Committed to improving the health and well-being of all people across every state.

Drug Price Transparency Toolkit

by NASHP

Since California enacted the first drug price transparency legislation in 2017, at least 30 states have followed suit, requiring some form of reporting to better understand the drivers of high prescription drug prices in order to increase affordability. These laws require a wide range of entities to report data, enabling states to “follow the money” across the drug supply chain.  Reporting entities include manufacturers, health plans, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) among others.

What Are We Learning?

  • As consumers face an ongoing crisis in health care affordability, data reported by health plans reveal that prescription drug prices are a major driver of health insurance premium increases. Plans report prescription drug’s impact on premiums ranging from 15.1 percent in California to 23.8 percent in Utah.
  • Since transparency laws began shining a spotlight on drug price increases in 2017, high price increases have moderated. Fewer price increases now reach the levels that trigger reporting. At the same time, states are seeing drug launch prices skyrocket, including the introduction of new cell and gene therapies ranging from $2.2 to $3.5 million, as reported by Oregon. 
  • Reports from Maine and Minnesota have pointed to instances in which plans are paying many times more than the wholesale acquisition price, or the sticker price, for generic drugs, prompting calls to better understand the drivers of generic markups and to explore policy interventions.

What’s New?

  • Transparency around the federal 340B program, which allows certain providers to purchase drugs at discounted prices, is a bipartisan issue quickly gaining momentum across states. A dozen states have enacted 340B transparency laws, including Idaho and Indiana. (See NASHP’s Transparency Law Comparison Chart for more details.) A 2024 report from Minnesota showed the majority of savings enabled by low 340B prescription drug acquisition costs accrued to large hospital systems versus the safety net providers for whom the program benefits were originally intended. 
  • More than 20 states now require some form of reporting on rebates paid by drug manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). This helps states better understand the extent of rebates in a state market and the degree to which rebates are retained by PBMs or passed onto payers. PBM transparency can also give states and other payers information on net drug prices post-rebate. 
  • In an increasingly consolidated health care market, some states, including Florida, are beginning to collect information on corporate ownership of drug supply chain entities, focusing particularly on PBMs’ ownership affiliations with pharmacies.

Transparency Law Comparison Chart

Updated November 2025

This NASHP chart compares enacted state drug pricing transparency laws, including tabs for each reporting entity and what they must report.

Drug Price Transparency State Resources

Updated November 2025

These state resources include enabling legislation, regulations, data sets, annual reports, and more for states requiring drug manufacturers to report on high price increases or launch prices.

California Resources

Connecticut Resources

Florida Resources

Louisiana Resources

Maine Resources

Minnesota Resources

Nevada Resources

New Hampshire Resources

New Jersey Resources

North Dakota Resources

New Mexico Resources

New York Resources

Oregon Resources

Texas Resources

Utah Resources

Vermont Resources

Virginia Resources

Washington Resources

West Virginia Resources

NASHP Resources

NASHP State-Only Resources

States wishing to access state-only resources on implementing drug price transparency programs can contact Katie Graves at kgraves@nashp.org.

Search

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

* indicates required
Please enter a valid email address.
Areas of Interest