House Bill No. 4438, entitled

A bill to amend 1969 PA 312, entitled “An act to provide for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments; to define such public departments; to provide for the selection of members of arbitration panels; to prescribe the procedures and authority thereof; and to provide for the enforcement and review of awards thereof,” by amending section 2 (MCL 423.232), as amended by 2011 PA 116.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 490 Yeas—31

Albert Daley Klinefelt Santana

Anthony Damoose Lauwers Shink

Bayer Geiss McBroom Singh

Brinks Hauck McCann Theis

Camilleri Hertel McDonald Rivet Victory

Cavanagh Hoitenga McMorrow Webber

Chang Huizenga Moss Wojno

Cherry Johnson Polehanki

Nays—7

Bellino Irwin Nesbitt Runestad

Bumstead Lindsey Outman

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

House Bill No. 4439, entitled

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 491 Yeas—31

Albert Daley Klinefelt Santana

Anthony Damoose Lauwers Shink

Bayer Geiss McBroom Singh

Brinks Hauck McCann Theis

Camilleri Hertel McDonald Rivet Victory

Cavanagh Hoitenga McMorrow Webber

Chang Huizenga Moss Wojno

Cherry Johnson Polehanki

Nays—7

Bellino Irwin Nesbitt Runestad

Bumstead Lindsey Outman

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

Senator Singh moved that the bill be given immediate effect.

The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Senate Bill No. 513, entitled

A bill to amend 1987 PA 230, entitled “Municipal health facilities corporations act,” by amending section 305a (MCL 331.1305a), as amended by 2017 PA 148.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 492 Yeas—38

Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki

Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad

Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana

Bellino Hauck McCann Shink

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis

Camilleri Huizenga Moss Victory

Cavanagh Irwin Nesbitt Webber

Chang Johnson Outman Wojno

Cherry Klinefelt

Nays—0

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: President

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

Recess

Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The motion prevailed, the time being 10:46 a.m.

11:01 a.m.

The Senate was called to order by the President pro tempore, Senator Moss.

Introduction and Referral of Bills

Senator McMorrow introduced

Senate Bill No. 559, entitled

A bill to amend 1984 PA 270, entitled “Michigan strategic fund act,” by amending sections 5, 9, 88s, and 88t (MCL 125.2005, 125.2009, 125.2088s, and 125.2088t), section 5 as amended by 2023 PA 24, section 9 as amended and section 88s as added by 2021 PA 136, and section 88t as added by 2021 PA 134, and by adding sections 88u and 88v.

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Economic and Community Development.

Senator Cavanagh introduced

Senate Bill No. 560, entitled

A bill to amend 1921 PA 2, entitled “An act to promote the efficiency of the government of the state, to create a state administrative board, to define the powers and duties thereof, to provide for the transfer to said board of powers and duties now vested by law in other boards, commissions, departments and officers of the state, and for the abolishing of certain of the boards, commissions, departments and offices, whose powers and duties are hereby transferred,” by amending section 3 (MCL 17.3), as amended by 2021 PA 143.

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Economic and Community Development.

Senator McMorrow introduced

Senate Bill No. 561, entitled

A bill to amend 2018 PA 540, entitled “Economic development incentive evaluation act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 18.1753).

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Economic and Community Development.

Senator Cavanagh introduced

Senate Bill No. 562, entitled

A bill to amend 2000 PA 489, entitled “Michigan trust fund act,” by amending sections 2 and 4 (MCL 12.252 and 12.254), section 2 as amended by 2022 PA 83 and section 4 as added by 2021 PA 137.

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Economic and Community Development.

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

Third Reading of Bills

Recess

Senator Singh moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

The motion prevailed, the time being 11:03 a.m.

11:40 a.m.

The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Geiss.

Senator Singh moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:

Senate Bill No. 483

The motion prevailed.

Senate Bill No. 483, entitled

A bill to provide for a cost and affordability review of certain prescription drug products; to create the prescription drug pricing board and prescription drug affordability stakeholder council and to prescribe their powers and duties; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state governmental officers and entities; to establish upper payment limits for certain prescription drug products and provide remedies; and to provide for the promulgation of rules.

Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 4, line 20, after “activities.” by inserting “The governor shall not appoint an individual to the board if the individual is a lobbyist who is registered in this state. An individual who is appointed to the board shall not register as a lobbyist in this state for a period of 5 years after the individual’s term on the board expires.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 493 Yeas—37

Albert Daley Lauwers Polehanki

Anthony Damoose Lindsey Runestad

Bayer Geiss McBroom Santana

Bellino Hauck McCann Shink

Brinks Hertel McDonald Rivet Singh

Bumstead Hoitenga McMorrow Theis

Camilleri Irwin Moss Victory

Cavanagh Johnson Nesbitt Webber

Chang Klinefelt Outman Wojno

Cherry

Nays—0

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Runestad offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 4, line 20, after “activities.” by inserting “The governor shall not appoint an individual to the board if the individual has made a personal political contribution to the governor.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 494 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Webber offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 4, line 13, after “medicine.” by inserting “At least 1 member of the board must be an individual who advocates for patients.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 495 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Nesbitt offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 15, following line 18, by inserting:

“Sec. 24. This act does not apply beginning 3 years after the effective date of this act.”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 496 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Theis offered the following amendment:

1. Amend page 12, following line 7, by inserting:

“(j) The cost of manufacturing the prescription drug product.” and relettering the remaining subdivision.

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

Roll Call No. 497 Yeas—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Nays—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Theis offered the following amendments:

1. Amend page 2, line 11, after “the” by inserting “medical care component of the”.

2. Amend page 2, line 12, after “Index” by striking out “for all urban consumers as defined and” and inserting “as”.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 498 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:

Protests

Senators Theis, Damoose, McBroom, Bellino and Nesbitt, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 483.

Senators Theis, Damoose, McBroom and Nesbitt moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

I’m disappointed right now that I have to be giving a “no” vote explanation today because I believe the bills before us are truly a missed opportunity to address—you’re right—a very serious problem. Let’s start from a place I hope we can all agree on: prescription drug costs are too high, and too many Michiganders are struggling to afford the medications they need. We all agree on this. But if you take the time to actually listen to the patients, and the patient advocates, they’re telling us the bills before us may in fact make the situation worse, potentially significantly worse.

Patients like Sabrina. Sabrina lives in Colorado, where they already have a prescription drug affordability board, so she’s seen it in action. Her legislature is considering changes that would bring her medicine under the board’s review. Rather than being excited about this, she’s scared. Her story is worth hearing. Sabrina has cystic fibrosis. For much of her life her condition was so severe she had to be hospitalized three to four times a year, and for weeks each time. Even on her good days she spent hours doing breathing treatments just to survive. But after starting a new breakthrough, innovative medication just four years ago, her life changed. Since then, she’s been hospitalized only once in the past four years. She uses the time she had spent doing breathing treatments for her full-time job, and she’s taken up running. But now, she fears she’ll lose access to her life-changing medication because of her state’s prescription drug affordability board. By establishing these artificial limits, there’s a good chance the drug will simply not be sold in Colorado at all. It’s the worst possible example of the old Ronald Reagan adage, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Sabrina isn’t alone. Thirty million Americans are living with rare diseases like cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and muscular dystrophy. Their medications tend to be harder to develop and more expensive. But as Sabrina experienced, they can also be life changing.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to listen to the patients and reverse course on these particular bills, and come back with something that will actually help them. If manufacturers really are motivated by greed, as has been alleged, such companies will choose to limit or prohibit sales in Michigan in response to the board’s mandates because they will neither innovate nor sell at a loss, which would then make these drugs less available to Michiganders. No one has access to drugs that haven’t even been created or aren’t being sold. Because while Michigan can’t fix the massive problems associated with our prescription drug system on our own, or frankly, with these bills, we can certainly make it worse, and I believe that’s what these bills do. I ask you for a “no” vote.

