SB1637, the Medicaid VBPs for Patients Act, codifies value-based purchasing arrangements under Medicaid and makes price reporting reforms to reflect those arrangements. It allows a manufacturer to offer multiple best price points for a single drug dosage form and strength, provided the arrangement is offered to all States.
It also creates a defined framework for calculating prices when VBPs involve installment payments, and it links those arrangements to existing price reporting structures.
The bill further updates Medicare price calculations and mandates agency guidance on inpatient drug VBPs under Medicaid, including cross-state coordination to treat patients as if they receive drugs in their home State. It expands anti-kickback safe harbors to cover remuneration tied to VBPs and requires a GAO study to assess access, outcomes, and costs.
The overarching aim is to better align drug prices with real-world outcomes while preserving program integrity and state flexibility.
At a Glance
What It Does
Codifies value-based purchasing arrangements under Medicaid and allows multiple best price points for a single dosage form if offered to all States. Establishes definitional anchors and related price-reporting mechanics.
Who It Affects
State Medicaid programs, participating drug manufacturers, CMS, and State Medicaid agencies administering outpatient drug benefits.
Why It Matters
Sets a standardized framework for outcome-based pricing within Medicaid, potentially improving access and encouraging innovative payment models across states.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 sets the short title of the bill as the Medicaid MVP Act. Section 2 codifies value-based purchasing arrangements for Medicaid drugs and adds a new allowance: manufacturers may offer multiple best price points for a single dosage form and strength, but only if those arrangements are available to all States.
It also provides a rule of construction to prevent mischaracterizing these VBPs as bundled sales. A special rule within this section addresses how to report prices when VBPs involve installments, ensuring proper accounting of prices as if paid upfront for rebate purposes, and it directs rulemaking to implement these changes within 180 days.
Section 3 tweaks Medicare pricing by adjusting how average sales price is calculated for drugs under VBPs, including a provision to exclude certain remuneration tied to VBPs from the ASP calculation when the arrangement spreads payments over time. Section 4 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance within 180 days on the use of VBPs for inpatient drugs under Medicaid, including mechanisms for inter-state collaboration and fund transfers so patients can be treated as residents of their home state for drug purchases.Section 5 expands the anti-kickback statute safe harbor to cover remuneration under VBPs when patients fail to achieve outcomes, and it requires IG-level rulemaking to implement these amendments within 180 days.
Section 6 tasks the Comptroller General with a GAO study to evaluate the impact of VBPs on patient access, outcomes, and overall health system costs, with a final report due by June 30, 2029. Taken together, the MVP Act seeks to standardize and expand outcome-based pricing while maintaining program integrity and state-level flexibility.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows multiple best price points for a drug if the VBPs are offered to all States.
It creates a dedicated rule for calculating VBPs’ price in installment arrangements.
It links value-based pricing to existing price-reporting frameworks under ASP.
It requires HHS to issue guidance on inpatient drug VBPs and interstate coordination within 180 days.
It expands AKS safe harbor to cover VBPs remuneration and mandates a GAO study with a 2029 report.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Defines the Act’s name as the Medicaid VBPs for Patients Act (MVP Act). This establishes the formal label for all subsequent provisions and ensures consistency in reference across agencies and states.
Codifying VBPs and price reporting
Authorizes value-based purchasing arrangements in Medicaid and adds multiple best price points for a single drug dosage form if offered to all States. It also provides a non-prohibitive interpretation of VBPs not constituting a bundled sale and adds a special reporting rule for VBPs where payment is delivered in installments, ensuring such arrangements are priced as if paid upfront for the rebate period. A definition tying VBPs to existing standards in 42 CFR 447.502 anchors the concept in federal regulation.
Medicare ASP calculation changes
Amends ASP calculations to exclude certain VBPs remuneration when a drug is sold under such arrangements and payments are distributed over time. It also adds a special rule for determining price where multiple best price points are involved, aligning Medicare price reporting with Medicaid VBPs practice.
Guidance on inpatient VBPs
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance within 180 days on pursuing VBPs for drugs used in inpatient settings under Medicaid (and waivers), including cross-state coordination and fund transfers to treat patients as if they received drugs in their home state.
AKS safe harbor expansion
Adds a new safe harbor for remuneration provided by manufacturers or third parties to States under VBPs when patients fail to meet outcomes. Also mandates IG-led rulemaking within 180 days to implement these amendments, ensuring enforcement clarity.
GAO study and reporting
Requires the Comptroller General to study the impact of VBPs on access, outcomes, and costs, including effects on access to transformative therapies and disparities. The study must analyze various pricing structures and report back to Congress by June 30, 2029.
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
- State Medicaid programs that implement VBPs gain pricing flexibility and potential cost savings through negotiated best-price structures.
- Drug manufacturers offering VBPs can broaden market access by tying pricing to patient outcomes.
- CMS and federal health programs gain a standardized framework for VBPs that can improve pricing transparency and program alignment.
- Medicaid patients receiving outpatient drugs may benefit from more predictable pricing and potentially better access to innovative therapies.
Who Bears the Cost
- States incur upfront administrative and implementation costs to adopt VBPs and align reporting systems.
- Manufacturers incur compliance costs and potential revenue exposure related to outcomes-based rebates.
- State Medicaid agencies and healthcare providers may bear reporting and contract-management burdens due to new VBPs.
- Federal agencies (HHS and CMS) face rulemaking and oversight costs to implement and monitor the VBPs framework.
- States that do not participate in VBPs could face continued pricing complexity or slower convergence with market-based pricing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing the desire for flexible, outcomes-based pricing with the realities of administrative burden, price reporting complexity, and potential distortions to traditional rebate frameworks.
The MVP Act introduces a significant shift toward outcome-based pricing in Medicaid, but it also adds complexity to price reporting and inter-state coordination. The multi-state best-price mechanism increases negotiation latitude for States yet creates a web of price points that must be reconciled with existing rebate structures.
The enhanced AKS safe harbor and the mandated GAO study introduce guardrails and oversight, but they also raise questions about enforcement scope, measurement of outcomes, and administrative feasibility in smaller States. The policy aims to improve access and outcomes while preserving program integrity; the real-world impact will hinge on implementation details, data availability, and the willingness of manufacturers and States to engage in durable, cross-state collaborations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.