Overview
Title
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure accurate payments to pharmacies under Medicaid and to prevent the use of abusive spread pricing practices under Medicaid.
ELI5 AI
S. 927 is a law that wants to make sure pharmacies get paid the right amount for medicine and to stop tricks that make people pay too much. It asks pharmacies to share how much they pay for drugs and punishes them if they don't, so everyone can know the real prices.
Summary AI
S. 927 aims to amend the Social Security Act to ensure pharmacies are paid accurately under Medicaid and to stop unfair pricing practices by pharmacy benefit managers. The bill proposes conducting surveys to determine national drug prices, requiring pharmacies to report costs and imposing penalties on non-compliance. It also mandates transparency and fair pricing in contracts with pharmacy managers to prevent "spread pricing," where consumers are charged more than the pharmacy receives. The bill will apply to different types of pharmacies in stages, with the first changes occurring six months after the bill becomes law.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the “Protecting Pharmacies in Medicaid Act,” seeks to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act. The primary goals of the bill are to ensure that Medicaid accurately compensates pharmacies and to prevent abusive pricing tactics. Specifically, the bill focuses on preventing fraud and abuse in how pharmacies are reimbursed for medications, addressing issues in both retail and non-retail pharmacy settings.
Significant Issues
Exemption from Standard Procedures
A notable issue within the bill is the exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This means that the typical processes involving stakeholder input and procedural transparency may not be followed. There’s also exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act, which usually ensures oversight on data collection. The absence of these procedural safeguards might raise legal and ethical concerns about how these amendments will be implemented.
Broad Definitions and Regulatory Scope
The bill employs broad definitions for entities like 'pharmacy benefit managers,' which might unintentionally broaden the regulatory reach. This could potentially impact organizations that do not traditionally fall under this category, creating legal and compliance challenges.
State Flexibility in Managing Costs
The bill restricts the use of non-retail pharmacy pricing to determine retail pharmacy payments. This could limit states' flexibility in managing costs efficiently within their Medicaid programs, potentially leading to financial and operational challenges for states.
Transparency and Compliance
There is also concern about the complexity and potential ambiguity in how penalties are enforced, specifically regarding false information. The process for determining the public disclosure of drug acquisition prices lacks detail, potentially affecting transparency.
Impact on the Public
Overall, this legislation is intended to improve the Medicaid program by ensuring fair reimbursement practices for pharmacies, potentially leading to more stable drug prices for consumers. By aiming to prevent abusive spread pricing, the bill could ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more effectively and pharmacies are compensated fairly.
However, the public might be wary of the procedural exemptions that bypass usual transparency and input processes, potentially leading to distrust in how the changes will be implemented without established oversight.
Impact on Stakeholders
Pharmacies: Retail and non-retail pharmacies would be directly affected by the new rules on price reporting and potential penalties for non-compliance. While retail pharmacies might enjoy the benefit of more transparent pricing, the complexity in compliance might create operational challenges.
States: State Medicaid programs may face constraints due to limited flexibility in using pricing data. They may struggle with cost management, but they could also benefit from potentially reduced pricing abuses.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs): PBMs will face stricter requirements to disclose pricing and administrative fees. This increased transparency might affect their current business models but aims to reduce exploitative pricing practices.
General Public and Medicaid Beneficiaries: The intended benefit is more accurate and fair Medicaid spending, which could improve overall access to medications. Conversely, the legislative process' lack of transparency might not inspire public confidence.
This bill aims to protect Medicaid's integrity through enhanced oversight and better pricing systems but must carefully navigate the risk of stakeholder burden and regulatory overreach.
Financial Assessment
The bill, known as the "Protecting Pharmacies in Medicaid Act," includes several financial components aimed at improving the accuracy of payments to pharmacies and preventing abusive pricing practices. This commentary examines the monetary aspects outlined in the bill and their potential impact on Medicaid and associated entities.
Financial Allocations and Penalties
The bill proposes several financial mechanisms to enforce compliance and ensure proper pricing practices. Notably, it establishes civil money penalties for pharmacies that fail to comply with survey requirements. Each violation could result in a penalty of up to $100,000. This provision aims to ensure that pharmacies provide accurate pricing information to help set fair payment rates.
Appropriations for Oversight
To support oversight, the bill appropriates $5,000,000 to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 2026. This funding is intended to enable the Inspector General to conduct studies and monitor drug pricing surveys. Additionally, the bill mandates $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year to support ongoing activities, with these funds remaining available until expended.
