This bill amends ERISA section 408(b)(2)(B) to expand which vendor services are covered, to require disclosures by service rather than in the aggregate, and to impose detailed, service‑level reporting obligations on entities that provide pharmacy benefit management (PBM) and third‑party administration (TPA) services to group health plans. It treats arrangements where an insurer or affiliate hires a PBM as an indirect furnishing that creates a party‑in‑interest relationship and therefore brings such flows of remuneration within ERISA’s disclosure and conflict framework.
Those disclosures include itemized categories of compensation (fees, rebates, discounts, co‑payment offsets, spread pricing, and amounts retained from manufacturers, pharmacies, or other intermediaries), plan gross and net drug spending, amounts flowing to pharmacies owned by the vendor, and annual totals broken out by source. The bill imposes privacy limits tied to HIPAA and HITECH, sets January 1, 2026 as the effective date for new or renewed contracts, and directs the Department of Labor to issue rulemaking within one year to operationalize standards.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends ERISA to (1) expand the statutory list of covered services, (2) require disclosures ‘by service’ rather than aggregated across services, (3) treat insurer‑PBM contracts as an indirect furnishing that creates party‑in‑interest exposure, and (4) mandate detailed annual disclosures from PBMs and TPAs about compensation flows, gross/net spending, spread pricing, and amounts retained.
Who It Affects
Plan sponsors and responsible plan fiduciaries for employer group health plans; PBMs, TPAs, and insurers that contract for pharmacy or administrative services; affiliated pharmacies and rebate aggregators; and benefit consultants and vendors that receive remuneration tied to plan arrangements.
Why It Matters
It gives fiduciaries far more line‑item visibility into how drug and admin dollars flow through intermediaries, which could change contracting dynamics, increase compliance costs for vendors, and create new fiduciary review obligations for employers and their advisers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works by changing ERISA’s vendor disclosure rules to make hidden or aggregated fee structures transparent to the people who run employer plans. It does that in three linked ways: first, it broadens the statutory description of covered services so items that vendors previously treated as peripheral (for example, transparency tools, group purchasing agreements, or participation in preferred vendor panels) are explicitly covered; second, it replaces permissive aggregate reporting with a requirement to report ‘by service’; and third, it layers on detailed, annually recurring disclosure lists for PBMs and TPAs that must be delivered to a responsible plan fiduciary.
For PBMs the required disclosures go beyond stating that rebates exist. Vendors must enumerate all compensation types they or affiliates receive from manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, or other intermediaries—fees, rebates, alternative discounts, co‑payment offsets, amounts retained as part of spread pricing, and any compensation tied to paying pharmacies less than billed copays.
The bill also makes plans’ total gross and net drug spending reportable, requires disclosure of spending at pharmacies owned (in whole or part) by the vendor, and asks for categorical or individual explanations for cost‑sharing collected from pharmacies that exceed contracted rates.TPA disclosures mirror the focus on transparency but are tuned to administration: the bill requires reporting of rebates or discounts from providers and facilities, fees retained from other service providers, recoveries from overpayments or subrogation, and gross/net totals for fees and costs under an administrative services agreement. Both PBM and TPA reporting is annual and must be delivered in writing within 60 days after the start of each plan year covering the prior year.The bill also clarifies privacy limits: disclosures must be limited to summary health information and handled under HIPAA/HITECH privacy, security, and breach‑notification rules, and a fiduciary may only redisclose to certain business associates or the originating entity; the Department of Labor remains entitled to unrestricted access.
Finally, the measure sets an effective date that exempts contracts entered into before January 1, 2026 and requires DOL to issue implementing rulemaking within one year that sets standards for ‘expected compensation’ reporting and accounts for varied vendor compensation models.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends ERISA §408(b)(2)(B) to require service‑level disclosures rather than permitting aggregate reporting, forcing itemization by service.
It expands the statutory list of covered services to explicitly include a long menu—e.g.
PBM services, pharmacy ownership, stop‑loss, group purchasing organization agreements, and transparency tools.
It treats a health insurer’s contract with a PBM as an indirect furnishing that can make the PBM a party in interest for purposes of ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules.
PBMs and TPAs must deliver annual, written disclosures to a responsible plan fiduciary within 60 days after the start of each plan year covering the prior year, including direct and indirect compensation and gross/net spending figures.
The amendments do not apply to contracts entered into before January 1, 2026; DOL must issue notice‑and‑comment rulemaking within one year to implement standards for reporting expected compensation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expand covered services and require service‑level reporting
This section edits the statutory list in ERISA to add many services by name and changes the disclosure default from allowing aggregated reporting to requiring reporting 'by service.' Practically, that forces a vendor that bundles multiple offerings (for example, a TPA that also offers wellness or pharmacy services) to disclose fees tied to each distinct offering rather than burying amounts in a single consolidated line item—shifting how vendors present contracts and invoices and giving fiduciaries the granularity needed to evaluate reasonableness.
