The Safe Step Act amends ERISA by inserting a new section (713A) that obliges any group health plan or health insurance issuer offering group coverage that uses medication step therapy to implement a clear, prompt, and transparent exceptions process. The bill requires plans to accept exception requests from participants or their prescribing clinicians, evaluate them against six statutory grounds, and provide coverage if an exception satisfies those grounds.
Beyond the exception standard, the bill prescribes operational rules: a standardized request form, limits on required documentation, fixed decision timelines (including an expedited 24‑hour track), a minimum one‑year duration for granted exceptions, and annual reporting to the Secretary of Labor with data the Secretary will analyze and publish. The change creates a uniform federal floor for ERISA plans that will affect plan sponsors, issuers, PBMs, prescribers, and patients reliant on specialty or second‑line therapies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new ERISA §713A requiring group health plans and issuers that use step therapy to implement a written exceptions process, accept prescriber‑led requests, and cover the requested drug when statutory criteria are met. It mandates standardized forms, decision deadlines, and a one‑year coverage guarantee after approval.
Who It Affects
ERISA‑covered group health plans (including self‑funded employer plans), fully insured issuers offering group coverage, pharmacy benefit managers as service providers, prescribing clinicians who must submit clinical rationale, and patients using medications subject to step therapy protocols.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces varied plan practices with a federal floor for step therapy exceptions, reduces the scope for ad hoc denials or opaque delays, and forces greater data transparency about how often exceptions are sought, approved, or denied — potentially altering utilization management, plan administration, and drug‑spend dynamics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Safe Step Act adds a standalone ERISA provision that compels group health plans and insurers offering group coverage to operate an exceptions process for any medication step therapy protocol. Exception requests may come from the enrollee or the prescribing clinician; the plan must provide a clear, accessible process (including a standard form) and publish its procedures in plan materials and, if available, on its website.
The statute makes the prescriber’s clinical judgment and the participant’s medical records admissible bases for granting exceptions.
Substantive eligibility for an exception is spelled out in six categories: prior therapies in the same class were ineffective; delay would produce severe or irreversible harm or worsen disease/comorbidity; required therapies are contraindicated or likely to cause adverse reactions; required therapies prevent reasonable and safe functional ability; the patient is clinically stable on the requested therapy and has prior approval history; and a residual catchall authorizing the Secretary of Labor to add other circumstances. The bill lets the prescriber rely on clinical guidelines, peer‑reviewed evidence, or documented patient history to satisfy those standards.The procedure must use a single, standardized form available in paper and electronic formats, allow submission and follow‑up by paper or electronic means, permit a designated representative to act for the patient, and limit documentation requests to what the Secretary determines is "strictly necessary." Plans must identify when a request qualifies for expedited handling and may not hide the criteria behind opaque internal policies; the statute clarifies the rule applies whether or not plans label their programs as "step therapy."Timing is concrete: standard exception requests must receive an initial response within 72 hours and a final determination within 72 hours after any requested additional information is received.
Requests meeting the statute’s serious‑harm standard trigger an expedited track with response and, where applicable, final determination deadlines measured in 24‑hour increments. When an exception is granted, coverage for the requested drug must continue for at least one year.
The Secretary of Labor must issue final implementing regulations via notice‑and‑comment within six months, and the statute applies to plan years beginning at least six months after enactment.The bill imposes specific data reporting obligations: not later than three years after enactment and annually thereafter, plans and issuers must report counts of exception requests by statutory circumstance, approvals and denials (with stated reasons), appeals/outcomes, who submitted requests (patients vs. prescribers, by specialty), certain medical conditions tied to safety‑switch risks, and the entities that provide PBM services. Plans cannot contract away the ability to obtain PBM data needed to satisfy reporting.
The Secretary must compile and publish an annual analysis for Congress.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds ERISA §713A requiring plans using step therapy to implement a standardized exception process and to cover the requested drug when statutory criteria are met.
It lists six express grounds for an exception, including prior treatment failure, contraindication or likely adverse reaction, risk of serious deterioration from delay, functional impairment, clinical stability on the requested drug, and a Secretary‑authorized catchall.
Decision timelines are mandatory: non‑expedited requests receive an initial response and, after any requested additional information, a determination within 72 hours; expedited requests tied to imminent harm must be decided within 24 hours.
A granted exception must remain in effect for at least one year, and plans must use a single standard form (paper and electronic) and accept third‑party representatives.
Plans and issuers must report annually to the Secretary on volumes and outcomes of exception requests, who submitted them, reasons for denials, PBM arrangements, and related data; the Secretary will publish an annual summary to Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandate: plans must operate an exceptions process and implement coverage
This subsection creates the core obligation: any ERISA group health plan or issuer that uses step therapy must implement a clear, prompt, and transparent exceptions process and, where a request meets the statutory criteria, provide coverage for the requested drug under the plan’s cost‑sharing terms. Practically, this makes exception handling a compliance obligation of plan administrators and issuers rather than a discretionary operational policy.