Senator Damoose’s statement is as follows:

Let’s all agree, and I think that everybody in this room should agree that our drug prices make absolutely no sense, and we hear time and time again from all of our constituents about this. It’s a national issue and anybody who’s not concerned is not a thinking, feeling, human being. I’ve asked myself, time and time again, why a drug would cost so much money in the United States but if you went to Great Britain the same drug is the fraction of the cost, especially when a huge portion of those drugs are made and developed here in the United States? The answer I always get is because the British government won’t allow them to charge the prices there. Why do we allow it when they won’t? Why are we subsidizing other countries while our own people suffer? So, I applaud, very much so, the intent behind these bills.

I’ve seen it in my own home. My mom was prescribed a $3,000 a month treatment for a disorder she has and she can be a pain in the neck. And she got on this and drove everybody crazy and whittled it down from $3,000, to $1,000, to $500, to $300, to less than $100 to get her prescription, but recognizing she has the time and patience to do that. Most people can’t do that, so not everybody gets that.

My complaint with this bill has also nothing to do with an issue of free market economics because we’re so far from a free market when it comes to the whole prescription drug environment, it’s unbelievable. Whether its grants for research and development or whether its lawsuits and these types of things, so that argument doesn’t hold water. So, why am I voting “no” with these feelings? My vote today is 100 percent because I believe this can only be settled at the federal level. I get why we are trying to do it here in Michigan, but Michigan acting alone, with a handful of other states, I think could backfire and just hurt our residents. So I applaud the efforts, but I cannot support these specific bills.

Senators McBroom’s statement, in which Senator Bellino concurred, is as follows:

The price of prescription drugs is very real and a serious problem, and medicine is essential for millions of people. It is often—often—far too expensive. But food is also essential, and it is far too expensive. And some might argue that gas is essential, and it is too expensive.

Obviously, energy in itself is too costly. We have set up an entire commission whose job is to control the price of energy. What is the success of that commission? Are we keeping energy costs low for everybody? I don’t think so. Obviously not, we have some of the most expensive energy in the country. The Upper Peninsula does have the most expensive energy in the country. So it’s not a very good track record of government price controlling and of commissions trying to control that.

As for the comments from one of my colleagues earlier, Oh don’t worry, this commission is going to have independent people on it, they don’t stand to profit or gain anything by this, they are there because they are there for the right reasons, so we don’t need to worry about how they got there, how they got appointed, where they come from, what their background is, all the people on the commission for energy, the Public Service Commission, they don’t profit from these companies while they are out there regulating our energy. And yet, they clearly tend to represent the needs of the big producers and the big users and not the small individual ratepayers. Not the small businesses that can’t expand, can’t grow, or even go bankrupt because of the cost of energy.

We have to understand that price controls have a long history of not working, especially not when you try to marry price controls in with private businesses. These lead to counterproductive results. The history on this is very real, as can been seen by what we have done to our energy sector by trying to wed-in the private and the public interest together, and it is not working and this commission won’t be able to answer these problems either.

How would it be if we simply decided to control food prices, because that is essential. Why are we picking one thing and not another, because we understand the failed argument is there and yet this effort is here because it is compassionate, we care about this. Many of us have been personally impacted by this and so we stand and say, We’ve got to do something about it. And yet the solution that is offered to us today is not the solution that is going to create that end result. It is not working in other states and I don’t see the evidence that it’s going to work here. I believe it offers false hope to our citizens. So I am asking for a “no” vote today.

Senator Nesbitt’s statement is as follows:

Unfortunately these bills are not a solution to the problem of high prescription drug prices. They are simply copy and paste from other states that haven’t seen any real savings for patients in any of them that have passed this. At best, these bills are a press release, a tweet, a Facebook post. At worst, they could make it even harder for patients to access the medication they need to improve their health. As we’ve seen all too often this year from our Governor and her majority, these bills seem to be less about fixing a problem and more about keeping up with the Joneses, or maybe it is just keeping up with the Newsoms. I ask for a “no” vote.

