If at first you don’t succeed ... wait until the General Assembly’s next session and give it another shot. That’s what state Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming, is doing with a bill that would compel insurance companies to cover so-called abuse-deterrent opioids.

Yaw deserves credit for his persistence, but a closer examination of the issue should give Pennsylvanians pause over whether this is the best course of action. There’s only mixed evidence that the pills actually help prevent abuse, and widespread concern that requiring insurance plans to cover them could drive up costs for both private plans and states’ Medicaid programs.

Up to now, the new pill formulations haven’t made a big splash in the market of opioid painkillers. Only 1.4 percent of more than 219 million opioid prescriptions in 2014 were for “abuse-deterrent” opioids, according to the prescription managing company Express Scripts.

Pharmaceutical companies are trying hard to change that this year, pushing 16 bills in 10 states, including Pennsylvania, that relate to abuse-deterrent pill formulations. The companies have the blessing of the Food and Drug Administration, which is encouraging the pills’ development while simultaneously acknowledging that they do nothing to stop one of the most common forms of abuse — swallowing the pills whole — and are often misunderstood by doctors.

What they are very good at doing, according to Philadelphia-based insurance company Independence Blue Cross, which covers abuse-deterrent opioids, is driving up costs 3 percent to 5 percent.

Yaw’s bill is based on recommendations from an opioid task force that included representatives from pharmecutical companies, held no public meetings and has drawn heavy skepticism from some scientists and insurance companies worried about the costs associated with its coverage mandate.

Skeptics have a point about the process, which seems to amount to little more than a high stakes game of ring-around-the-rosey with drug manufacturers. The companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and legislative lobbying efforts over the last decade, according to an Associated Press investigation.

On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that lawmakers should slow down when it comes to enacting regulations to combat the opioid crisis. On the other, it’s not unreasonable to try and follow the money and susse out who, exactly, is benefiting from these proposed regulations.

Is it the patients and communities struggling with a crisis? Or is it the companies who raked in $8.85 billion in 2014 from sales of opioid painkillers? Will forcing insurance providers to cover designer, abuse-deterrent pill formulations result in meaningful reductions to abuse and addiction? Or will it simply drive insurance premiums (and drug company profits) higher?

It could very well be that Yaw’s proposal represents a win-win scenario: pills that are tougher to abuse and health insurance that is more responsive and responsible.

Given mixed data on the effectiveness of abuse-deterrent opioids, however, it’s just as likely that this bill’s biggest effect will be more windfall profits for drug companies whose disingenuous marketing campaigns about prescription opioids helped fuel this crisis in the first place.