James Lankford (R-OK)
Preserving Patient Access to Long-Term Care Pharmacies Act
A Republican bill with 4 Republican cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, called the "Preserving Patient Access to Long-Term Care Pharmacies Act," creates a temporary supply fee for long-term care pharmacies. For the years 2026 and 2027, pharmacy benefit sponsors must pay a fee for certain prescription drugs dispensed to specific eligible individuals. The government will provide subsidies to the plan sponsors to cover these fees. Additionally, the GAO will study the economic sustainability of long-term care pharmacies in the Medicare program. The goal is to ensure Medicare beneficiaries have continued access to these pharmacy services.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +8
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Directly benefits Medicare beneficiaries, who are primarily seniors, by ensuring access to long-term care pharmacies.
- Scored +8
Would retired people be better off under this?
Retirees using Medicare Part D in long-term care facilities benefit from maintained pharmacy access.
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Explicitly aims to ensure uninterrupted pharmacy access in rural markets.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Creates new government expenditures through subsidies to cover pharmacy supply fees.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill requires the government to provide subsidies to plan sponsors, increasing federal spending.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Adds new spending obligations to the Medicare program.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Maintains access to pharmacy services: The bill aims to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in rural markets, have "uninterrupted access to long-term care pharmacy services" (Sec. 2(c)(1)(B)).
-
Financial support for pharmacies: Long-term care pharmacies receive a $30 supply fee in 2026 and an adjusted fee in 2027 for specified prescriptions, which is paid in addition to other reimbursements (Sec. 2(a)(i)(I)).
-
Future sustainability research: The GAO will conduct a study to recommend a "sustainable payment system" for long-term care pharmacies under the Medicare prescription drug program (Sec. 2(c)(1)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Financial penalties for plan sponsors: PDP sponsors and MA organizations face civil money penalties of at least $10,000 for each failure to pay the required supply fee (Sec. 2(a)(ii)(I)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees using Medicare Part D in long-term care facilities benefit from maintained pharmacy access. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Directly benefits Medicare beneficiaries, who are primarily seniors, by ensuring access to long-term care pharmacies. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Explicitly aims to ensure uninterrupted pharmacy access in rural markets. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides new revenue streams for long-term care pharmacy owners. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities in long-term care facilities benefit from secured pharmacy access. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Improves access to medications for low-income seniors in long-term care. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves access to medications for middle-income seniors in long-term care. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improves pharmacy stability in urban long-term care settings.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Ensures uninterrupted access to essential pharmacy services for Medicare beneficiaries in long-term care. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — Increases funding for Medicare via subsidies for prescription drug supply fees.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Specifically targets the preservation of pharmacy services in rural markets.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight and mandates on PDP sponsors and MA organizations. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires a GAO study to provide an analysis of the economic sustainability of long-term care pharmacies.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides direct financial relief via supply fees to long-term care pharmacies, many of which are small businesses. Is this likely to create jobs? — Financial support for long-term care pharmacies may help preserve jobs in the pharmacy sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Supports the economic viability of specialized pharmacy providers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Creates new government expenditures through subsidies to cover pharmacy supply fees. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Adds new spending obligations to the Medicare program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill requires the government to provide subsidies to plan sponsors, increasing federal spending.
- 4/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/7/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Marsha BlackburnRepublican · Tennessee
Shelley CapitoRepublican · West Virginia
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
Markwayne MullinRepublican · Oklahoma