Medicare demands PBM transparency on drug prices, rebates, and affiliate conflicts
H.R. 950 — Saving Seniors Money on Prescriptions Act · Filed by Greg Landsman (D-OH) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 4, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—the middlemen who negotiate drug prices and manage prescription benefits for Medicare plans—to report detailed information annually to Medicare about drug costs, rebates, their own profits, and potential conflicts of interest (like owning their own pharmacies). The reports must show what seniors actually pay, what manufacturers rebate, and whether PBMs favor their own pharmacies over independent ones. Starting in 2028, PBMs must allow independent audits and face penalties if they don't comply. The goal is to expose hidden markups and steering that may inflate seniors' out-of-pocket costs.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a mandatory disclosure regime for PBMs operating Medicare drug plans. It does not ban PBMs, cap prices directly, or restructure the market—it mandates reporting of currently hidden information (rebates, affiliate conflicts, cost-shifting) to enable oversight and negotiation.
What the text implies
- PBMs may face pressure to restructure affiliate relationships or rebate arrangements once seniors and Medicare can see the full cost picture; this could reduce PBM profits but lower net drug costs for seniors.
- The 2028 effective date gives PBMs 3 years to prepare systems and may delay transparency benefits; interim period allows continued opaque practices.
- Audit rights granted to PDP sponsors (not directly to seniors or CMS) mean transparency depends on sponsors' willingness to audit; weak sponsors may not exercise this right.
- Confidentiality restrictions prevent public disclosure of PBM-specific pricing, limiting consumer-level transparency and media scrutiny; only CMS, GAO, CBO, and MedPAC see the full data.
- The bill does not address non-Medicare PBM practices (commercial insurance, Medicaid), leaving the broader market opaque and potentially allowing PBMs to shift problematic practices to non-Medicare plans.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Seniors and Medicare gain transparency into PBM pricing practices, rebate retention, and conflicts of interest (affiliate pharmacies), enabling better negotiation and detection of cost-shifting. The reporting burden falls on PBMs, not beneficiaries, and audits are funded by plan sponsors, not seniors.
Who stands to gain
- Medicare beneficiaries (lower out-of-pocket costs if transparency enables better negotiation)
- Independent pharmacies (reduced steering to PBM-affiliated pharmacies once conflicts are visible)
- Generic drug manufacturers (reduced incentive to hide generic alternatives behind higher cost-sharin
Named in the bill
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Medicare Part D, PDP sponsors, MA-PD plans, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Comptroller General (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Retail pharmacies, Mail-order pharmacies, Specialty pharmacies, Manufacturers — and 1 more
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 1 Democrats, 1 Republicans.
- Feb 4, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 4, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $4,420,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 54 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Greg Landsman, the sponsor, reported $1,006,728 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- America's Health Insurance Plans Inc (ahip) — $3,010,000 on 1 filing
- Novartis — $1,410,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (16,570 characters) on Jun 3, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Medicare demands PBM transparency on drug prices, rebates, and affiliate conflicts” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr950 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.