This bill directs the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) to institute a recurring in‑state cost‑of‑dispensing survey and to use the survey results as the basis for a fee‑for‑service professional dispensing fee under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program. The statutory additions create a data-driven trigger for regulatory action, moving the state away from ad hoc or externally derived estimates when setting dispensing reimbursement.
The change matters because dispensing fees are a primary revenue stream for pharmacies that serve Medicaid patients; tying fees to a state survey can raise or lower reimbursements depending on measured costs and creates a predictable regulatory cadence. It also imposes new operational work on MDH (survey design, procurement, and rulemaking) and raises questions about federal Medicaid approval, budget impacts, and whether managed‑care reimbursement will follow suit.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires MDH to collect in‑state data on pharmacies’ cost of dispensing and to translate that data into a professional dispensing fee via state regulations. It makes fee setting contingent on an MDH‑conducted survey and subsequent rulemaking rather than ad hoc policy choices.
Who It Affects
Pharmacies (retail, independent, and chain) that dispense medications to Maryland Medicaid enrollees, state Medicaid program managers, and the Department of Health’s regulatory and procurement teams. The statute explicitly targets fee‑for‑service Medicaid reimbursements; it does not direct managed‑care organizations.
Why It Matters
This establishes a recurring, evidence‑based mechanism for setting a key component of pharmacy reimbursement, which can change revenue for pharmacies and drive Medicaid spending forecasts. For compliance officers and pharmacy operators, it signals that reimbursement assumptions may shift on a predictable schedule and be tied to state‑collected cost data.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds two discrete duties to Maryland’s Health–General law: one that creates a recurring, in‑state survey of the actual costs pharmacies incur to dispense drugs, and a second that requires MDH to convert the survey findings into a regulatory dispensing fee for fee‑for‑service Medicaid payments. Practically, MDH will need to design or procure a survey instrument, recruit participating pharmacies, collect and analyze cost categories (labor, overhead, packaging, recordkeeping, software, compliance), and produce a report that regulators can rely on.
Once MDH has survey results in hand, the agency must undertake rulemaking to set a professional dispensing fee tied to those results. That means MDH must translate average or median measured costs into a per‑prescription or per‑service fee, draft regulatory text, run the administrative rule process (notice, comment, and final adoption), and coordinate any necessary changes to the Medicaid reimbursement schedule.
Because the statute links fee setting to a state survey, the method used to define costs (which costs are included, which pharmacies are sampled, how ancillary services are valued) will materially shape payments.The statute focuses on fee‑for‑service Medicaid payments; it does not modify contract terms for managed‑care plans that administer pharmacy benefits. That separation creates an implementation choice for MDH and payers: the state could align managed‑care pharmacy payments with the survey‑based FFS fee, leave managed‑care arrangements unchanged, or pursue separate negotiations.
MDH will also confront practical constraints — resource needs for a recurring survey program, the legal mechanics of setting reimbursement under federal Medicaid rules, and potential budget adjustments if the fee increases or decreases based on measured costs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires MDH to begin conducting an in‑state cost‑of‑dispensing survey starting in 2026 and to run the survey on a recurring basis.
The statute mandates that, after the survey is completed, MDH must adopt regulations establishing a fee‑for‑service professional dispensing fee based on the survey results within six months of survey completion.
The bill adds two sections to Health–General: §15‑107.1 (survey frequency) and §15‑118.2 (regulatory requirement to set the fee).
The statutory requirement ties the new fee to fee‑for‑service Medicaid reimbursements; the text does not direct changes to managed‑care pharmacy reimbursement contracts.
The act becomes effective October 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandate for recurring in‑state cost‑of‑dispensing survey
This provision creates a statutory duty for MDH to run an in‑state cost‑of‑dispensing survey on a recurring schedule. The provision places the survey program inside state law (not just agency policy), which constrains MDH’s discretion to abandon or indefinitely postpone data collection. Practically, MDH must determine survey methodology, sampling frames (which counties, pharmacy types), data security and confidentiality protections for participating pharmacies, and budget and staffing to sustain a recurring program.
Rulemaking requirement to set fee‑for‑service professional dispensing fee
This section requires MDH to adopt regulations establishing a fee based on the survey results within a statutory window after survey completion. The mechanics matter: MDH must map measured cost elements into a payment amount, draft regulatory language, complete notice and comment, and publish final rules. Because the statute ties the fee specifically to fee‑for‑service payments, MDH will need to determine how that regulatory fee interacts with existing Medicaid provider manuals and whether a federal Medicaid State Plan Amendment or CMS approval is necessary to implement the reimbursement change.
Operative timing for implementation
The act’s effective date is October 1, 2026. That date sets the outer boundary for when MDH must be prepared to move from planning to execution (survey procurement, staff assignment, initial data collection) if it intends to comply with the statutory start signals in 2026. Agencies should plan project timelines against this operative date and the six‑month regulatory window tied to survey completion.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Independent and rural pharmacies: If the survey accurately captures higher per‑prescription costs in low‑volume settings, those pharmacies may see higher dispensing fees that improve margins and help sustain local access to care.
- Large pharmacy chains with systematic cost accounting: Chains that can document dispensing costs efficiently may influence survey design and benefit from transparent rate setting tied to verifiable data.
- State Medicaid program managers and budget analysts: The survey creates better empirical grounding for forecasting dispensing fee liabilities and for making defensible budgetary decisions and policy choices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Maryland Department of Health: MDH must design or procure the recurring survey, analyze data, run rulemaking, and coordinate federal compliance — tasks that require staff time and funding.
- State Medicaid budget (taxpayers): If the survey reveals higher dispensing costs and MDH adopts higher fees, the state Medicaid program will face increased outlays unless offset elsewhere or matched at the federal level.
- Pharmacy benefit managers and managed‑care plans: Because the statute applies explicitly to fee‑for‑service payments, MCOs may confront pressure to align their reimbursement, generate negotiation costs, or experience increased pharmacy network rates without statutory direction to do so.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accurate, data‑driven reimbursement and fiscal/manageable simplicity: using a recurring survey to align fees with true dispensing costs improves fairness and transparency for pharmacies but risks higher Medicaid spending, greater administrative burden on the Department, and methodological disputes that shift decision‑making from budgetary to technical arenas.
Key implementation questions are left to agency choices rather than statutory prescription. The survey’s design decisions — which costs to include (labor only versus overhead and technology), which pharmacy types to sample, and how to annualize irregular costs — will determine reimbursement outcomes as much as the raw cost data.
That amplifies the influence of methodology on policy outcomes and creates stakes for stakeholders invited into the survey process. MDH will need to decide whether to use an external contractor or in‑house resources and how to protect proprietary cost data while preserving transparency.
Another unresolved issue is interaction with federal Medicaid rules. Significant changes to state reimbursement often require CMS review or adjustments to the State Plan.
The statute directs MDH to adopt regulations but does not address federal approval, federal matching funds implications, or transitional payment mechanics. Finally, the statute focuses on fee‑for‑service, leaving managed‑care pharmacy reimbursement untouched; this bifurcation can produce inconsistent incentives across delivery systems and complicate access and budget projections.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.