| With a growing number of states enacting drug price transparency requirements, we looked into what traction state transparency reports get on social media. The key takeaway: the states may have imposed these new reporting rules, but they are doing almost nothing to make sure they get noticed.
The data shows the reports have driven almost no discussion online.
Of the 23 reports we identified since 2016, only two garnered any social media shares: Colorado’s 2020 Insulin report (167 Facebook Shares | 38 Twitter shares) and California’s Q1-Q2 2020 WAC report (9 Facebook Shares | 24 Twitter Shares).
It’s actually not hard to figure out why. The reports themselves are often buried deep into state government websites. In other words (pardon the dad joke), transparency reports are hard to see.
Setting aside the issue of whether the reports still represent a reputational risk for pharmaceutical companies and other drug supply chain members, the lack of social chatter might add to ongoing debate about the effectiveness of state-level transparency initiatives. Earlier this month, we highlighted the challenges these laws present, including the ambiguous language in many of the bills and how requirements vary from state to state. Further, a 2019 Journal of the American Medical Association study argued the laws don’t go far enough in exposing which supply chain participants are culpable.
If you want to dive even further into what’s happening at the state level, check out our previous research into how states are tackling PBM regulation.
|
