H.R. 950 (119th)Bill Overview

Saving Seniors Money on Prescriptions Act

Health|Accounting and auditingCongressional oversight
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Feb 4, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for c…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill adds detailed pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reporting, audit, and contract requirements for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans, effective for plan years beginning January 1, 2028. PBMs must provide annual, machine-readable reports with drug-level utilization, pricing, rebate, affiliate, and retained-revenue data, permit audits by plan-selected auditors, and reimburse sponsors for penalties caused by PBM noncompliance.

Why people may split

Liberal emphasizes transparency and potential patient savings

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive new legal obligations and reporting requirements on pharmacy benefit managers and PDP/MA–PD sponsors, with detailed data specifications, audit mechanisms, statutory definitions, and confidentiality controls.

The bill adds detailed pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reporting, audit, and contract requirements for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans, effective for plan years beginning January 1, 2028.

PBMs must provide annual, machine-readable reports with drug-level utilization, pricing, rebate, affiliate, and retained-revenue data, permit audits by plan-selected auditors, and reimburse sponsors for penalties caused by PBM noncompliance.

The Secretary must standardize report formats and protect nonpublic data from public identification; the Comptroller General must study federal and state reporting overlap and submit recommendations within two years.

Passage45/100

Moderately scoped regulatory transparency bill with bipartisan appeal potential but significant industry resistance, implementation complexity, and Senate procedural barriers.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive new legal obligations and reporting requirements on pharmacy benefit managers and PDP/MA–PD sponsors, with detailed data specifications, audit mechanisms, statutory definitions, and confidentiality controls. It also establishes a GAO study requirement (secondary reporting element) and assigns implementation roles to the Secretary and plan sponsors.

Contention58/100

Liberal emphasizes transparency and potential patient savings

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases transparency on per-drug prices, rebates, and PBM retained revenue available to plan sponsors and regulators.
  • Potential benefitGives plan sponsors audit rights and detailed data to verify PBM contract performance and pricing guarantees.
  • Potential benefitProvides policymakers with standardized, machine-readable data to evaluate Part D spending and beneficiary cost drivers.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenCreates significant compliance and reporting costs for PBMs and plan sponsors to compile detailed annual data.
  • Potential burdenAdministrative burdens could increase plan operating expenses, potentially affecting premiums or plan offerings.
  • Potential burdenRequires disclosure of commercially sensitive information, raising proprietary and confidentiality concerns for private…
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberal emphasizes transparency and potential patient savings
Progressive75%

Likely supportive because the bill substantially increases PBM transparency and accountability in Medicare Part D.

It is seen as a constructive step to expose rebates, retained revenues, and affiliate steering, though it stops short of requiring rebate pass-through or direct price caps.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable to improving transparency while cautious about administrative costs and overlap with state rules.

Sees the GAO study and standardized formats as prudent safeguards, but wants clear cost‑benefit analysis and careful rulemaking.

Leans supportive
Conservative25%

Likely skeptical or opposed due to expanded federal mandates on private contracts and reporting, raising concerns about regulatory overreach and increased administrative costs.

May accept narrower, targeted transparency but resists broad disclosure and audit rules.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Moderately scoped regulatory transparency bill with bipartisan appeal potential but significant industry resistance, implementation complexity, and Senate procedural barriers.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
86%
Complexityhigh
Why this could stall
  • Intensity and coordination of PBM and industry lobbying
  • Absent CBO cost estimate and budgetary offsets
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberal emphasizes transparency and potential patient savings

Moderately scoped regulatory transparency bill with bipartisan appeal potential but significant industry resistance, implementation complex…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill creates substantive new legal obligations and reporting requirements on pharmacy benefit managers and PDP/MA–PD sponsors, with detailed data specifications, audit mec…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis