CMS Part D Guidance on LTC Pharmacy Rebates Creates Confusion
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.01.06
by Arthur Lerner and Ben Butler
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued guidance in which it expressed “significant concerns” about access/performance rebates paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to long-term care (LTC) pharmacies that participate in Medicare Part D plan LTC pharmacy networks. This guidance creates confusion given CMS' prior remarks on rebates received by independent PBMs participating in the Part D program.
In an answer to a question posted on its website, CMS implied that LTC pharmacy rebates might increase program and beneficiary costs and create fraud and abuse concerns in the Part D context. CMS stated that such LTC pharmacy rebates should at minimum be fully disclosed to the Part D plan sponsor, who would then have to account for this benefit in the plan's bid and would have to net out the price concessions for purposes of allowable reinsurance and risk corridor costs. CMS argued that when the Medicare program pays for 100% of the costs of the drug benefit, as is the case for most institutionalized beneficiaries, the benefit of the LTC pharmacy rebate should accrue to the government. As regards purported fraud and abuse concerns, the statement did not acknowledge the possible application of the anti-kickback law discount safe harbor to rebates paid to the LTC pharmacies.
CMS' reasoning is arguably in tension with its earlier guidance regarding manufacturer rebates paid to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Specifically, CMS recognized that where a PBM serves as an independent subcontractor to a Part D sponsor, and is not acting as the sponsor's negotiating agent, “the PBM may not necessarily pass through 100% of rebates it receives” to the sponsor. CMS acknowledged that, in this instance, the PBM's retention of manufacturer rebates would be subject to negotiations with the Part D sponsor.
The difference in CMS' reasoning with respect to the LTC and PBM guidance is unclear. In each instance, the Part D sponsor presumably enters into arms-length negotiations with its subcontractor based on certain assumptions regarding rebates that the subcontractor may, or may not, be receiving. The parties may decide, for example, to negotiate for all rebates to be passed through to the sponsor, or they may negotiate an arrangement which permits the LTC pharmacy to retain some or all of the rebates it receives, in exchange for lower rates of payment from the health plan on covered prescription drugs
CMS' guidance on LTC pharmacy rebates, now unsettles these expectations after negotiations have been completed. If the agency maintains its position, it might be appropriate, at a minimum, to permit parties sufficient time to adjust to the guidance, e.g., by stating that any rebates must be passed through effective as of the 2007 plan year. As it stands, the industry may see LTC pharmacies demand renegotiation of rates with plan sponsors if they are, in fact, expected to turn over any rebates received to the plans.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
