At the pharmacy counter, patients usually get the easiest assignment in American healthcare: pay whatever the screen says. Behind that number lies a chain of contracts, rebates, fees, and reimbursements that can make buying medicine feel like hiring a magician to explain where your wallet went.
President Donald Trump’s Labor Department took a useful step on October 29 toward making that chain easier to inspect. Its finalized rule requires pharmacy benefit managers and affiliated brokers and consultants serving large self-insured employer health plans to disclose how they get paid.
PBMs manage prescription benefits, negotiate with drugmakers, and help determine which drugs a plan covers. The question for the people paying their bills is straightforward: How much of the money buys medicine, and how much compensates everyone arranging the purchase?
A company can earn its fee by negotiating a better deal. But the customer needs enough information to judge whether the deal actually improved, especially when the negotiator receives money from other parties involved in the transaction.
The rule addresses this problem by requiring disclosure of direct payments, manufacturer compensation, pharmacy recoupments, and spread compensation. Spread compensation is the difference between what a plan pays the middleman and what the middleman pays the pharmacy.
From the U.S. Department of Labor:
CSPs must provide ongoing disclosures to the plan of compensation received for services no later than 30 calendar days after the end of each semiannual period under the contract or arrangement. If the plan requests quarterly disclosures, the CSP must provide them.
For each semiannual period, or each quarter if requested by the plan, the CSP must disclose the actual amounts received or reasonably expected to be received for direct compensation, manufacturer payments, spread compensation, pharmacy recoupment, price protection agreements, and any other compensation not covered in these categories.
Suppose a plan pays $100 for a prescription and the PBM reimburses the pharmacy $80. That hypothetical $20 difference needs to appear somewhere the customer can understand. Calling the arrangement complicated doesn’t make the math sacred.
Recommended: Dartmouth’s Provost Had AI Help, but Honesty Required His Own Contribution
Anyone who has reviewed a contractor’s invoice recognizes the principle. You want to know what you bought, what the contractor charged, and whether another financial arrangement influenced the recommendation.
Healthcare shouldn’t require abandoning those expectations at the benefits-office door.
The disclosures also cover manufacturer incentives that affect formulary placement, where medicines sit on a plan’s coverage list. In some circumstances, the PBM must identify omitted alternatives and explain their exclusion.
For someone living with chronic pain, a coverage decision reaches well beyond an accounting department. I’ve had an insurer remove tapentadol from my coverage, which sent me back to oxycodone. That experience makes me want clear answers about the incentives behind benefit decisions, without pretending I know the financial explanation for my particular case.
A doctor and patient can discuss whether a treatment helps. Employers purchasing coverage should also be able to examine the business arrangements behind the available choices, without pretending I know the financial explanation for my particular case.
A doctor and patient can discuss whether a treatment helps. Employers purchasing coverage should also be able to examine the business arrangements behind the available choices. Neither conversation benefits from missing information.
Plans will receive initial disclosures before signing contracts and, afterward, ongoing compensation reports, generally semiannually or quarterly upon request. They can also audit the disclosures at least annually and choose their own auditor.
The PBM industry’s trade association argues that existing federal law already requires transparency and that another reporting system could burden smaller firms, increase costs, and reduce competition. Those objections create a measurable test: compare the added compliance costs with the information employers gain.
From the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association:
PBMs are committed to complete transparency for patients, employers, unions, and government programs. This has been demonstrated through fundamental changes to business practices by our companies. It has been demonstrated by our commitment to integrate TrumpRx into patient transparency tools. Full PBM transparency is also now federal law, following the enactment of sweeping PBM reform earlier this year. Drug-by-drug, claim-by-claim, pharmacy-by-pharmacy transparency is already law. All of this has long made the DOL’s desire to create another reporting system unnecessary, redundant, and extraordinarily burdensome, particularly for smaller PBMs. It is a solution in search of a problem.
While PCMA is analyzing the full impacts of this new regulation, we are extremely concerned that it will lead to higher patient costs and less competition, the opposite of the Department’s stated intent. The Department has made modest efforts to harmonize the rule with the recently enacted federal law, but we are concerned it may have exceeded Congress’s intent and its own authority. Patients, employers, and unions will have no new meaningful transparency from this action, but prescription drug benefits will now be more expensive. This could also lead to greater concentration in our industry as smaller PBMs face excessive reporting demands. We are committed to protecting patients, employers, and unions from the consequences of unnecessary and expensive regulatory overreach, and we will evaluate available pathways to do so.
The detailed requirements apply to plan years beginning on or after July 1, 2027, and specifically address large self-insured plans. Patients shouldn’t expect every pharmacy bill to change tomorrow because Washington issued a rule today.
Employers must use the information as soon as they receive it. A disclosure gathering dust beside an unread contract won’t improve anyone’s benefits, and a spreadsheet full of numbers won’t negotiate a better arrangement by itself.
An employer buying benefits on behalf of its workers has a duty to ask hard questions. Employees supply their labor, contribute toward coverage, and depend on those purchasing decisions when illness arrives.
Competition needs customers who can compare offers and challenge charges. Trump’s Labor Department has given those customers a stronger way to ask where their prescription dollars went.
The middlemen can still make their case, but now they have to show their math.