CMS-4215-P – Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program

August 17, 2026

The Honorable Mehmet Oz

Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Attn: CMS-4215-P, P.O. Box 8013,

Baltimore, MD 21244

Re: CMS-4215-P – Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and Medicare

Prescription Drug Benefit Program

Dear Administrator Oz,

On behalf of the Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Association (PILMA) –

a partnership between America’s leading biopharmaceutical companies and the

union workers who build and maintain their research and manufacturing facilities –

we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on this proposed rule.

PILMA shares CMS’ goal of making prescription drugs more affordable for Medicare

beneficiaries and working families. However, we have serious concerns that several

provisions in this proposed rule risk undermining the domestic innovation ecosystem

and the high-quality union jobs that depend on it and urge the agency to proceed

with care and caution.

Since January 2025, biopharmaceutical companies have committed to investing

nearly $600 billion in domestic manufacturing and research operations – generating

tens of thousands of high-quality union construction and manufacturing jobs across

the countryi

. And in the five years before, independent research estimates the

pharmaceutical industry supported more than 65 million union labor hours and $2.6

billion in wages for skilled building trades workers who construct and maintain the

advanced facilities that power American innovation.ii

These investments depend on a public policy environment that enables companies

to confidently commit to long-term, capital-intensive projects. When confidence in

future returns erodes, construction timelines shift and the communities where our

union members work bear the consequences. We encourage CMS to take into

consideration the effects of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program on future

innovation, domestic investment and jobs, as it finalizes and implements this rule.

Proposed Fixed Combination Drug Policy Creates Unintended Consequences

PILMA has significant concerns about the proposal to modify the definition of a

“Qualifying Single Source Drug” in the proposed rule.

Under this provision, certain subcutaneous formulations of existing biologic therapies

would be treated as the same drug as the original product for negotiation eligibility

purposes. These formulations require independent research, clinical development,

and regulatory review to bring to market, yet under this proposal they would besubject to the original product’s negotiation timeline rather than their own, which

would discourage the research and development of these kinds of products. This

matters for patients. Disincentivizing this category of innovation means fewer options

for the patients who need them most.

It also matters for labor. The development and commercialization of new drug

formulations drives investment in new and expanded manufacturing capacity – the

kind of capital-intensive construction projects that create good-paying work for

PILMA’s union pipefitters, electricians, and ironworkers. A regulatory environment

that narrows the return on formulation innovation is a regulatory environment that

puts those projects at risk. We urge CMS to narrow the scope of this provision,

establish clear and transparent operational criteria for its application, and assess its

effects on both patient access and domestic manufacturing investment before

finalizing this policy.

The Right Path to Affordability Runs Through Supply Chain Accountability

PILMA has long maintained that the most effective and durable path to drug

affordability lies in confronting the opaque, unaccountable intermediaries who extract

billions from the prescription drug supply chain while contributing nothing to

research, development, or patient care. Today, more than half of every dollar spent

on brand-name prescription drugs flows to insurers, pharmacy benefit managers,

and other middlemen.iii For union-employer administered Taft-Hartley health plans –

which cover approximately 12.7 million union workers and their familiesiv

– the costs

imposed by these practices are significant. PILMA’s research has shown that

distortions in the 340B Drug Pricing Program alone are driving up costs for these

plans by as much as $1 billion annually.v

We commend the Administration’s support for bipartisan legislation enacted earlier

this year de-linking PBM compensation in Medicare Part D from drug list prices.

These reforms directly target the incentive structures that drive up costs without

discouraging the investment that delivers new medicines. We urge CMS to

complement these reforms through its administrative actions and ensure that the

Negotiation Program does not create new opportunities for supply chain

intermediaries to extract additional value from negotiated Maximum Fair Prices.

Meaningful affordability for patients and workers will not be achieved by suppressing

the innovation that produces new medicines – it will be achieved by ensuring that the

savings from that innovation reach the people who need them, not the middlemen

who intercept them.

We stand ready to serve as a constructive partner in this conversation and are

grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important rulemaking.

Respectfully submitted,

AJ StokesExecutive Director,

Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Association

i We Work For Health. U.S. Biopharma Investment Watch. https://www.weworkforhealth.org/investinamerica

ii Institute for Construction Employment Research. An Analysis of Construction Spending in the Pharmaceutical &

Biotech Industry, 2019-2024. May 2025. https://unionjobs.pilma.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-Jobs-Study-

Full-Report.pdf

iii Berkeley Research Group. The Pharmaceutical Supply Chain, 2013–2023. January 2025.

https://www.thinkbrg.com/news/more-than-half-brand-medicine-spending-goes-to-supply-chain-middlemen-

other-stakeholders/

iv International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, The Multiemployer Health Plan Landscape: A 15-Year Look

(2008-2022). December 2025. https://www.ifebp.org/detail-pages/resource/survey/the-multiemployer-health-plan-

landscape-a-15-year-look-2008-2022

v Pharmaceutical Industry Labor-Management Association. Evaluating the Role of 340B in Managing Healthcare

Costs for Taft-Hartley Plans. https://pilma.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/PILMA-Evaluating-the-Role-of-340B-in-

Managing-Healthcare-Costs-for-Taft-Hartley-Plans_1-29-26.pdf

DOWNLOAD LETTER HERE