Supreme Court Regulations May Impact Insurance Compliance

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not permit the President to impose tariffs. This decision prompts questions about which tariffs announced by President Trump were based on this statute versus alternative legal authorities. Such rulings could have significant implications for regulatory compliance requirements within the insurance sector.

In regulatory news, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have unveiled a new set of drugs for price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act as of January 27, 2026. A pharmaceutical company has legally contested this selection. CMS, having previously released maximum fair prices for the Initial Price Applicability Year (IPAY) 2027 in November, now offers justifications for these pricing decisions, impacting insurance carriers managing drug formularies.

In matters regarding the 340B program, the Health Resources & Services Administration is seeking public feedback on the 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, inviting responses until March 19, 2026. This initiative follows the repeal of an earlier rebate model due to litigation. As regulatory landscapes evolve, more states are advancing legislation to prevent pharmaceutical companies from limiting contract pharmacy access, necessitating proactive risk management and compliance strategies among insurance providers.