The PLASMA Act amends section 1860D–14C(g)(4) of the Social Security Act to create a time-limited phase-in of the manufacturer discount rules for plasma-derived products under the Medicare Part D manufacturer discount program. For plasma-derived biologics marketed as of August 16, 2022, the bill defines a ‘discounted price’ equal to a specified percentage of the negotiated price and sets a schedule of percentages that decline (i.e., discounts deepen) over 2026–2032 and thereafter.
This matters because it alters manufacturer discount obligations for high-cost, plasma-derived specialty medicines rather than changing negotiated list prices directly. The change is targeted (applies only to products meeting the bill’s definition and marketing date) and includes carve-outs for low-income subsidy cases and specified small manufacturers, creating a calibration between preserving supply/industry viability and managing program costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new subparagraph into 1860D–14C(g)(4) that defines ‘plasma-derived product’ and sets the ‘discounted price’ for such products at a fixed percentage of the negotiated price for each year beginning 2026. Those percentages fall over time so manufacturers’ discount obligations increase gradually.
Who It Affects
Directly affects manufacturers of biological drugs derived from human whole blood or plasma that were marketed as of August 16, 2022, Medicare Part D plan sponsors, and Part D beneficiaries who receive these therapies. It excludes certain low-income subsidy (LIS) reimbursements and specified small manufacturers from the phase-in.
Why It Matters
By converting the discounted-price calculation into a high initial percentage of negotiated price, the bill temporarily reduces manufacturers’ immediate discount burdens for plasma-derived drugs while phasing toward larger discounts; that changes short‑term cash flows and could shift costs across manufacturers, plans, beneficiaries, and Medicare program finances.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PLASMA Act adds a new subsection to the Medicare Part D manufacturer discount rules specifically for plasma-derived products. It limits the change to biological drugs that are ‘‘derived from human whole blood or plasma’’ and that were already on the market by August 16, 2022; newer launches are not covered.
For covered products dispensed to Part D beneficiaries in 2026 and later, the bill says the ‘‘discounted price’’ used in the manufacturer discount calculation is not the full negotiated price but instead equals a specified percentage of that negotiated price.
The bill creates two tracks of percentages tied to a beneficiary’s annual out-of-pocket (OOP) status. One track applies to beneficiaries who have not yet reached the statutory annual out-of-pocket threshold; the other applies to beneficiaries who have reached that threshold.
Both tracks start with very high percentages in 2026 (99%), step down over subsequent years, and converge at lower percentages by 2030–2032, which increases the manufacturers’ eventual discount responsibility over time.There are two explicit exclusions. First, the phase-in does not apply to drugs described in the statutory provision that covers certain drugs dispensed to low-income subsidy (LIS) beneficiaries, so those LIS cases remain governed by the existing rules.
Second, the bill excludes ‘‘specified small manufacturers’’ identified elsewhere in the statute from this phase-in, leaving their discount obligations unchanged. The text leaves implementation details—such as how plans and CMS will operationalize per-beneficiary OOP status for every claim and how to flag covered drugs by the August 16, 2022 marketing date—to existing Part D administration processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill applies only to plasma-derived biological products that were marketed as of August 16, 2022 and are dispensed to Part D beneficiaries starting in 2026.
It defines ‘plasma-derived product’ as a biological product derived from human whole blood or plasma (new statutory definition inserted into 1860D–14C(g)(4)).
For beneficiaries who have not reached the annual Part D out-of-pocket threshold, the ‘discounted price’ equals: 99% (2026), 98% (2027), 95% (2028), 92% (2029), and 90% (2030 and after).
For beneficiaries who have reached the annual out‑of‑pocket threshold, the ‘discounted price’ equals: 99% (2026), 98% (2027), 95% (2028), 92% (2029), 90% (2030), 85% (2031), and 80% (2032 and after).
The phase-in expressly does not apply to drugs dispensed to LIS beneficiaries covered by the referenced subparagraph and does not apply to ‘‘specified small manufacturers’’ identified in the statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Assigns the PLASMA Act name
A single sentence gives the bill its short titles: the ‘‘Preserving Life‑saving Access to Specialty Medicines in America Act’’ and the ‘‘PLASMA Act.’
Inserts a new subparagraph (D) creating the phase‑in
The bill amends the existing Part D manufacturer discount subsection by adding subparagraph (D). Mechanically, that new subparagraph tells administrators to compute the ‘‘discounted price’’ for qualifying plasma-derived drugs as a fixed percentage of the negotiated price rather than treating the negotiated price itself as the discounted price for those products. This is the operative change that alters manufacturers’ discount obligations for the covered products.