Treat insurer‑PBM contracting as indirect furnishing (party‑in‑interest exposure)
This provision makes it clear that when an insurer or subsidiary contracts with a PBM on behalf of a covered plan, the contract is treated as an indirect furnishing between the plan and the PBM. The legal effect is to pull PBM remuneration and arrangements into ERISA’s prohibited‑transaction and disclosure framework, increasing fiduciary oversight and potentially triggering the need for prohibited‑transaction exemptions or corrective steps when conflicts exist.
Detailed PBM disclosure obligations
This is the operative transparency engine for PBMs. It inserts a new clause requiring PBMs to list all expected compensation types (fees, rebates, alternative discounts, co‑payment offsets, spread pricing, retained list‑price percentages, etc.), the amounts expected to be passed through to plan sponsors versus retained, gross and net drug spend, and spending at pharmacies owned by the vendor. It also mandates that vendors either provide categorical or line‑level explanations for cost‑sharing collected from pharmacies, which creates a high‑resolution audit trail for fiduciaries assessing passthrough and spread.
TPA disclosure obligations tailored to administrative services
Mirroring the PBM rules, this section requires TPAs to disclose rebates or discounts received from providers, fees retained, recoveries from overpayments and fraud, the aggregate amount of indirect compensation passed through to participants, and the plan's gross and net spending under the administrative services agreement. The rule forces TPAs to surface sources of revenue that historically have been opaque—such as retained recoveries or billing offsets—so fiduciaries can see whether administrative pricing is inflated by hidden revenue streams.
Privacy constraints and limits on redisclosure
The bill requires disclosures to be consistent with HIPAA/HITECH privacy and security rules and to be limited to summary health information; it restricts fiduciary redisclosure to business associates or the originating entity while explicitly preserving the Department of Labor’s access. This structure attempts to reconcile transparency with patient privacy but also creates a compliance overlay: vendors and fiduciaries must map ERISA reporting to HIPAA rules and to business‑associate contracts.
DOL rulemaking and phased application to contracts
The bill gives the Secretary of Labor one year to issue notice‑and‑comment rulemaking to implement standards, especially for reporting of 'expected compensation.' The statutory effective date excludes contracts entered into before January 1, 2026 and applies to any contract or renewal on or after that date, which means parties negotiating renewals that straddle the date must factor the new reporting obligations into their renewal strategy.
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
- Responsible plan fiduciaries and plan sponsors — gain service‑level visibility into fees, rebates, spread pricing, and retained amounts so they can better assess reasonableness, negotiate contracts, and document fiduciary processes. This reduces informational asymmetry in vendor negotiations.
- Participants and beneficiaries of group health plans — could benefit indirectly if greater transparency drives lower net drug costs or higher rebate pass‑through; they also gain documentation that can support questions about their cost‑sharing or pharmacy billing practices.
- Regulators and enforcement actors (Dept. of Labor) — receive clearer reporting lines and standardized data to evaluate compliance with ERISA fiduciary and prohibited transaction rules, enabling more effective oversight and targeted enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Pharmacy Benefit Managers — face new compliance, reporting, and possible contractual restructuring costs to inventory compensation flows, trace pass‑throughs, and disclose vendor‑level and pharmacy‑level spending data; proprietary rebate and pricing information may be exposed.
- Third‑Party Administrators and insurers — must expand accounting and reporting systems to capture recoveries, retained fees, provider discounts, and third‑party flows and to produce annual disclosures within a tight 60‑day window.
- Plan sponsors and fiduciaries — will incur administrative costs to receive, analyze, and act on a larger volume of vendor data, likely requiring outside counsel, auditors, or consultants; they also assume increased legal exposure if the new disclosures reveal unreasonable arrangements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: fiduciary transparency (empowering plan sponsors and beneficiaries to see and challenge hidden fee flows) versus protection of commercially sensitive, predictive pricing data and the administrative burden of translating complex, variable revenue streams into audited, service‑level disclosures. Achieving meaningful transparency without imposing crippling compliance costs or undermining valid trade‑secret protections is the central unresolved trade‑off.
Two implementation problems loom. First, the bill repeatedly requires disclosure of amounts 'reasonably expected' to be received by vendors, affiliates, and subcontractors.
That concept forces vendors to forecast flows that can depend on future drug utilization, evolving manufacturer contracts, or real‑time adjudication outcomes—raising accounting, timing, and auditability questions that DOL rulemaking will have to resolve. Second, reconciling ERISA’s transparency goals with commercial confidentiality and competition concerns is tricky: vendors will push back on disclosing data they consider proprietary (rebate algorithms, spread margins, negotiated pharmacy rates).
The bill allows plans to restrict public disclosure, but the carve‑outs for Department of Labor access and for fiduciary use will still produce friction over confidentiality protections and possible third‑party litigation seeking access to vendor data.
Data standardization and privacy are additional challenges. The bill ties disclosure handling to HIPAA and HITECH privacy rules and limits disclosures to summary health information, but vendors, sponsors, and auditors will need clear operational definitions to avoid inadvertent PHI exposures.
Finally, enforcement and litigation risk are real: greater transparency can produce more ERISA duty claims if fiduciaries fail to act on newly revealed compensation that suggests conflicts or unreasonable fees. The bill delegates defining 'expected compensation' and fairness standards to DOL rulemaking, but those rules will determine whether the statute meaningfully changes market practices or simply creates a paperwork regime.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.