Trek Health Submitted Comments on the DOL's Proposed PBM Disclosure Rule
The Department of Labor recently published a proposed rule that would require pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to disclose how they're compensated when managing prescription drug benefits for employer health plans. This is a significant step toward the kind of price transparency that we have long needed.
Trek Health submitted formal comments on the rule during the public comment period. As the proposed legislation directly impacts future payer compliance, the structural choices made in the final rule will determine what health systems can actually do with the data. Trek is working to not only surface what payer data reveals about the current landscape, but proactively engage in the process to ensure the policy infrastructure underlying that data is built to be usable from the start. Here's what we said and why it matters.
Why We're Commenting
PBMs sit between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and health plans. They negotiate drug prices, design formularies, and process claims — and they're often compensated in ways that aren't visible to the plan sponsors paying the bills. Spread pricing, rebate arrangements, and administrative fees can all affect what a plan actually pays for drugs, but today most plans have no reliable way to see those figures clearly.
The DOL's proposed rule would change that by requiring PBMs to produce structured disclosures, including machine-readable files, that plan fiduciaries can use to evaluate whether their PBM arrangements are actually working in their favor.
At Trek, we work with machine-readable file data every day to help health systems understand what they're being paid and by whom. So when the DOL proposed a rule that depends on that data being structured and usable, we had specific things to say about how to get it right.
What We Said About the MRF Provisions
Our comments focused on three technical issues with the machine-readable file requirements that, if left unaddressed, could undermine the rule's transparency goals.
1. "Reasonable time" needs a defined limit.
The rule requires PBMs to produce their disclosure files "within a reasonable time" after a plan requests them — but it doesn't define what that means. Without a specific deadline, a PBM could respond weeks later with a file that reflects compensation from a prior period, not the current one. A plan trying to evaluate whether their contract is working can't do that with stale data. We recommended tying the response deadline to the most recent semiannual disclosure period, with a 30-day outer limit from the date of request.
2. "Machine-readable" isn't specific enough.
The rule defines a machine-readable file as one that "can be imported or read by a computer system without human intervention." Technically, that's accurate — but it's broad enough that PBMs could produce files in proprietary formats with inconsistent structures that are nearly impossible to compare across plans or contracts without significant technical work. We've seen this problem play out in the Transparency in Coverage rollout, where schema variation across health insurers created real barriers for anyone trying to do systematic analysis. We recommended the Department publish a minimum field-level schema alongside the final rule, so that disclosures are designed to be interoperable from the start.
3. NDC granularity matters.
The rule requires drugs to be identified using a National Drug Code (NDC) — but NDCs come in three levels of specificity: a 5-digit labeler code, a 9-digit product code, and an 11-digit package code. Reporting at a higher level of aggregation masks meaningful variation across manufacturers and package sizes, which is exactly the kind of variation that reveals spread between what a PBM pays for a drug and what it charges the plan. We recommended the rule specify the 11-digit NDC as the minimum, which is already the standard used in pharmacy claims adjudication.
The Bottom Line
The DOL's proposed rule is an important move toward real PBM transparency. Getting the technical details right — on timeliness, file structure, and identifier granularity — is what determines whether the data it requires will actually be usable in practice. We're committed to staying engaged at the policy level to make sure the infrastructure for transparency is built on a foundation that works.

White Paper
From Transparency to Prediction: Quantifying the Drivers of Physician Reimbursement Variation
This analysis uses Transparency in Coverage data to model how payers behave, not just what they pay. By linking reimbursement rates to physician characteristics, we uncover the patterns behind payment variation and transform transparency data into predictive intelligence. The result: a predictive view of rate dynamics that helps stakeholders anticipate trends and negotiate with data-driven confidence.

White Paper
Q1 2026 State of Commercial Reimbursement: Trek Health’s Quarterly Market Intelligence
As Trek Health's Quarterly Market Intelligence series matures, more longitudinal trends are emerging. After a brief period of stabilization in late 2025, Q1 2026 brought renewed payer pressure across specialties, geographies, and major national payers. Trek Health's latest Quarterly Market Intelligence report breaks down exactly what shifted — and what it means for your contracts.
Want to see how these trends affect your market? Speak to our team.