Senators Runestad, Camilleri, Webber, Moss, Nesbitt, Theis and McDonald Rivet asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Runestad’s first statement is as follows:

I rise today to speak to my amendment to push back, once again, on the power of lobbyists and influence peddlers. Specifically, this amendment would ban any prescription board members from lobbying during their time on the board, and for five years thereafter. Controlling prices on prescription drugs, or anything else for that matter, means holding a lot of power, and we know lobbyists are willing to pay a lot of money for power like that and they go to great lengths to gain access to power.

That’s why this amendment is so important to be passed today. We need guarantees that this board, these board members, are putting Michigan first and not lobbyists. I’ve been working for many years to fight the power of special interests, now we have a chance to vote to limit those special interests. While this ban would only apply to this board, it is a start. I know that I believe transparency bills are not going to pass in this chamber, but I urge a “yes” vote on this amendment.

Senator Runestad’s second statement is as follows:

I rise today to speak to another amendment—a common sense, transparent, and important amendment to prevent any hint of political potential corruption. The amendment would ban any appointments if a political appointee has been giving political contributions to an individual who is appointing. Essentially, that means that a governor cannot provide political payback to a donor in the form of a powerful position to oversee prescription drug prices. Now I ask, why would anyone be opposed to this? Why would anyone be opposed to political transparency and accountability? Shouldn’t appointments be made on the basis of merit and not who writes the biggest checks?

It is not like a governor has ever appointed a wealthy donor to a political position, correct? Wait a minute, last month our current Governor appointed a big, wealthy donor to lead the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. It just so happens that appointee has donated to our Governor multiple times, including a $50,000 donation in 2021 that violated campaign finance laws. Friends, this isn’t right; corruption is wrong. Let’s make sure here today that this cannot happen again. I urge a “yes” vote on my amendment to prevent political cronyism and political paybacks for this board.

Senator Camilleri’s first statement is as follows:

This board, to be clear, is about expanding access to life-saving medications, and saving employers and patients money. We need to be clear on the intent of what we are hoping to do. The amendment that is offered today is nothing but a distraction. We know that this board we are creating will have staggered appointments, so that will span multiple administrations, different governors. This amendment is not about what an overwhelming majority of Michiganders care about, which is being able to afford the medications that they need. So, I urge a “no” vote on this amendment.

Senator Webber’s statement is as follows:

Madam President, in the rush to pass these bills, my colleagues across the aisle are failing to listen to the very people they claim to be helping—patients. If they were listening, they’d hear patients telling them that this board might keep them from accessing the medications that they need. That should be enough to stop these bills and go back to the drawing board. But if the majority insists on pushing ahead, instead of listening, the least they can do is ensure patients are properly represented on this board. My amendment will require at least one appointee by the Governor to be a member of a patient advocacy organization. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment.

Senator Moss’ statement is as follows:

I’m rising to speak against this amendment because it’s entirely redundant to the whole point of the bill. The whole purpose of this board is to uplift patient advocates in all sectors who have not had a tool in the marketplace to address rising prices of medicine. If previous legislatures had done this work to advocate for patients in this space and the costs that they bear, we wouldn’t have the urgent need to push forward on this board. So I listen to the comments from the previous speaker, and that is exactly the case to vote for this bill. So I look forward to some “yes” votes on the final bill, and “no” votes on the redundancy of this amendment.

Senator Nesbitt’s statement is as follows:

Madam President, at best this price-fixing board will do absolutely nothing—like has happened in other states—but at worst it could reduce and eliminate access to life-saving drugs for Michiganders. My amendment will simply sunset this board in three years so the legislature can assess its impact. I ask for a “yes” vote on my amendment.

Senator Camilleri’s second statement is as follows:

This is a very complex market, as we all know. It is also not transparent. The different business models that compete with each other for profits are often opaque and dense in complexity. Getting beneath the surface to understand the levels of disfunction are the key to success. So, setting a sunset for three years is not going to yield the results that our patients and our residents deserve. When we’re talking about upper payment limits, it’s going to require knowledge, it will require steady input from insurers, employers, patients, providers, and suppliers to know that we are making the right decisions. Again, a three-year sunset is just not sufficient. We need this board to be in existence for the long haul. Colorado just eliminated the sunset on their board and raised the cap on UPLs to a level beyond what the board is probably capable of doing anyways. We don’t believe there should be a cap on how long this board should be in service, so please allow the board to do the job that we need them to do without undue limitations or pressure. I urge your “no” vote on this amendment.

