and paid, dispensing fees paid, administrative fees, and all other charges, fees, costs, and holdbacks, claim denials appeals, and network participation; (iii) prohibit the state pharmacy benefits manager from steering Medicaid recipients to affiliated pharmacies through differential cost-sharing, restrictive network design, or the mandatory use of a mail order pharmacy provider; (iv) require the state pharmacy benefits manager to (a) meet network adequacy standards established by the Department; (b) allow any willing pharmacy to participate in the pharmacy network; (c) verify that all contracted pharmacies are actively accepting Medicaid recipients; (d) submit annual reports containing certain information; (e) disclose to the Department pricing and maximum acquisition cost methodologies; and (f) allow invoice-based or national average drug acquisition cost-based appeals and require an adjustment of rates network-wide when an appeal is upheld; and (v) include enforcement mechanisms and monetary penalties for noncompliance. Additionally, the bill requires Department to annually calculate the savings generated by the use of the state pharmacy benefits manager and to annually increase its dispensing fee by the amount of such savings. The bill requires the Department to annually (1) publish and make available on its website its annual and total savings achieved, the annual and total amount applied to dispensing fees increases, and the updated dispensing fees and (2) report to the General Assembly on the state pharmacy benefits manager's compliance, national average drug acquisition cost compliance, pharmacy reimbursement trends, network adequacy compliance, and dispensing fee sufficiency.
Who sponsors VA SB 668?
Aaron R. Rouse is the primary sponsor of VA SB 668.
Description
State pharmacy benefits manager; contractual provisions; report. Requires the Department of Medical Assistance Services' contract with the state pharmacy benefits manager to (i) require that that ingredient-cost reimbursement is based on the national average drug acquisition cost, or if unavailable, the wholesale acquisition cost minus a discount set by the Department, plus a professional dispensing fee, determined by the Department; (ii) require real-time or near real-time transparency in drug costs, rebates collected and paid, dispensing fees paid, administrative fees, and all other charges, fees, costs, and holdbacks, claim denials appeals, and network participation; (iii) prohibit the state pharmacy benefits manager from steering Medicaid recipients to affiliated pharmacies through differential cost-sharing, restrictive network design, or the mandatory use of a mail order pharmacy provider; (iv) require the state pharmacy benefits manager to (a) meet network adequacy standards established by the Department; (b) allow any willing pharmacy to participate in the pharmacy network; (c) verify that all contracted pharmacies are actively accepting Medicaid recipients; (d) submit annual reports containing certain information; (e) disclose to the Department pricing and maximum acquisition cost methodologies; and (f) allow invoice-based or national average drug acquisition cost-based appeals and require an adjustment of rates network-wide when an appeal is upheld; and (v) include enforcement mechanisms and monetary penalties for noncompliance. Additionally, the bill requires Department to annually calculate the savings generated by the use of the state pharmacy benefits manager and to annually increase its dispensing fee by the amount of such savings. The bill requires the Department to annually (1) publish and make available on its website its annual and total savings achieved, the annual and total amount applied to dispensing fees increases, and the updated dispensing fees and (2) report to the General Assembly on the state pharmacy benefits manager's compliance, national average drug acquisition cost compliance, pharmacy reimbursement trends, network adequacy compliance, and dispensing fee sufficiency.
- Introduced
- 2026-01-14
- Latest action
- 2026-02-11 — Continued to next session in Finance and Appropriations (14-Y 1-N)
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Sponsors
- Aaron R. Rouseprimary
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2026-01-14
Prefiled and ordered printed; Offered 01-14-2026 26103768D
filing,introduction
2026-01-14
Referred to Committee on Education and Health
referral-committee
2026-01-29
Rereferred from Education and Health to Commerce and Labor (13-Y 0-N)
referral-committee
2026-02-02
Reported from Commerce and Labor and rereferred to Finance and Appropriations (11-Y 1-N)
committee-passage
2026-02-04
Fiscal Impact Statement from Department of Planning and Budget (SB668)
2026-02-11
Continued to next session in Finance and Appropriations (14-Y 1-N)
Versions
Documents
Votes
Rereferred from Education and Health
2026-01-29 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Barbara A. Favola: yes
- L. Louise Lucas: yes
- Mamie E. Locke: yes
- David R. Suetterlein: not voting
- Mark J. Peake: yes
- Todd E. Pillion: yes
- Jennifer B. Boysko: yes
- Lamont Bagby: not voting
- Christopher T. Head: yes
- Lashrecse D. Aird: yes
- Schuyler T. VanValkenburg: yes
- Tara A. Durant: yes
- Stella G. Pekarsky: yes
- Christie New Craig: yes
- Russet Perry: yes
Reported from Commerce and Labor
2026-02-02 · pass · 11-1
Member-level votes (15)
- R. Creigh Deeds: yes
- Mark D. Obenshain: yes
- L. Louise Lucas: not voting
- David W. Marsden: yes
- Adam P. Ebbin: yes
- Scott A. Surovell: yes
- William M. Stanley, Jr.: yes
- Ryan T. McDougle: yes
- Mamie E. Locke: not voting
- Bryce E. Reeves: yes
- Bill DeSteph: no
- Jeremy S. McPike: yes
- Mark J. Peake: yes
- Aaron R. Rouse: yes
- Lamont Bagby: not voting
Continued to next session in Finance and Appropriations
2026-02-11 · pass · 14-1
Member-level votes (15)
- L. Louise Lucas: yes
- R. Creigh Deeds: yes
- Mamie E. Locke: yes
- David W. Marsden: yes
- Adam P. Ebbin: yes
- Ryan T. McDougle: yes
- Mark D. Obenshain: yes
- Richard H. Stuart: yes
- Bryce E. Reeves: yes
- Barbara A. Favola: yes
- Scott A. Surovell: yes
- Jeremy S. McPike: yes
- Jennifer B. Boysko: yes
- Todd E. Pillion: yes
- Aaron R. Rouse: no
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T05:35:59.552682Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=VA&identifier=SB 668. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.