The changes in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 are designed to ensure that manufacturer rebates and other drug-price concessions flow back to plans and self-insured employers, while giving plan fiduciaries better data to evaluate whether PBM contracts actually lower costs.

The goal is for health plans to pass those funds to employer customers as lower premiums as they have in West Virginia after similar legislation took effect there, according to studies.

PBMs contract with drugmakers, pharmacies and payers, and handle formularies, pharmacy networks and claims processing while negotiating rebates and discounts with manufacturers. Critics across the political spectrum argue that PBMs’ incentives can push plans toward higher list-price drugs with bigger rebates, which PBMs have been accused of pocketing. This means employers and employees pay more overall, especially when cost sharing is tied to list price.

Skeptics worry that PBMs will adjust to the legislation by replacing lost rebate-related revenue with administrative fees or other contract mechanisms.

The two core reforms

Rebate and discount pass-throughs — The law requires PBMs to pass through 100% of manufacturer rebates, fees, discounts and other remuneration (excluding “bona fide service fees”) to ERISA-covered group health plans or plan sponsors. In practice, it targets business models in which PBMs retain a share of rebates or embed revenue in “spread pricing.”

The pass-through requirement will apply to PBM contracts entered into, renewed or extended for plan years beginning on or after Aug. 3, 2028. For many calendar-year plans, that effectively means Jan. 1, 2029.

Transparency and reporting — PBMs will have to provide detailed reporting to group health plans at least twice a year, with an option for quarterly reporting upon request.

Reports are expected to include information that helps sponsors understand drug spending and PBM revenue sources such as rebates, fees and spread pricing, plus data tied to formulary decisions. Civil penalties can apply for failure to disclose information and for knowingly providing false information.

What’s in it for employers

A key reason employers and other payers are hopeful is the experience in West Virginia, where state officials reported that a rebate pass-through approach was associated with materially smaller group premium increases in the state’s 2026 small-group and large-group filings.

For 2026, the rebate pass-through mandate cut the average group health plan rate increase to 12.6% from 19.5%, according to data calculated by insurers and published in a report compiled by the West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner. The pass-through mandate caused one insurer to cut its large-group rates by 3% rather than increasing premiums by 5%.

That said, state results can be hard to generalize because plan design, market competition and underlying claims trends differ.

For employers that purchase group health insurance, the new PBM rules could eventually help reduce prescription drug costs by ensuring that rebates and discounts negotiated by PBMs flow back to health plans instead of being retained by intermediaries.

However, because the reforms do not take effect for several years and PBMs may adjust their pricing models, employers should not expect immediate savings. Employers should also work with us to monitor how their carriers incorporate the new requirements into future pharmacy benefit arrangements.

Drug makers earlier in the year said they would start reducing prices as well as the rebates they pay PBMs to appease lawmakers and the Trump administration, saying it would reduce the cost of medicine for patients.

But not long after the announcement, the nation’s largest PBM, United Healthcare, fired off a letter to drug companies telling them that if they planned to reduce prices and rebates they would have to give seven quarters of notice (that’s 21 months if you’re counting) when they intend to lower prices.

The letter, which was confirmed in news reports in the health care trade press, highlights what many critics say is an inherent conflict of interest among some of the large PBMs operating in the country.

Some background

When PBMs first came on the market, the services they offered were processing pharmacy claims and negotiating discounts on medications for the health insurance companies with which they contracted.

Later though, they found a new way to make money: rebates. They would approach two manufacturers that made similar versions of a drug and play them off against each other to elicit the largest rebate they could. Whichever one offered the larger rebate would have their pharmaceutical placed on the drug plan’s formulary.

The problem is that these large PBMs do not pass on the full rebate to their clients, like health insurance companies and health plan enrollees. Instead, they keep most of the rebate for themselves. As a result, PBMs with this business model are not motivated to include the lowest-priced drug on their formulary, but rather the one for which they can receive the largest rebate check.

The latest

United Healthcare sent out the letter to drug makers after pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi S.A. said it would cut the price of its cholesterol-lowering drug Praluent by 60%. It did so after its competitor Amgen Inc. reduced the price of its cholesterol drug Repatha by the same amount.

United Healthcare’s demand that drug companies give 21 months’ notice when they plan to reduce prices has caught many drug makers off guard, since many of them have been looking to cut prices as pressure mounts on the industry from Washington.

The dominance of United Healthcare’s PBM OptumRX and its competitor Express Scripts means that group health plan enrollees are often left at their mercy, as many large health insurers have contracts with them.

If a drug company does not give the rebate that a large PBM demands, it could lose access to patients – and patients lose access to that drug. The only way to play the game is to offer a larger rebate and increase prices, which in turn increases the prices that patients have to pay.

Fortunately, there are a number of smaller PBMs in the marketplace that have different business models that take payers’ needs into consideration and aim to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for patients. They contract with employers and insurers directly to make this happen.

The report cited increased use of new medicines, price increases for existing ones, and more spending on generic drugs as the reasons for this growth. Increasingly, though, observers of the health care system point to one player – the pharmacy benefit manager.

PBMs are intermediaries, acting as go-betweens for insurance companies, self-insured employers, drug manufacturers and pharmacies. They can handle prescription claims administration for insurers and employers, facilitate mail-order drug delivery, market drugs to pharmacies, and manage formularies (lists of drugs for which health plans will reimburse patients.)

Express Scripts, which provides network-pharmacy claims processing, drug utilization review, and formulary management among other services, is the best-known PBM. CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group’s OptumRx are other major players.

A PBM typically has contracts with both insurers and pharmacies. It charges health plans fees for administering their prescription drug claims, and also negotiates the amounts that plans pay for each of the drugs.

At the same time, it creates the formularies that spell out the prices pharmacies receive for each drug on the lists. Commonly, the price the plan pays for a drug is more than the pharmacy receives for it. The PBM collects the difference between the two prices.

It can do this because the health plan does not know what the PBM’s arrangement is with the pharmacy, and vice versa. Also, a health plan does not know the details of the PBM’s arrangements with its competitors.

A PBM could charge one plan $200 for a month’s supply of an antidepressant, charge another plan $190 for the same drug, and sell it to a pharmacy for $170. None of the three parties knows what the other parties are paying or receiving.

In addition, drug manufacturers, who recognize the influence PBM’s have over the market, offer them rebates off the prices of their products.

Questionable transparency

In theory, the PBMs pass these rebates back to the health plans, who use them to moderate premium increases. However, because these arrangements are also confidential, the extent to which these savings are passed back to health plans is unknown. Many observers believe that PBMs are keeping all or most of the rebates.

To fund the rebates, drug manufacturers may increase their prices. The CEO of drug-maker Mylan testified before Congress in 2016 that more than half the $600 price of an anti-allergy drug used in emergencies went to intermediaries.

The PBMs argue that they help hold down drug prices by promoting the use of generic drugs and by passing on the savings from rebates to health plans and consumers.

They reject the notion that they are somehow taking advantage of health plans and pharmacies, pointing out that they are “sophisticated buyers” of their services. They also argue that revealing the details of their contracts would harm their ability to compete and keep prices low.

Nevertheless, PBMs are now attracting scrutiny from Congress, health plans and employers. At least one major insurer has sued its PBM for allegedly failing to negotiate new pricing concessions in good faith.

In addition, businesses such as Amazon are considering getting into the PBM business. Walmart is already selling vials of insulin at relatively inexpensive prices.

PBMs earn billions of dollars in profits each year. With the increased attention those profits have brought, it is uncertain how long that will continue.