Potential Issues and Financial Impacts
One issue identified is the potential inadequacy of the $5,000,000 appropriation allotted for the Inspector General to oversee compliance and enforcement. Without a detailed breakdown of expected costs and activities, this amount may prove insufficient to cover the planned oversight measures effectively. This shortfall could hinder the ability to ensure that drug pricing surveys are carried out thoroughly and that pharmacies adhere to new pricing rules.
Non-Transparency in Drug Pricing
Another area of concern is the bill's handling of pricing transparency. Although the bill requires national drug acquisition prices to be made publicly available, it lacks detailed guidelines on the transparency of this process. This opacity could lead to inconsistent application or difficulties for pharmacies in understanding pricing benchmarks, potentially hampering efforts to ensure fair compensation for medications under Medicaid.
Exemptions from Legal Processes
The bill provides exemptions from certain legal procedures, such as the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, when implementing these financial provisions. These exemptions could bypass important procedural steps and potentially lead to less oversight of data handling and financial allocations.
Overall, while the bill’s financial provisions aim to ensure fair compensation for pharmacies and transparent pricing, these appropriations and penalties need careful administration to avoid undermining state flexibility and leading to inefficiencies or compliance challenges.
Issues
The exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the implementation of the amendments (Section 2(e)(2) and Section 3(d)(2)) might bypass essential procedural steps and reduce transparency and stakeholder input, potentially leading to legal and ethical concerns.
The use of broad definitions, such as for 'pharmacy benefit manager' (Section 3(a)(2)), may inadvertently expand regulatory scope to entities not traditionally recognized as PBMs, causing potential legal challenges or regulatory overreach.
The provision that allows the ingredient cost to exceed the actual acquisition cost for drugs under a 340B agreement (Section 3(a)(1)(A)(iii)) might incentivize the exploitation of drug purchasing systems, potentially leading to financial abuse within Medicaid.
The limitation on states using non-retail pharmacy pricing information to develop retail pharmacy payment methodologies (Section 2(a)(4)(I)) could restrict state flexibility in managing Medicaid drug costs, causing potential financial and operational issues for state Medicaid programs.
The complexity and ambiguity in penalty enforcement language particularly concerning what constitutes 'knowingly provides false information' (Section 2(a)(4)(H)(ii)) might lead to legal disputes and compliance challenges.
The potential for insufficient funding, specifically the $5,000,000 appropriation for fiscal year 2026 (Section 2(a)(7)(B)), could be deemed inadequate without a detailed breakdown of expected costs and activities, impacting the effective oversight of survey implementations.
The nonapplication of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to data collection under Sections 2(f) and 3(e) might lead to inefficiencies and increased administrative burdens due to lack of sufficient oversight of data handling procedures.
The lack of detailed guidelines or examples in defining key terms such as 'retail community pharmacy' and 'applicable non-retail pharmacy' (Section 2(a)(1)(A)) could cause confusion and inconsistent application across different entities.
The process for the Secretary to determine and make public the national drug acquisition prices lacks transparency due to lack of detail (Section 2(a)(4)(G)).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that the official title of the act is the “Protecting Pharmacies in Medicaid Act.”
2. Ensuring accurate payments to pharmacies under Medicaid Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Social Security Act to ensure that pharmacies participating in Medicaid report accurate drug prices by conducting surveys of their drug acquisition costs. It establishes civil money penalties for non-compliance, requires periodic oversight from the Inspector General, and ensures that pricing data from non-retail pharmacies is not used to determine retail pharmacy payments.
Money References
- “(iii) PARAMETERS FOR PENALTIES.— “(I) IN GENERAL.—A civil money penalty established under this subparagraph may be assessed with respect to each violation, and with respect to each non-compliant retail community pharmacy (including a pharmacy that is part of a chain) or non-compliant applicable non-retail pharmacy (including a pharmacy that is part of a chain), in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
- “(B) APPROPRIATION.—There is appropriated to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, to remain available until expended, to carry out this paragraph.”; and (8) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated— (A) by inserting “, and $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter,” after “2010”; and (B) by inserting “Funds appropriated under this paragraph for fiscal year 2026 and any subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended.”
3. Preventing the use of abusive spread pricing in Medicaid Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill aims to stop abusive pricing practices in Medicaid by requiring transparent pricing for prescription drugs. It mandates that the payments made by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and managed care entities are fully disclosed and directly transferred to pharmacies, without adding unnecessary costs or fees.