Defines which products qualify
Clause (ii) of the new subparagraph defines a ‘‘plasma‑derived product’’ narrowly as a biological product derived from human whole blood or plasma. That single-line definition is the gating rule: only products meeting this biological-source test and the marketing-date requirement are eligible for the phase‑in.
Sets the year-by-year percentage schedule tied to beneficiary OOP status
Clause (iii) establishes two percentage schedules used to compute the discounted price: one for beneficiaries who have not reached the annual out‑of‑pocket threshold and one for those who have. Both schedules begin with 99% in 2026 and reduce over time, with the OOP-reached track descending further through 2032 (to 80%). Practically, those percentages determine how large a share of the negotiated price is treated as the ‘‘discounted price’’ and therefore how much discount manufacturers effectively supply under the program each year.
Carves out LIS cases and specified small manufacturers
Clause (iv) makes two express exceptions: (I) the phase‑in does not apply to products dispensed to beneficiaries covered under the statute’s LIS provision, and (II) it does not apply to ‘‘specified small manufacturers’’ as defined elsewhere in the statute. These carve-outs narrow the coverage of the phase‑in and preserve the preexisting discount treatment for those populations and manufacturers.
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
- Manufacturers of plasma‑derived biologics that were marketed by August 16, 2022 — the phase‑in reduces immediate manufacturer discount obligations (99% discounted price in 2026 equals a very small initial discount), easing short‑term cash flow and potentially lowering the near‑term cost pressure on producers of plasma‑derived therapies.
- Patients dependent on plasma‑derived therapies who face risks from supply disruptions — by softening manufacturers’ initial discount burden, the bill aims to reduce incentives for manufacturers to restrict supply, which may preserve access for beneficiaries reliant on these specialized medicines.
- Large manufacturers with established portfolios — because the relief applies only to products marketed by the August 16, 2022 date, incumbent firms with older products capture the phase‑in, protecting their business cases in the near term.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medicare Part D plan sponsors and the Medicare program — the manufacturer pays a smaller discount initially, which can increase plan liabilities, shift cost between program phases, or affect Medicare’s net expenditures depending on how the discount interacts with catastrophic coverage accounting.
- Part D beneficiaries and premium payers — depending on how plans adjust benefits and premiums, reduced manufacturer discounting in early years could translate into higher plan payments or premium pressure, with indirect effects on beneficiary cost sharing and premiums.
- Small manufacturers excluded by the statute — ‘‘specified small manufacturers’’ do not receive the phase‑in and therefore keep the prior discount obligations, which could leave them at a competitive disadvantage or create uneven playing fields within plasma‑derived markets.
- Plan and CMS operational teams — implementing per‑claim logic that checks marketing date, product source (plasma‑derived), and each beneficiary’s real‑time OOP status will increase administrative complexity and systems costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—preserving the commercial viability and supply continuity of plasma‑derived specialty medicines by reducing manufacturers’ immediate discount burdens, versus protecting Part D program finances and beneficiary cost exposure; easing manufacturer obligations today reduces industry strain but shifts fiscal and operational burdens to plans, the Medicare program, and administrators, producing no clear, cost‑free solution.
The bill creates a predictable schedule of manufacturer discount relief for a narrowly defined set of products, but that predictability comes with trade‑offs. First, because the bill treats the discounted price as a high percentage of the negotiated price in early years, it reduces manufacturers’ immediate discount payments — which is the point — but shifts financial pressure elsewhere: plans, beneficiaries, or Medicare may absorb added costs depending on how plan accounting and catastrophic‑phase calculations interact with the lower manufacturer discount.
The statute does not specify budget offsets or how CMS should reflect the change in plan payments or program liabilities.
Second, the operational rule set is granular and administratively demanding. CMS and Part D sponsors must identify qualifying drugs by market date, confirm which products are ‘‘derived from human whole blood or plasma,’’ and apply different percentages based on whether an individual beneficiary has reached the annual OOP threshold for that year.
The bill leaves these implementation specifics to existing Part D processes; that gap creates near-term uncertainty about claim‑level adjudication, reconciliation, and reporting burdens. Additionally, excluding specified small manufacturers creates a discontinuity that may distort market behavior — firms might alter corporate structure or launch timing to qualify or avoid the phase‑in, and the marketing‑date cutoff could influence launch strategies.
Finally, the statutory language is precise about dates and percentages but silent on interaction with other Part D provisions (for example, how discounts are credited in benefit phase accounting or adjustments for future statutory OOP threshold changes). Those unanswered implementation questions will drive practical fiscal effects and stakeholder behavior but would be resolved administratively rather than by the statute itself.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.