PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 14, 2005
Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2005 - Prohibits any pharmaceutical drug manufacturer from having a controlling interest in an entity that is a pharmacy benefit manager. Allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue civil penalties for violations as necessary.
Prohibits pharmacy benefit managers from making drug interchanges: (1) to a drug with a greater cost; (2) without disclosure to the individual of the savings associated with the interchange; or (3) from a drug with generic equivalents to a drug without generic equivalents, unless the latter is lower in cost than each of the generic equivalents of the drug from which the prescription would be changed.
Requires pharmacy benefit managers to annually disclose all compensation received from drug manufacturers to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to the client plans of such manager.
People & committees
Rep. Weiner, Anthony D. [D-NY-9] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1669 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1669 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1669 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1669 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.