Oregon PDAB
Patient and Public Engagement
Individuals or organizations who wish to comment on Board activities are encouraged to review past Board meeting minutes, submitted public comments, and other relevant documents via the Board website.
Public Comment Submission
To provide verbal comments to the PDAB, please sign up via the comment form up to 24 hours before the meeting. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person.
To provide written comments to the PDAB, please sign up via the comment form up to 2 days before the meeting.
Listserv
To receive PDAB updates directly in your inbox, click here. To subscribe, you will need to enter your email and then set up your account preferences.
For questions, comments, or accessibility issues, email PDAB staff at [email protected].
Next Meetings
The next PDAB meeting will be on 10/21.
HealthHIV’s Comments
HealthHIV testimony asked the Board to keep patient and provider experience central as it refines affordability review. It called for attention to both point-of-care barriers and upstream payment practices, data that show access problems as well as spending, and clear priorities so state budget concerns don’t overshadow real-world patient needs.
Board Activities: September 16th Meeting
As the Board has heard more from stakeholders during public testimony, the conversation has increasingly turned to how federal prices are being used as benchmarks in state affordability policy. The Medicare Maximum Fair Price (MFP) is one of the clearest examples. However, over the course of this meeting, the Board notably turned down an attempt to consider MFP as an OR PDAB benchmark, raising similar concerns that they had for UPLs (Upper Price Limits).
Simultaneously, the Board wants to expand their authority to consider alternative policy measures and recommendations, even if it would take time and prioritization away from affordability reviews, with Board members going so far as saying that they want their “handcuffs” removed.
As such, a notable, perhaps precedent-setting, dynamic has emerged in the Oregon PDAB, whereby MFP and UPL measures have gleaned increasing criticism, and the Board wishes to consider alternative policy options instead.
Moreover, on its own merits, MFP measures may well be problematic, and Medicare itself shows why the surrounding benefit structure still counts. KFF found greater use of coinsurance in 2026, particularly in Medicare Advantage drug plans; for preferred brands, the share of MA-PD enrollees facing coinsurance rose from 27% in 2025 to 56% in 2026. That doesn’t establish an effect of the MFP itself, but what it does seem to show is that the price operates within a benefit design that continues to shape what beneficiaries pay.
Our Stakeholder Takeaway is: A state shouldn’t import the price and then unintentionally disregard the system that produced it. Using an MFP as an architectural and granular benchmark requires understanding the partners and supports that shape access within various drug access ecosystems
PDAB Activities
Claims data show drugs that were approved and filled, but not prescriptions denied through prior authorization, abandoned because of cost, or delayed by repeated step therapy. Those barriers are largely invisible to the review process.
Weak demographic data left health equity more qualitative than measurable, prompting the board to retain a basic rubric while prioritizing rural access and patient-provider input.
OR policy reach is narrower than its insured population: Medicare, Medicaid and self-funded employer plans sit largely outside state insurance regulation.
Medication-specific Information
Keytruda exposed a central methodological gap: indication-specific oncology drugs require treatment-course, reimbursement and access analysis—not simple class or per-claim comparisons.
Brenzavvy was listed as another drug that could be used instead of Jardiance. Staff noted that few insurance plans in fact cover it. The Board still wanted its price shown to demonstrate that a lower-priced drug exists, even though most insured patients may not be able to access it. That framing shows why price comparison can’t stand in for access analysis: a drug may suggest that lower pricing is possible, but limited formulary coverage can keep that lower price from benefiting patients.
PDAB Data Collection
All Payer All Claims (APAC) database captures Medicaid pharmacy claims. It cannot distinguish claims filled through 340B entities from non-340B claims. This means the Board may treat Medicaid claims as ordinary drug spending without seeing whether 340B revenue supports HIV pharmacy services, navigation, uncompensated care, or other safety-net functions. A policy based on that incomplete picture could reduce resources for covered entities and disrupt access for People with HIV.
Board Patient Engagement
OR’s patient-engagement effort drew fewer than 100 patients and caregivers across all community forums and only 31 online responses. At least one forum reportedly had just one patient, with staff and industry representatives outnumbering participants . The input that did come in pointed mainly to coverage denials, formulary changes, and insurance rules that blocked or disrupted access, giving the Board a clearer signal about access barriers than about drug price alone. The Board acknowledged that patient participation had been limited. Stigma, timing, logistics, and the effort and power differential involved in public speaking on health situations shaped whether people felt able to engage, prompting the Board to discuss fewer online forums and broader community-based outreach.
