Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This bill amends ERISA section 408(b)(2)(B) to expand covered service definitions and strengthen fee disclosure requirements for entities providing pharmacy benefit management (PBM) and third‑party administration (TPA) services to group health plans. It requires annual written disclosures to plan fiduciaries (within 60 days of each plan year) detailing direct and indirect compensation, gross and net drug spending, pharmacy ownership spending, spread‑pricing amounts, fees and rebates, and other specified items.
Liberals emphasize transparency and consumer protection benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed statutory amendment that clearly specifies new disclosure obligations and definitions within ERISA, with substantial textual specificity and explicit rulemaking and timing provisions.
This bill amends ERISA section 408(b)(2)(B) to expand covered service definitions and strengthen fee disclosure requirements for entities providing pharmacy benefit management (PBM) and third‑party administration (TPA) services to group health plans.
It requires annual written disclosures to plan fiduciaries (within 60 days of each plan year) detailing direct and indirect compensation, gross and net drug spending, pharmacy ownership spending, spread‑pricing amounts, fees and rebates, and other specified items.
The bill adds privacy limits consistent with HIPAA/HITECH, treats certain PBM arrangements as indirect party‑in‑interest transactions, delays applicability to contracts entered before January 1, 2026, and directs the Labor Secretary to issue implementing rules within one year.
Technically detailed transparency reform with some bipartisan potential but meaningful industry resistance and regulatory complexity lower enactment odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed statutory amendment that clearly specifies new disclosure obligations and definitions within ERISA, with substantial textual specificity and explicit rulemaking and timing provisions.
Liberals emphasize transparency and consumer protection benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize transparency and consumer protection benefits
Likely broadly supportive.
Sees the measure as closing loopholes that hide PBM and TPA revenue, improving fiduciary oversight and protecting plan participants from undisclosed fees.
Would want strong enforcement and public accountability.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic.
Values improved transparency for fiduciary decision‑making while concerned about regulatory complexity, compliance costs, and implementation details.
Support hinges on clear, proportionate rules minimizing burdens.
Likely opposed.
Views the bill as an intrusive expansion of federal regulation into private contracts, imposing costly reporting burdens and risking competitive harm to PBMs and TPAs.
Prefers market solutions and limited federal interference.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically detailed transparency reform with some bipartisan potential but meaningful industry resistance and regulatory complexity lower enactment odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize transparency and consumer protection benefits
Technically detailed transparency reform with some bipartisan potential but meaningful industry resistance and regulatory complexity lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a detailed statutory amendment that clearly specifies new disclosure obligations and definitions within ERISA, with substantial textual specificity and explicit ru…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.