CMS finalized the 2026 PFS Final Rule with substantial documentation and submission requirements.  These are new for manufacturers who have Medicare Part B reporting responsibilities as well as other considerations. 

  1. Documentation and Submission of Medicare Part B Average Sales Price (ASP) Reasonable Assumptions– Manufacturers must have ASP reasonable assumptions documentation and submit to CMS. (Note: CMS has released draft templates which we expect CMS to release final templates in the near future.)
  2. Documentation and Submission of Fair Market Value (FMV) Methodology – Manufacturers must have FMV methodology documentation on each of its service providers and submit to CMS.  This is for current, renewed, or new service provider contracts. (Note: CMS has released draft templates which we expect CMS to release final templates in the near future.)
  3. Documentation of Pass-Through Certification Requirement – Manufacturers must obtain certification or warranty documentation from its service provider that bonafide service fees are not passed onto the service provider’s client or customer.  (Note: CMS has released draft templates which we expect CMS to release final templates in the near future.)

We realize you may still be evaluating what this rule means to your business and how to best prepare and plan for this. We have already started working with clients to:

  1. Assess current state and documentation against PFS Final Rule
  2. Identify and summarize action plan and timeline
  3. Assist with new documentation development in conjunction with your legal/compliance team for example:
    • ASP reasonable assumptions
    • FMV methodology
    • Certification/warranty

PFS Final Rule Summary


The CY 2026 OPPS and ASC Final Rule (Final Rule) introduces several policy and operational changes with direct implications for drug manufacturers. Key provisions include Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) enforcement as a condition for Medicare Part B coverage, updates to payment policy, and a hospital survey that may guide future rulemaking. These changes reflect CMS’s ongoing shift toward value-driven, cost-conscious reimbursement and operational transparency.

The Final Rule includes several provisions that may impact manufacturers: 

  1. Medicare Part B Coverage is Tied to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement:
    In an important enforcement move, CMS emphasizes that Medicare Part B will only cover a Covered Outpatient Drug if the manufacturer has entered into a Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA). For impacted manufacturers without an NDRA, CMS advises “if a manufacturer immediately contacts CMS with the intent to enter into an NDRA, we will aim to maintain their separate payment for January 1, 2026. However, if a manufacturer does not enter promptly into an NDRA, then Medicare Part B payment will be stopped as discussed in this rule.”

    In the Final Rule, CMS provides a revised list of HCPCS codes for products where the manufacturer does not have an NDRA and risks losing Part B coverage:
    • Effective April 1, 2026, Part B payment may no longer be available for these products (products may be assigned a non-payable status indicator in the April 1, 2026 quarterly OPPS/ASC update).
    • For manufacturers that enter into an NDRA, “Medicare Part B payment will be reinstated retroactive to the date that the signed and completed NDRA has been received and accepted by CMS.”
    • The list of HCPCS codes for impacted products was updated from the CY 2026 OPPS and ASC Proposed Rule (Proposed Rule), indicating several manufacturers are now in compliance with the NDRA requirement. Impacted manufacturers choosing to continue Medicare Part B coverage must promptly inform CMS of their intent to execute a Medicaid NDRA and take immediate action to implement MDRP price calculation and reporting requirements, or risk losing access to Part B reimbursement entirely.

  2. OPPS Drug Payment Policy Updates:
    CMS finalized routine updates to OPPS drug payment methodologies that may influence manufacturer reimbursement. Notably, the drug packaging threshold(the cost per day below which a drug is bundled or packaged into the procedure payment) increases to $140 in CY 2026, up from $135 in 2025. Drugs, biologicals, and therapeutic radiopharmaceutical products with a per-day cost at or below $140 will be packaged with no separate payment, whereas products above $140 remain separately payable at ASP + 6% (typically). For diagnostic radiopharmaceutical products, the packaging threshold increases to $655 in CY 2026, up from $630 in CY 2025. Manufacturers with products approaching these thresholds should evaluate the impact on reimbursement.

  3. Skin Substitute Product Reimbursement Change:
    The Final Rule addresses ongoing debate regarding reimbursement for“skin substitutes” (i.e., wound care products), a category which has recently seen a significant increase in Medicare Part B spending. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 established the requirement for skin substitute manufacturers to report ASP beginning on January 1, 2022, with reimbursement based on ASP + 6% (typically). For 2026, CMS finalizes a significant change for both non-facility and hospital outpatient settings, where certain skin substitute products will receive separate payment under new Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups as defined by their FDA regulatory approval pathway. CMS createsthree new APCs with a single initial payment rate, which would update annually through rulemaking based on the most recent quarter of ASP data, when available. CMS’s stated objective is to ensure a “consistent payment approach for skin substitute products across the physician office and hospital outpatient department settings.”

  4. Hospital Survey:
    Despite significant pushback from hospitals, CMS is moving forward with its plans to conduct a nationwide hospital drug acquisition cost survey in Q1 2026 (OPPS Drug Acquisition Cost Survey), pending PMB approval. This survey will collect data on what hospitals pay for drugs. CMS is required by law to use survey data, when available, to adjust OPPS drug payment rates. If survey results show that hospitals acquire drugs at steep discounts (e.g., through 340B Drug Pricing Program), CMS could use this evidence in future rules to modify reimbursement formulas.

About the Author

Kevin Tran

Kevin Tran

Director, Advisory Services

Kevin is a Director of the Advisory Services team at IntegriChain, focusing on government pricing (GP). He has over 12 years of experience assisting pharmaceutical clients with government pricing (GP) compliance assessments, on-going calculations and remediations. Additionally, Kevin has assisted pharma manufacturers execute their audit rights to perform wholesaler, group purchasing organization (GPO) pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) assessments.  Kevin has also assisted with reverse logistics pricing assessments, pharma rebates forecasting, independent review organization (IRO) reviews and speaker program compliance monitoring. Prior to joining IntegriChain, Kevin was at a big 4 accounting firm for 11 years in the Government Contract Services Practice focusing on the Life Sciences industry.

About the Author

Jim Flowers

Jim Flowers

Director, Advisory Services

Jim Flowers is a Director of the Advisory Services team at IntegriChain, focusing on government pricing (GP). He has over 16 years of experience advising pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturers on the operational, regulatory, and financial risks associated with participation in U.S. government pricing programs. His experience includes government pricing audits and assessments, system implementations, methodology development, compliance monitoring programs, documentation and training initiatives, and price calculation and reporting projects. Prior to joining IntegriChain, Jim was a Senior Manager in the Pricing & Contracting Solutions (PaCS) Advisory practice at Deloitte where he led government pricing and compliance engagements.