The difference is that the proposed caps for home insurance would have made the product unprofitable, no question.
My understanding is that there is no way any vial of insulin anywhere, at this point in time, should cost enough to produce for US$35 asking price to be unprofitable. See [1] and [2] for example. This would need to increase with inflation, of course.
Regardless, the bill didn't pass. Arguments like this were probably the reason why.
> My understanding is that there is no way any vial of insulin anywhere, at this point in time, should cost enough to produce for US$35 asking price to be unprofitable.
The vetoed bill (SB 90 of 2023) did not address the price of insulin, only the allowable insurance copay for insulin. The fact that this, without addressing the actual price, would just shift the costs from copays to premiums was called out in the veto message.
Also note that, with CalRx's insulin initiative ready to deliver at the same time the bill goes into effect, SB 40 of 2025 which set the same copay cap as SB 90 of 2023, was signed by Newsom this week.
My understanding is that there is no way any vial of insulin anywhere, at this point in time, should cost enough to produce for US$35 asking price to be unprofitable. See [1] and [2] for example. This would need to increase with inflation, of course.
Regardless, the bill didn't pass. Arguments like this were probably the reason why.
[1] https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(21)... [2] https://www.medcentral.com/endocrinology/diabetes/the-high-c...