Senator Theis’ statement is as follows:

This amendment would simply add the cost associated with manufacturing the prescription drug to the list of considerations that this board would be required to review when looking at the pricing that they’re going to be providing for the drug. It takes years and an awful lot of money to create these drugs, and it’s certainly something that should be a consideration when you’re deciding what it should cost—manufactured cost is essential, I think, to that component. So the board should, at the very least, be required to consider this particular piece. I ask for a “yes” vote on this very-reasonable amendment.

Senator Camilleri’s third statement is as follows:

This amendment is not needed. PDAB will accept any and all information that a manufacturer wants to provide. Whatever they send in, the board will look at. The problem, I think, that we’re facing comes from our manufacturers who are making an argument in this space that they do not want to be held to a transparent standard so that we all know the inflated costs that they tell us are the reasons why prescription drugs are so high. We believe that the board, once they submit this information, will be able to review any and all information that they want to really get at the heart of the high cost of prescription drugs. So I am urging a “no” vote on this amendment. Again, they have the ability to tell us how much things cost. We know that with a public and transparent board, we will be able to see some of those savings. So I urge a “no” vote.

Senator Camilleri’s fourth statement is as follows:

I rise today in support of my bill—Senate Bill No. 483—and its two companion bills, Senate Bill Nos. 484 and 485, which taken together would create our state’s first-ever prescription drug affordability board, also known as PDAB. Every year prescription drug costs go one direction, higher. I’ve heard too many stories of this across my community.

There’s the women in Grosse Isle who told me one treatment for her disease last month alone was suddenly $2,000 more than the previous one with no difference in her medicine, an expense that was taking up all of their family’s extra funds. Or the man in Brownstown who told me that he’d been filling his prescriptions in Canada because it’s $250 per month without insurance over there, versus nearly $1,300 per month here, and that’s with insurance. Or the young mother who told me she’s been rationing asthma inhalers due to the high cost. These stories are not uncommon, they are the norm in a system where there is no recourse or accountability for volatile and rising drug costs. Too many people in our state are having to choose between affording food and the medication that they need. Too many people are having to ration their medicines or skip doses because their prescriptions are just too expensive, resulting in some very frightening and avoidable health outcomes.

Recently, the Michigan Prescription Drug Taskforce found that nearly one-third of residents from the ages of 19 to 64 stopped taking their prescriptions because of the cost. One-third of residents said, I can’t afford this and I’m going to risk my health because of the cost. During the committee process, we’ve heard heartbreaking stories from so many patients across Michigan who couldn’t afford their medications at all.

One woman, who was diabetic, told us who the cost for a single vial of insulin had skyrocketed from $25 to $300 in recent years, an over 1,000 percent increase. Another man shared the story of storing up medicine and skipping the doses just in case he lost his job, because it was growing way too expensive; medicine that he needed just to slow his disease progression and he couldn’t afford to be skipping.

The evidence is clear, this is a crisis that is only going to get worse; our answer can’t be doing nothing. We must act to help our patients and help our residents. It’s time to take this courageous step forward and create a prescription drug affordability board right here in Michigan. A PDAB is an independent body that uses data, analysis, and input from experts across the healthcare industry to identify drugs that pose an affordability challenge for Michiganders. It would be made up of members who have no financial stake in the pharmaceutical industry. The board would be able to set an upper payment limit, or a UPL, helping consumers see relief from rising prescription drug costs. Establishing a PDAB in Michigan has garnered a wide coalition of support from various medical associations including the Michigan State Medical Society, the Michigan Nurses Association, family doctors and many other stakeholders who are in that profession.