Six statutory grounds that require approval
Subsection (b) enumerates the specific circumstances that compel approval: (1) prior class or mechanism treatments were ineffective; (2) delay risks severe or irreversible harm or worsened disease/comorbidity; (3) contraindication or high likelihood of adverse reaction; (4) interference with occupational or daily function; (5) patient stability on the requested drug with prior approval history; and (6) additional circumstances the Secretary defines. Each ground tolerates clinical judgment supported by guidelines, peer‑reviewed evidence, or medical records, shifting evidentiary weight toward prescriber documentation.
Process design: standard form, submissions, and limits on documentation
Plans must develop and use a single standard form with instructions available in paper and electronic formats and allow both submission channels. The plan must disclose the specific criteria used to evaluate requests and may only demand information the Secretary deems "strictly necessary" to determine eligibility. The statute also permits a participant to designate a representative — including third‑party advocates — to act on their behalf, which affects consent and privacy workflows.
Decision timing, expedited review, and duration of approvals
The statute fixes deadlines: standard requests require an initial response within 72 hours and a final determination within 72 hours after receipt of any additional information; requests meeting the serious‑harm test require expedited handling with 24‑hour deadlines for initial or final determinations. Subsection (e) guarantees that a successful exception remains in effect for at least one year, limiting churn and repeated administrative burden for chronic therapies.
Definition and scope: what counts as step therapy and applicability
The bill defines 'medication step therapy protocol' broadly to include any drug therapy utilization management that requires trying preferred alternatives before a non‑preferred drug. It clarifies the rule applies irrespective of how the plan labels the policy, closing a potential loophole where plans could rename utilization controls to avoid coverage obligations.
Reporting requirements and PBM data access
Plans and issuers must report, beginning three years after enactment and annually thereafter, detailed counts and outcomes of exception requests by statutory circumstance, approvals/denials and reasons, appeals and reversals, requestor identity by specialty, specified medical conditions tied to adverse‑switch risk, and the PBM entities servicing the plan. Plans may not sign PBM contracts that prevent them from obtaining the information necessary to meet these reporting obligations, making transparency between plans and PBMs a statutory requirement.
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
- Patients with complex or rare conditions: They gain faster, predictable access to non‑preferred therapies when clinical criteria show prior steps are ineffective or harmful, reducing delays that can worsen outcomes.
- Prescribing clinicians: Physicians and other prescribers receive a formal channel to submit clinical rationale and supporting records, increasing the likelihood that their treatment choice will be honored without iterative appeals.
- Patients at risk of serious harm from switching: The expedited review track and the statutory safety‑based criteria protect patients whose condition could deteriorate from forced medication switches.
- Patient advocates and designated representatives: The statute explicitly allows third‑party representatives to act for participants, formalizing a role for advocates in the exceptions workflow.
- Regulators and researchers: The mandated reporting creates a new federal dataset on step therapy use and exception outcomes that can inform policy, enforcement, and studies on utilization management impacts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Plan sponsors and issuers: They face administrative costs to design standardized forms, adapt systems for faster reviews, collect and report data, and potentially higher drug spend when exceptions are granted.
- Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs): PBMs must provide data and may have to modify utilization‑management workflows, face contractual re‑negotiations, and lose some discretion in how step therapy is operationalized.
- Employers with self‑funded plans: Higher utilization of non‑preferred drugs following more generous exception approvals could increase claims costs and upward pressure on contributions or plan design changes.
- Department of Labor and regulators: The Secretary must issue rules within six months and analyze reported data annually, creating resource demands for timely, meaningful oversight and publication.
- Clinicians and administrative staff: While clinicians benefit from a formal route, they also bear the practical burden of preparing clinical rationales and documentation within statutory timelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: speed and patient‑centered access versus payers’ ability to control utilization and drug spending. It privileges clinical discretion and fast access to prescribed drugs to prevent harm and functional loss, but doing so increases administrative burden and the risk of higher plan drug costs — a trade‑off that will shift depending on how narrowly the Secretary defines evidentiary standards and limits requests for additional information.
The bill sets bright‑line obligations but leaves several implementation gaps. It does not establish civil penalties, a private right of action, or an explicit enforcement mechanism tied to specific sanctions for noncompliance; enforcement will therefore rely on existing ERISA remedies and administrative oversight, whose contours may be litigated.
The phrase "strictly necessary" for supporting documentation and the Secretary’s catchall authority under subsection (b)(6) create discretion that will matter a great deal in practice but is undefined in the text, making the forthcoming regulations pivotal.
Operationally, the statutory deadlines and limits on documentation reduce some grounds for delay but create a pressure point: plans can avoid quick determinations by repeatedly requesting "additional information" unless the Secretary’s rule delineates narrow boundaries. The reporting mandate will produce valuable data, but its utility depends on uniform definitions and data quality — including how plans categorize denials and appeals and whether PBMs provide complete, timely data.
Finally, the interplay with state step therapy laws and ERISA preemption is not spelled out; while ERISA governs self‑funded plans, fully insured markets regulated by states may have overlapping or diverging standards, raising compliance complexity for issuers operating across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.