The Buckeye Institute has submitted written testimony to the Ohio House Insurance Committee regarding Ohio House Bill 192, which proposes a minimum government-mandated dispensing fee for pharmacies in the state. The organization urged lawmakers to consider market-based reforms instead of new mandates.
Rea S. Hederman Jr., vice president of policy at The Buckeye Institute, expressed concerns that some provisions in House Bill 192 could lead to higher consumer prices. “Instead of streamlining government rules or making healthcare and drug markets more competitive, House Bill 192 issues another government mandate that will likely raise consumer prices at the pharmacy rather than lower them,” Hederman stated in his testimony.
He explained that pharmacists currently charge dispensing fees in addition to the price of prescription drugs. The bill would set an artificial minimum fee tied to the average dispensing fee across Ohio, potentially incentivizing increases in both averages and minimums. According to Hederman, similar policies at the federal level have already led to higher dispensing fees under Medicaid. “The new rule will use government influence to benefit large chain pharmacies that tend to have lower dispensing fees than smaller pharmacies, and it will harm retail consumers by reducing price competition and making the trip to the pharmacy more expensive,” he said.
Hederman recommended that lawmakers focus on reducing regulatory barriers, encouraging market growth and innovation, and preventing undue government influences that could restrict supply or raise prices for consumers. He noted that while some credentialing provisions in House Bill 192 support these goals, the mandatory minimum dispensing fee does not.
“My name is Rea S. Hederman Jr. I am the vice president of policy at The Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states,” he introduced himself during his testimony.
“The General Assembly should continue focusing on reducing regulatory barriers; encouraging market growth, innovation, and competition; and preventing undue government influences that restrict supply and raise consumer prices. House Bill 192’s credentialing provisions do that, but the bill’s mandatory minimum pharmacy dispensing fees do not,” Hederman concluded.