White Paper
Q3 2025 State of Commercial Reimbursement: Trek Health’s Quarterly Market Intelligence
Trek Health’s Quarterly Reimbursement Brief highlights emerging variability in commercial payment rates across U.S. payers, specialties, and geographic markets. With some segments experiencing double-digit growth and others notable declines, contracting performance is increasingly shaped by real-time payer behavior rather than historical norms. Through validated reimbursement trend analytics, contract intelligence, and policy monitoring, Trek equips provider organizations to anticipate market shifts, protect revenue, and negotiate with measurable leverage.

White Paper
Q4 2025 State of Commercial Reimbursement: Trek Health’s Quarterly Market Intelligence
Trek Health’s Q4 2025 Quarterly Market Intelligence report analyzes quarter-over-quarter commercial reimbursement movement across national payers, physician specialties, and U.S. states. While overall reimbursement improved following earlier declines, rate changes remained uneven—highlighting payer selectivity, persistent specialty outliers, and shifting geographic leverage. This report moves beyond static benchmarks by tracking real-time reimbursement changes, giving provider organizations actionable insight to identify negotiation risk early, protect rate parity, and respond proactively to evolving payer behavior.

White Paper
Reimbursement and Reality: The Economics of Breast Cancer Treatment
While breast cancer awareness efforts often focus on screening and treatment, one critical factor remains overlooked: how care is reimbursed. Payment structures shape far more than provider margins; they influence access, equity, and patient outcomes.
In this analysis of payer rates, Trek Health uses its Transparency Platform to analyze how reimbursement for breast cancer care varies across geography, commercial payer behavior, and public policy. The findings reveal a system that rewards disease burden rather than prevention which creates inequities that ripple through the entire care process.
Inside you’ll learn:
- How reimbursement rates differ dramatically by state and payer
- Why higher disease burden correlates with higher payment, but prevention does not
- What these trends mean for provider strategy, patient access, and equity
Download the full analysis to see how transparency data can help reshape breast cancer care—turning financial insight into fairer outcomes.

White Paper
The Cost of Policy Drift: A Framework for Measuring and Managing Payer Policy Lag as an Operational Risk
Commercial payers change coverage criteria, prior authorization requirements, and coding guidelines continuously and without standardized notice, leaving provider organizations to detect, interpret, and operationalize each update on their own. The lag between when a payer changes a rule and when that change is fully reflected in an organization's workflows is a distinct, measurable operational risk we term Policy Drift. Left unnamed and unmeasured, Policy Drift generates denial volume, prior authorization friction, fee schedule underpayment, and audit exposure that most organizations misattribute to clinical or documentation failure.
This paper introduces a four-stage latency framework for decomposing Policy Drift into its constituent components, a KPI set for tracking it, and the infrastructure requirements for closing it systematically.

White Paper
The Economics of Payer Contract Management Automation: Quantifying Cost Savings & Revenue Lift
Trek Health's Contract Intelligence (CI) automates contract interpretation and policy maintenance, transforming unstructured payer data into actionable rules. Using industry benchmarks and multi-scenario modeling across clinic, multispecialty, and hospital environments, CI generates annual savings ranging from $80K to over $9.3M, driven by avoided denials, reduced administrative labor, and streamlined policy-update workflows. Our results show that CI functions as core financial infrastructure rather than a point solution, delivering structural value across the reimbursement lifecycle.

White Paper
The Payer Paradox: When Higher Rates Don’t Mean Higher Reimbursement
This analysis uncovers a critical paradox in commercial healthcare financing: the payers offering the highest contracted rates often deliver the lowest realized reimbursement once denials and administrative friction are accounted for. By introducing the Payer Generosity Index (PGI) and adjusted PGI (aPGI), Trek Health reveals how payer performance varies not only across insurers, but across specialties and service lines. These findings equip healthcare organizations with a clearer, data-driven framework for contracting, revenue optimization, and strategic planning in an increasingly complex reimbursement landscape.

