Drug Pricing Transparency: Massachusetts’ Proposed Reporting Requirements

19 December 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Author(s): Kyle Y. Faget Alexandra B. Shalom

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has restarted the discussion on health care cost containment in the Commonwealth with a proposed bill that contains a raft of initiatives. Foley & Lardner will be addressing each of the key initiatives in separate blog posts over the coming weeks to invite discussion and testing of the proposals.

Click HERE to read about the Proposed Facility Fee Ban.
Click HERE to read about the Proposed Massachusetts Primary and Behavioral Health Care Spending Requirement.

Governor Baker’s proposed legislation, an Act to Improve Health Care by Investing in Value (the Act), would, in addition to the already existing health care professional transparency reporting requirements described below, impose a drug price reporting requirement on pharmaceutical drug manufacturers throughout the Commonwealth.

Current Reporting Requirements for Drug Manufacturers

Currently, under M.G.L. § 111N and the implementing regulations (105 CMR 970.000), pharmaceutical drug and medical device manufacturing companies that employ a person to sell or market a drug, medicine, chemical, device, or appliance in the Commonwealth are required to disclosure data relating to provision of economic benefits to health care providers annually to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Specifically, manufacturers must disclose the value, nature, purpose, and particular recipient of any fee, payment, subsidy, or other economic benefit with a value of at least $50, which the company provides either directly or via an agent to a “covered recipient” in connection with the company's sales and marketing activities. In Massachusetts, a “covered recipient” is defined as any person authorized to prescribe, dispense, or purchase prescription drugs or medical devices in Massachusetts, including a physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist, health benefit plan administrator, or a health care practitioner.

Proposed Additional Reporting

If passed, the Act would also require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose information relating to the pricing of their drug(s) to the Health Policy Commission (HPC). The Act requires reporting the following information:

  • A schedule of the drug’s wholesale acquisition cost (a pharmaceutical manufacturer's list price for a drug to wholesalers or direct purchasers not including discounts or rebates) increases over the previous five calendar years;
  • The manufacturer’s aggregate, company-level research and development, and other relevant capital expenditures, including facility construction, for the most recent year for which final audited data are available;
  • A written, narrative description, suitable for public release, of factors that contributed to reported changes in wholesale acquisition cost during the previous five calendar years; and
  • Any other information that the manufacturer wishes to provide to the HPC.

The information disclosed by manufacturers will not become public records and will remain confidential.

Risks and Consequences of the Proposed Transparency Requirements

Based on the records furnished, the HPC may identify a proposed value for a prescribed drug. Within sixty days of receiving the required information from the manufacturer, the HPC is required to issue a determination on whether the manufacturer’s pricing of a drug is unreasonable or excessive in relation to the HPC’s proposed value of the drug. The consequences of such a determination were not articulated in the Act.

The Act includes a penalty provision for pharmaceutical manufacturers who fail to timely comply with the HPC’s request. The HPC notes that it aims to promote compliance with the reporting requirements, therefore, it would only impose a civil penalty (including monetary penalties up to $500,000 in each instance) on manufacturers as a last resort.


If the Act is passed, Massachusetts would join the ranks of states that already collect data on drug costs from their pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Louisiana, Maine, and Nevada. The proposed Act provides an opportunity for pharmaceutical manufacturers to begin considering implementation and compliance, e.g., how internal systems may need to be adjusted to accommodate the required reporting under the Act and who within each company will be tasked with reporting, management, and oversight.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services