The PBM Disclosure Act aims to clarify how direct and indirect compensation from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and third-party administrators (TPAs) must be disclosed to employer-sponsored health plans governed by ERISA. It adds a new reference to require such disclosures when service providers and their affiliates expect to receive compensation.
The bill also directs the Department of Labor to issue regulations within 180 days of enactment, with those rules applying to plan years beginning six months after promulgation. A Sense of Congress statement emphasizes that this is a clarification of existing obligations and not an expansion of requirements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The act adds a new CC subitem to ERISA 408(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)(bb) to require disclosure of direct and indirect compensation from PBMs and TPAs, including fees paid by affiliates or subcontractors.
Who It Affects
ERISA-covered employer-sponsored plans, their fiduciaries, HR/benefits teams, PBMs, TPAs, and related service providers.
Why It Matters
It standardizes and expands visibility into compensation arrangements that influence plan costs, enabling better oversight and cost management for sponsors and beneficiaries.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill tightens and clarifies the disclosure regime under ERISA for employer-sponsored health plans. By inserting a new CC item into the existing 408(b)(2) disclosure framework, it requires service providers like PBMs and TPAs, and their affiliates or subcontractors, to disclose both direct and indirect compensation they expect to receive.
This aims to expose financial arrangements that can affect pricing and plan costs. The act also requires the Department of Labor to publish implementing regulations within 180 days, with those rules effective for plan years starting six months after they are issued.
Finally, the Sense of Congress states that this is a clarification of existing law, not a new or additional obligation. This combination seeks greater transparency while signaling that the core fiduciary duties and reporting expectations remain rooted in current law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new CC item to ERISA 408(b)(2) to require disclosure of PBM/TPA compensation.
Regulations to clarify the disclosure requirements must be issued by the Secretary of Labor within 180 days.
Regulations apply to plan years beginning six months after promulgation.
The Sense of Congress characterizes the change as a clarification of existing law, not a new obligation.
The scope covers both direct and indirect compensation from PBMs and related service providers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
The act is designated as the PBM Disclosure Act. This section simply provides the official name by which the law will be cited in statutes and references. It does not alter substantive obligations but frames the instrument we are about to analyze.
Clarification of ERISA disclosure to PBMs/TPAs
This subsection amends ERISA 408(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)(bb) to add a new CC item, requiring disclosure of compensation from PBMs and other service providers, including payments to affiliates or subcontractors. The aim is to ensure plan sponsors and fiduciaries can see the full compensation landscape behind PBM/TPA arrangements that affect plan costs.
Regulations
This subsection requires the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations via notice-and-comment rulemaking within 180 days of enactment. The regulations will interpret the added disclosure requirements and specify how they apply to covered service providers under ERISA, setting a clear compliance path for plans and vendors.
Sense of Congress
This subsection expresses that the amendment clarifies existing obligations for service providers under ERISA 408(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)(bb) and does not create an additional requirement. It suggests Congress’ intent to avoid broad new mandates while reinforcing the importance of transparency in compensation arrangements.
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
- Employers sponsoring ERISA health plans (plan sponsors) — gain clearer visibility and oversight over compensation structures that drive costs.
- ERISA plan fiduciaries and benefits administrators — have explicit disclosure expectations that support compliant oversight.
- Plan participants and beneficiaries — benefit from greater transparency about the costs embedded in PBM/TPA arrangements.
- Labor unions and their health-benefit funds — improved information for negotiating and evaluating benefit programs.
- The Department of Labor and other regulators — clearer statutory framework for enforcement and guidance.
Who Bears the Cost
- PBMs and third-party administrators — must implement disclosure processes for direct and indirect compensation.
- Employers and plan sponsors — incur administrative and potential IT/data-management costs to collect and report compensation data.
- HR/Benefits teams within sponsors — face increased data collection and reporting duties tied to plan operations and vendor management.
- Small employers with ERISA plans — may experience a disproportionate administrative burden relative to resources.
- Regulators (DOL) — higher enforcement and rulemaking workload to oversee the new disclosures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the desire for transparency in compensation structures that influence plan costs with the administrative and confidentiality burdens placed on sponsors and providers. The clarifying approach reduces uncertainty but could still impose practical compliance costs and data-sharing complexities across PBMs, TPAs, and plans.
The bill’s core move is a clarification rather than a substantial expansion of duties. By codifying a specific disclosure requirement and mandating a formal rulemaking process, it reduces ambiguity about what must be disclosed and by whom.
However, the added reporting burden lands on PBMs, TPAs, and sponsors’ HR/benefits teams, which can be nontrivial for smaller plans or those with limited compliance infrastructure. The interaction with existing confidentiality norms and commercial sensitivities around compensation arrangements could raise practical questions about what must be shared and with whom.
The six-month window from promulgation provides a transitional period, but the readiness of vendors and sponsors to implement standardized disclosures remains a practical challenge.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.