White Paper
The Private Practice Playbook: Rate Negotiation Index Rankings for Specialty-Specific M&A Strategy
Physician economics are shifting as private equity and independent platforms redefine the workforce landscape. Trek Health’s Rate Negotiation Index Report quantifies the return on physician labor across states and specialties in a new lens: combining commercial reimbursement, physician salary, malpractice risk, and provider density into a single metric. This data driven foundation for smarter M&A strategy identifies the most economically sustainable opportunities across the U.S. for physician recruitment and network expansion.

Published on
April 16, 2026
Written by
Jordan KassabThe Department of Labor recently published a proposed rule that would require pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to disclose how they're compensated when managing prescription drug benefits for employer health plans. This is a significant step toward the kind of price transparency that we have long needed.
Trek Health submitted formal comments on the rule during the public comment period. As the proposed legislation directly impacts future payer compliance, the structural choices made in the final rule will determine what health systems can actually do with the data. Trek is working to not only surface what payer data reveals about the current landscape, but proactively engage in the process to ensure the policy infrastructure underlying that data is built to be usable from the start. Here's what we said and why it matters.
Why We're Commenting
PBMs sit between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and health plans. They negotiate drug prices, design formularies, and process claims — and they're often compensated in ways that aren't visible to the plan sponsors paying the bills. Spread pricing, rebate arrangements, and administrative fees can all affect what a plan actually pays for drugs, but today most plans have no reliable way to see those figures clearly.
The DOL's proposed rule would change that by requiring PBMs to produce structured disclosures, including machine-readable files, that plan fiduciaries can use to evaluate whether their PBM arrangements are actually working in their favor.
At Trek, we work with machine-readable file data every day to help health systems understand what they're being paid and by whom. So when the DOL proposed a rule that depends on that data being structured and usable, we had specific things to say about how to get it right.
What We Said About the MRF Provisions
Our comments focused on three technical issues with the machine-readable file requirements that, if left unaddressed, could undermine the rule's transparency goals.
1. "Reasonable time" needs a defined limit.
The rule requires PBMs to produce their disclosure files "within a reasonable time" after a plan requests them — but it doesn't define what that means. Without a specific deadline, a PBM could respond weeks later with a file that reflects compensation from a prior period, not the current one. A plan trying to evaluate whether their contract is working can't do that with stale data. We recommended tying the response deadline to the most recent semiannual disclosure period, with a 30-day outer limit from the date of request.
2. "Machine-readable" isn't specific enough.
The rule defines a machine-readable file as one that "can be imported or read by a computer system without human intervention." Technically, that's accurate — but it's broad enough that PBMs could produce files in proprietary formats with inconsistent structures that are nearly impossible to compare across plans or contracts without significant technical work. We've seen this problem play out in the Transparency in Coverage rollout, where schema variation across health insurers created real barriers for anyone trying to do systematic analysis. We recommended the Department publish a minimum field-level schema alongside the final rule, so that disclosures are designed to be interoperable from the start.
3. NDC granularity matters.
The rule requires drugs to be identified using a National Drug Code (NDC) — but NDCs come in three levels of specificity: a 5-digit labeler code, a 9-digit product code, and an 11-digit package code. Reporting at a higher level of aggregation masks meaningful variation across manufacturers and package sizes, which is exactly the kind of variation that reveals spread between what a PBM pays for a drug and what it charges the plan. We recommended the rule specify the 11-digit NDC as the minimum, which is already the standard used in pharmacy claims adjudication.
The Bottom Line
The DOL's proposed rule is an important move toward real PBM transparency. Getting the technical details right — on timeliness, file structure, and identifier granularity — is what determines whether the data it requires will actually be usable in practice. We're committed to staying engaged at the policy level to make sure the infrastructure for transparency is built on a foundation that works.