This is not a new concept. Six other states have already created PDABs and we already have public boards like this for utilities and water and energy all over the state and all over the country. It’s time to make sure that there’s a non-partisan review process in our state to make sure life-saving medications are truly accessible to everyone. This board will allow us to bring together diverse perspectives, to develop innovative solutions that promote affordability and equitable access to vital medications for all Michiganders. It will be a forceful advocate, it will help Michigan’s consumers take power back from big pharma and the pharmaceutical industry everywhere, and finally once and for all hold them accountable to consumers. From doctors and nurses to policy experts and health advocates, there is a widespread consensus that prescription costs are way too high. Michiganders from all backgrounds also overwhelmingly support an independent review of prescription drug costs.

I am proud of the work that we have done to craft this legislation. Let’s get it over the finish line; let’s offer real results for our residents because to be clear, both Democrats and Republicans have promised to lower the costs of prescription medicine for our residents for decades. Today we are doing something about it. I urge both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill to provide relief for all of our residents.

Senator McDonald Rivet’s statement is as follows:

We have heard a number of personal stories. We have people from our district that all of us in the chamber have heard. I’m going to start today with a personal story. In my family, we have a genetically-linked autoimmune disease that affects many of us, including myself. One of the many medications that I take monthly has a co-pay of $4,000. I watched my mother die in part because she could not afford all the medication that she needed on a fixed income.

In 2020, when we were in the middle of a global pandemic, costs of everything began to rise, but at the same time 500 prescription drugs skyrocketed by two times the rate of inflation in Michigan. So yes, other states are creating similar legislation and we all wish Congress would act quickly here, but we must address the problem, we must do the same in Michigan because we have to hold big pharma accountable. Doing nothing simply cannot be an option for us.

So let’s go over again what this legislation actually does. It puts rules in place to ensure a very-transparent process. Unlike any public board, there is opportunity for the public to weigh in and provide comments but the act prevents the over-influence of politicians, big pharma, health care industry executives, or any special interest groups. These board members must be individuals without financial ties or bias.

Now, there will be informed consultation in this process and the board will be advised by the Prescription Drug Affordability Stakeholder Council. This 21-member council will include representatives with knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, supply chains, clinical training, and more. It is not an uninformed group. These representatives could include pharmacists, health care providers, researchers, drug manufactures, even those whom the legislation will directly impact. So there is ample room for input from people with skin in the game with the independent, unbiased PDAB making the ultimate decision, all subject to our rule-making process. A PDAB will help lower the costs of the most expensive prescription drugs for every Michigan resident, employer, small business, pharmacy and health plan, and bring much-needed accountability, oversight and transparency to pharmaceutical companies, making them more responsive to consumers who are quite literally dying without our help. The overarching goal of the PDAB is to find a UPL at which insurers, employers, purchasers and government can afford to provide the drug to everyone in the state and who should absolutely get that job. It is the point of the UPL, despite everything you have heard today, to expand sales and patient access.

Our constituents, our everyday focus, and right now many of their everyday drug costs are unnecessarily extreme. To bring it to a point, it should not take a herculean effort for someone to get lifesaving drugs. It should not break families backs and we cannot allow Michiganders to die needlessly because they cannot afford their prescription drugs. I urge you to vote “yes” on this today.

The question being on the of the bill,

Senate Bill No. 484, entitled

A bill to amend 1956 PA 218, entitled “The insurance code of 1956,” (MCL 500.100 to 500.8302) by adding section 3406z.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 499 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss

Senate Bill No. 485, entitled

A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 109o.

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Roll Call No. 500 Yeas—20

Anthony Chang Klinefelt Polehanki

Bayer Cherry McCann Santana

Brinks Geiss McDonald Rivet Shink

Camilleri Hertel McMorrow Singh

Cavanagh Irwin Moss Wojno

Nays—17

Albert Hauck Lindsey Runestad

Bellino Hoitenga McBroom Theis

Bumstead Johnson Nesbitt Victory

Daley Lauwers Outman Webber

Damoose

Excused—0

Not Voting—1

Huizenga

In The Chair: Geiss