The EPIC Act of 2025 amends 42 U.S.C. 1320f–1(e)(1)(A)(ii) to change the minimum elapsed-time requirement that determines when a drug becomes eligible for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. For the program’s first two initial price years (2026 and 2027) the statute keeps the seven-year floor, but it raises the minimum to 11 years for the initial price applicability year 2028 and every subsequent initial price applicability year.
In practice, the bill delays when recently approved drugs—particularly small-molecule products that previously met the seven-year threshold—become eligible for negotiation. That narrows the pool of candidates CMS can select, benefits manufacturers of more recently approved drugs, and forces HHS/CMS to adjust the program’s timelines and candidate lists without changing other selection criteria or pricing mechanisms.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the Drug Price Negotiation Program’s eligibility rule by specifying that for initial price applicability year 2028 and later, at least 11 years must have elapsed since a drug’s approval; 2026 and 2027 retain a seven‑year requirement. It modifies one statutory sentence to add a transitional two‑year rule and a permanent 11‑year floor thereafter.
Who It Affects
The change primarily affects pharmaceutical manufacturers (especially makers of small‑molecule drugs approved within the past 7–11 years), CMS/HHS as the implementing agency, and organizations tracking which products enter negotiation each year. Medicare beneficiaries and Part D/Medicare spending are indirectly affected because negotiated price timelines shift.
Why It Matters
Eligibility timing is a gatekeeper for which medicines CMS can target for mandatory negotiation; increasing the floor to 11 years reduces the number of recently approved drugs that can be selected and delays potential negotiated price reductions. Compliance officers and pricing teams at drugmakers need to revisit forecasting and product‑lifecycle planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Drug Price Negotiation Program selects high‑spend outpatient prescription drugs for mandatory negotiation with manufacturers. One of the statutory screens for candidate selection is how long the product has been on the market: the law requires a minimum number of years to have passed since FDA approval before a product can be considered.
This bill rewrites that timing rule so the minimum elapsed time is different depending on the initial price applicability year: it leaves the seven‑year threshold in place for the program’s first two implementation years (2026 and 2027) but raises the minimum elapsed time to 11 years for 2028 and every subsequent initial price applicability year.
Operationally, that means drugs approved between 7 and 11 years before an initial price applicability year that falls in 2028 or later cannot be included in that year’s negotiation candidate pool. CMS will therefore have a narrower candidate list to run through the other statutory selection screens (such as gross and net spending thresholds).
The amendment is surgical: it does not alter the other statutory selection criteria, the negotiation process, the administration of agreements, or enforcement mechanisms—only the elapsed‑time gating rule.Because the change is applied to the ‘initial price applicability year’ calculation, CMS will need to apply the new 11‑year rule when it compiles candidate lists for 2028 and beyond while using the seven‑year rule for the two initial rollout years. That creates a clear transition for program administrators and for manufacturers planning product lifecycles, but it also requires CMS to update guidance, candidate‑selection models, and public notices to reflect the bifurcated schedule.The bill does not create exceptions, carve‑outs, or alternative paths (for example, accelerated approval cases or orphan designations are not addressed), so questions about how to treat different FDA regulatory pathways and approval dates will likely surface during implementation.
The statute amendment itself is brief and mechanically targeted, but its practical effect is to delay when a subset of drugs first becomes eligible for Medicare negotiation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1320f–1(e)(1)(A)(ii), the statute that sets the minimum elapsed‑time requirement for Drug Price Negotiation Program candidates.
For initial price applicability years 2026 and 2027 the statute preserves a seven‑year minimum elapsed time since approval.
For initial price applicability year 2028 and every subsequent initial price applicability year the statute requires at least 11 years to have elapsed since the drug’s approval.
The amendment affects only the elapsed‑time gating provision; it does not change CMS’s other statutory selection criteria, negotiation authorities, or pricing formulas.
Implementation will fall to HHS/CMS to apply the bifurcated rule when compiling candidate lists and updating agency guidance and selection models.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Ensuring Pathways to Innovative Cures Act of 2025
This single‑line provision supplies the Act’s short title, the EPIC Act of 2025. It has no substantive effect on program mechanics but frames the bill’s stated purpose for legislative context.
Transitional and permanent elapsed‑time floors for negotiation eligibility
This is the operative amendment. It replaces part of the existing sentence that set a single minimum elapsed‑time requirement with two subparts: (I) an explicit statement that initial price applicability years 2026 and 2027 keep a seven‑year floor, and (II) a new rule that for 2028 and each later initial price applicability year an 11‑year minimum applies. The drafting is narrowly focused: it does not redefine other terms (for example, ‘approval’ or ‘initial price applicability year’), so those definitions remain as written elsewhere in the statute and implementing regulations.
Narrowing of candidate pool and administrative adjustments
By raising the elapsed‑time threshold for 2028 onward, the provision removes from eligibility drugs approved between 7 and 11 years before those later applicability years. CMS will need to update candidate‑selection routines, public notices, and any actuarial or budget projections that assumed earlier eligibility. The bill imposes no new reporting, enforcement, or compliance mechanisms on manufacturers—its impact is realized through the program’s selection filters.
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
- Small‑molecule drug manufacturers with products approved within the 7–11 year window — they avoid early inclusion in mandatory Medicare price negotiations for initial price applicability years 2028 and later, preserving market pricing power for a longer period.
- Investors and corporate finance teams at affected drugmakers — extended effective exclusivity increases predictability of revenue streams in the mid‑life of a product and simplifies forecasting for products that would otherwise become negotiation candidates sooner.
- Companies planning product launches or lifecycle strategies — the longer eligibility floor reduces the immediate risk that a recent launch will be swept into the negotiation program during early post‑approval years.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medicare beneficiaries and federal payers — potential negotiated savings tied to drugs approved 7–11 years prior are delayed, which can postpone downward pressure on out‑of‑pocket costs and Part D/Medicare spending.
- HHS/CMS — the agency must revise candidate‑selection procedures, stakeholder guidance, and public materials to reflect the bifurcated timeline, creating administrative work without additional funding in the statute.
- Health plans and PBMs managing Part D formularies — delayed negotiation may sustain higher list and net prices longer, complicating formulary design and cost‑management assumptions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims: extending a longer market window to protect returns on innovation and product investment versus Congress’s objective of bringing high‑cost, recently approved drugs under Medicare negotiation to lower prices sooner; the law solves one policy goal (longer effective exclusivity) by reducing the government’s ability to target certain mid‑life drugs for earlier price negotiation.
The amendment is compact but raises several implementation and policy questions. First, the statute does not alter definitions for ‘approval’ or for how initial price applicability years are computed; those definitions remain in existing law and regulation.
That leaves room for dispute about which FDA action counts as the triggering ‘date of approval’ (e.g., NDA approval, BLA licensure, full approval following accelerated approval, or licensure date for supplemental approvals). Agencies will need to clarify treatment of accelerated approvals, supplemental approvals that materially change indications, and biologic licensure dates to avoid uneven application.
Second, changing the elapsed‑time floor alters the candidate pool in ways that interact with other statutory screens (like gross and net spending thresholds). The bill does not provide contingency language for years in which the narrowed pool produces fewer candidates than Congress intended or for how CMS should substitute items on its list.
That could produce practical effects on negotiation volumes and projected savings. Finally, the change creates incentives for strategic timing of regulatory filings or labeling strategies that could affect the ‘date of approval’—companies may have stronger incentives to seek or time supplemental approvals to shift the eligibility clock.
CMS will need clear rules to prevent gaming, and courts could be asked to resolve disagreements about statutory interpretation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.