Recent changes to Michigan's consumer protection laws have sparked debate, and a coalition of Michigan industry groups have joined to oppose the removal of the regulatory compliance exemption under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) . This exemption previously shielded regulated industries from lawsuits under the MCPA, but a recent bill, SB 134 , would repeal it. MichBio and coalition partners believe that this could lead to increased litigation and costly lawsuits for businesses and submitted their concerns and opposition to the Senate Finance, Insurance & Consumer Protection Committee. This legislation is a response to the Michigan Supreme Court 1999 case decision in Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company , which supposedly weakened the power of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by exempting many industries, like pharmaceuticals, from liability, leaving residents ill-protected from scams and other deceptive activity. The MCPA currently does not apply to “[a] transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” In its Smith v. Glove Life Ins. Co. and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. decisions, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) interpreted this to mean the following: if a person or company is licensed or approved to engage in a certain business or profession, and the transaction at issue falls within the scope of that license, that conduct falls outside the MPCA. While these rulings do not give a complete exemption to regulated industries from the MCPA (i.e., if the person or business is operating outside the scope of the occupation or profession, there could be an MCPA claim), they do provide protections. Attorney General Nessel, who testified in support of the legislation in the prior session , launched an investigation into insulin manufacturer Eli Lilly and asked the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider the two previous MSC rulings that hinder the Department’s ability to take action against drug manufacturers and other regulated/licensed entities under the MCPA. Under the 1999 and 2007 decisions, Nessel is unable to even begin an investigation into Eli Lilly because it is regulated by both the Federal Drug Administration and the Michigan Board of Pharmacy, even though neither have authority over pricing. The Court heard oral arguments in that matter earlier this year .

Michigan’s legislature is considering two bills, SB 94 and SB 95 related to the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program and both bills are expected to be deliberated by the House Health Policy Committee in due course. These bills, passed by the Michigan Senate, aim to prohibit drug manufacturers from restricting hospitals' access to discounted drugs under 340B. The 340B program was originally intended to help low-income and uninsured patients access affordable medications by requiring drug manufacturers to provide discounts to safety-net providers. However, misuse and abuse of this well-intentioned but ballooning program is driving up costs for patients, taxpayers, employers, and everyone who pays for healthcare. The 340B program enables participating hospitals to purchase medications at significant discounts and sell them to plan sponsors at the prevailing rate, a “buy low, sell high” scheme that results in profits at the expense of working families. There is no guarantee that 340B profits are passed to vulnerable patients in local communities, while raising prices due to incentives for steep markups on medications, lost rebates, health system consolidation, and incentives to prescribe higher-cost drugs and fewer biosimilars. MichBio spent time alongside representatives from member companies and our national organization, BIO, educating key legislators about 340B and specifically raised concerns about the potential impact of 340B programs on drug pricing and innovation. We and our partners maintain that any changes to the 340B program should be comprehensive and address systemic issues, such as transparency, diversion, and duplicate discounts, ideally at the federal level. MichBio continues to work to ensure that any changes to the program do not negatively affect patients, providers, and the industry as a whole.