SB927 would amend the Social Security Act to ensure accurate Medicaid pharmacy payments and to prevent abusive spread pricing. The bill creates a monthly price survey framework to establish national average drug acquisition cost benchmarks for retail and applicable non-retail pharmacies, with a vendor responsible for collecting and reporting data.
It also introduces a transparent pass-through pricing model for contracts involving pharmacy benefit managers and managed care entities, limits payments to ingredient cost plus a dispensing fee, and bars spread pricing for federal matching payments. The act includes enforcement mechanisms, oversight provisions, and phased implementation, including a delayed start for non-retail pharmacies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands 1927(f) to require monthly surveys of drug prices from a vendor to establish national average acquisition cost benchmarks for retail and non-retail pharmacies, with required reporting and public disclosure. It also adds a pass-through pricing requirement (section 1927(e)(6)) that limits payments to ingredient cost plus dispensing fees and prohibits spread pricing.
Who It Affects
Retail community pharmacies and applicable non-retail pharmacies (including mail and specialty pharmacies) are directly affected, as are states administering Medicaid contracts with PBMs or other managed care entities; pharmacy benefit managers and the entities they serve are implicated through new pricing and reporting obligations.
Why It Matters
This establishes price benchmarks, improves transparency, reduces incentives for markup through spread pricing, and enhances oversight of Medicaid drug payments, potentially lowering overpayments and supporting more predictable reimbursements for pharmacies and states.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act targets how Medicaid pays pharmacies by creating a formal, monthly data-collection process to determine national benchmarks for drug acquisition costs. Retail and non-retail pharmacies would be surveyed to capture price data, which would be used to set reimbursement benchmarks and to monitor pricing changes over time.
The bill distinguishes between different pharmacy types (retail, mail, specialty) and requires that data reflect discounts and rebates, ensuring that benchmark prices reflect actual costs faced by pharmacies.
In parallel, SB927 introduces a transparent pass-through pricing regime for contracts involving PBMs and managed care entities. Payments for drugs and related services would be limited to the ingredient cost and a standard dispensing fee, with the full price passed through to the dispensing pharmacy unless limited by law.
This structure would be public-facing in aggregate form and would prohibit spread pricing, a practice where the amount charged to the state exceeds what is paid to the pharmacy. The bill also imposes penalties for noncompliance, requires regular reporting to the Secretary and, in turn, publication of certain cost data by state, and provides funding for independent oversight by the Inspector General.Implementation is phased: the amendments take effect six months after enactment, with non-retail (including mail and specialty) pharmacies subject to the rules 18 months after enactment.
The act also expands definitions (such as ‘applicable non-retail pharmacy’ and ‘affiliate’) and grants programmatic flexibility for implementation, including nonstandard rulemaking and exemptions from some administrative processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary to conduct monthly surveys of drug prices for retail and non-retail pharmacies to establish national average acquisition cost benchmarks.
It mandates a vendor to update the Secretary monthly on survey prices and to differentiate data by whether a pharmacy is retail, affiliate, or non-retail.
The act imposes civil penalties up to $100,000 per violation for nonresponse, false information, or noncompliance.
It requires annual publication of price data by state and by category of covered entity (e.g.
340B entities) in a manner that preserves confidentiality of individual entities.
It introduces transparent pass-through pricing that limits payments to ingredient cost plus dispensing fee and prohibits spread pricing for federal Medicaid payments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ensuring accurate payments to pharmacies under Medicaid (price survey framework)
This section rearranges 1927(f) to mandate a structured price-survey regime. A vendor conducts monthly surveys of retail and non-retail drug prices to establish national benchmarks for the national average drug acquisition cost. The results must be used to inform payment methodologies and must be updated regularly, with data differentiated by pharmacy type and affiliation. The section also requires survey data to be publicly accessible in a form that preserves the confidentiality of individual entities and imposes penalties on noncompliant pharmacies.
Survey reporting, data disclosure, and enforcement
In addition to data collection, the section requires retail and applicable non-retail pharmacies to respond to survey requests tied to price concessions, rebates, and other cost information. It adds penalties for failure to respond, providing false information, or otherwise failing to comply. It also mandates disclosure of survey methodology and sampling, and requires that price concessions information be included to the extent possible. The Inspector General provisions for oversight are attached to ensure ongoing scrutiny.
Definitions and implementation mechanics
The amendments introduce definitions for ‘applicable non-retail pharmacy’ and ‘affiliate’ to clarify coverage and reporting. They also authorize the use of program instructions for implementation and provide a phased timeline, including a six-month general effective date and an 18-month delayed application for applicable non-retail pharmacies. The section contemplates nontraditional regulatory processes to deploy these changes efficiently.
Transparent pass-through pricing and spread pricing prohibition
This section adds 1927(e)(6), requiring that contracts with PBMs or other entities ensure a transparent pass-through pricing model. Payments must be limited to ingredient cost plus a dispensing fee, and the entire price must be passed through to the dispensing pharmacy, with certain allowable reductions. It also requires extensive cost reporting to the Secretary, prohibits form of spread pricing for Federal Matching payments, and directs annual publication of aggregate data by state and category of covered entities, while preserving confidentiality.
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
- Retail community pharmacies gain clearer benchmarks and more predictable reimbursements, reducing disputes about pricing and margins.
- Applicable non-retail pharmacies (mail and specialty) benefit from explicit definitions and reporting that can improve payment clarity and oversight.
- State Medicaid programs benefit from more accurate payment data, reduced risk of overpayments, and strengthened oversight capabilities.
- Medicaid enrollees benefit indirectly through more transparent pricing and potentially more stable access.
- Congress and the Inspector General gain access to regular, auditable data and oversight mechanisms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Retail and non-retail pharmacies bear compliance costs associated with responding to surveys and reporting detailed price data.
- Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) incur administrative costs related to data sharing, reporting, and ensuring contract compliance with the new pricing model.
- State Medicaid programs bear the ongoing cost of data collection, reporting, and potential system updates required to support the survey framework.
- Affiliates and chains may incur costs associated with data differentiation and internal reporting to reflect the definitions of ‘affiliate’ and related terms.
- Taxpayer funds fund the IG oversight and associated program costs (e.g., the $5 million appropriation in FY2026).
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between achieving price transparency and maintaining practical, affordable reimbursement for pharmacies and access to Medicaid drugs, without imposing prohibitive costs or dampening participation in the program.
The bill’s emphasis on price transparency and pass-through pricing introduces potential tensions between the pursuit of accurate procurement data and the administrative burden on pharmacies and PBMs. While disclosure can deter abusive practices and close gaps in reimbursement, the reliance on monthly surveys and complex data reporting could raise compliance costs and create incentives for pharmacies to adjust their affiliations or structures to optimize risk.
The data publication regime must balance the public interest with protecting sensitive competitive information. The phased implementation reduces immediate disruption but delays for non-retail pharmacies may extend the period of uneven application between segments.
Data privacy and trade-secret concerns must be carefully managed as data is aggregated for public release.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.