Latest action: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 634.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
Rick Allen (R-GA)
Filed in the House.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Prohibits pharmacy benefit managers from receiving kickbacks for their drug formulary decisions.
The problem
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) may receive financial incentives from drug makers to favor certain medications, potentially raising costs for patients and insurers.
The proposal
Bans PBMs from accepting rebates, discounts, or payments from pharmaceutical companies in exchange for preferred drug placement on insurance formularies.
The impact
Affects PBMs, drug manufacturers, insurance companies, and patients by potentially changing drug pricing, coverage decisions, and healthcare costs.
Removing kickback incentives may force PBMs to negotiate lower prices with drug makers based on value rather than financial incentives. This could reduce medication costs for patients and insurers.
Without financial incentives influencing decisions, PBMs may choose drugs based on effectiveness and patient needs rather than manufacturer payments. This could improve treatment quality.
Eliminating kickback arrangements makes the drug selection process clearer for patients and doctors. People can better understand why certain medications are covered.
Lower drug prices could decrease overall healthcare expenses for insurance companies, employers, and taxpayers. This may reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
Removing rebate revenue sources may reduce pharmaceutical company profits, potentially slowing drug development and innovation. Companies might invest less in new treatments.
PBMs may need new negotiation methods and processes to comply with the ban. This could increase operational costs and administrative complexity.
PBM companies might reduce staff or operations if revenues decline. This could eliminate jobs in the pharmacy benefits industry.
Defining and detecting kickbacks versus legitimate business arrangements may be difficult. Companies could use complex structures to disguise prohibited payments.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.