Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by t…
The bill prohibits pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from deriving remuneration for services related to prescription drug benefits beginning January 1, 2027, with a narrow exception for written, flat "bona fide" service fees that are not tied to drug prices or rebates.
It applies across the Public Health Service Act, ERISA, and the Internal Revenue Code, creates disgorgement and civil monetary penalties ($10,000 per day) for violations, and directs HHS, Labor, and Treasury/IRS to issue interim final regulations.
The text preserves reimbursements for drug ingredient costs and pharmacy dispensing fees and does not prohibit rebates or discounts from being fully passed through to plans or issuers.
Focused but disruptive industry reform with clear opponents; possible bipartisan support insufficient alone without major compromise or offsetting incentives.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive regulatory change. It contains concrete prohibitions, a narrowly framed exception with definitions, cross‑statutory amendments (PHSA, ERISA, IRC), enforcement remedies (disgorgement and civil penalties), and a stated implementation mechanism (interim final regulations) with a clear effective date.
Liberal emphasizes reducing PBM profit incentives and passing savings to plans
Liberal emphasizes reducing PBM profit incentives and passing savings to plans
Likely broadly supportive because the bill severs PBMs' incentives to profit from higher drug prices and rebate retention.
It aligns with goals of transparency and returning savings to plans and patients, though effects on net prices are uncertain and depend on regulations and market responses.
Cautiously favorable to the bill's intent to reduce conflicts of interest and increase transparency, but wary of blunt statutory language and steep penalties.
Wants clearer implementation details, phased rollout, and evidence that changes lower net patient costs.
Likely opposed as an overreach that interferes with private contracting and market mechanisms.
Views the ban on contingent remuneration as disruptive to PBM negotiation leverage and a source of regulatory and litigation risk for employers and insurers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Focused but disruptive industry reform with clear opponents; possible bipartisan support insufficient alone without major compromise or offsetting incentives.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes reducing PBM profit incentives and passing savings to plans
Focused but disruptive industry reform with clear opponents; possible bipartisan support insufficient alone without major compromise or off…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive regulatory change. It contains concrete prohibitions, a narrowly framed exception with definitions, cross‑statutory amendments (PHSA,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.