See the Aventi 340B Rebate Model Demo.
Aventi Health logo
Book a Demo
340B TPA fees

How do 340B TPA fees work?

340B third-party administrator (TPA) fees are commercial charges for software and administration—most often a share of 340B savings (contingency), a per-claim or per-dispense charge, a flat or subscription fee, or a hybrid of those—paid under a covered entity’s vendor contract, separate from the pharmacy dispensing fees that move money inside a contract pharmacy network.[5][4][6]

HRSA does not publish a TPA price list. It does require covered entities that use contract pharmacies to keep written contracts, register pharmacies in OPAIS, oversee the arrangement and maintain auditable records—so fee shopping still sits on top of compliance ownership.[1][3][2] This page maps the common fee models, what a sticker rate often leaves out, how money typically flows with contract pharmacies, questions to ask before you sign, and how Aventi Health—an independent 340B TPA serving 300 covered entities, 24 of them hospitals—approaches contingency pricing with no true-ups.

Last updated: . Claims about HRSA rules and industry practice link to public sources below.

See the demo Compare 340B TPAsSee fee models
Fee-model taxonomy

How 340B TPA fees are usually structured

Compensation is not standardized across the market. Start by naming the model, then pressure-test the definitions underneath it.

  • Percent of savings / contingency

    The TPA’s administrative fee is defined as a share of 340B savings (sometimes called contingency or performance-based pricing). Peer-reviewed work describes a share of the 340B spread as one common thought pattern for TPA compensation. Read how “savings” is calculated, whether a floor applies, and what happens on reversals.[4][5][7]

  • Per-claim or per-dispense

    A fixed administrative amount attaches to each captured, matched or dispensed 340B claim. Trade Q&As list “captured claim fee” and “per matched charge” as models covered entities should ask about. Volume and specialty mix change the all-in cost even when the per-claim sticker looks simple.[5][4]

  • Flat / subscription

    A recurring flat fee—often framed per contract pharmacy or as a platform subscription—whether or not a given month produces savings. Useful when volume is volatile; costly if the network underperforms. Ask whether minimums, implementation fees or auto-increases sit beside the flat rate.[5]

  • Hybrid

    A base flat fee plus a percentage of savings on approved claims, or another stacked combination. Hybrids can stabilize vendor revenue while still sharing upside; they also make apples-to-apples comparisons harder unless you model your own claim mix.[5]

Scope

What a TPA fee usually covers—and what it often does not

Often inside the TPA fee

  • Claims qualification / eligibility matching software and accumulators
  • Virtual inventory, replenishment coordination and (where offered) split billing
  • Contract pharmacy data workflows, reporting and audit-support extracts
  • Standard pharmacy network integrations the vendor already supports

Exact inclusions are contract-specific—confirm in the statement of work.[8][4]

Often outside the sticker fee

  • Contract pharmacy dispensing fees paid to the pharmacy (not the TPA)
  • Switch, gateway or bank fees to move remittances
  • Custom report builds, eligibility reclassifications, or add-on modules
  • Separate rebate / ESP / Beacon claim services if not bundled

Trade Q&As urge covered entities to ask about each of these line items before renewing.[5][6][9]

Contract pharmacy money movement

How fees flow when a TPA sits between the covered entity and pharmacies

Separate the pharmacy’s dispense economics from the TPA’s admin fee—and keep HRSA’s compliance duties with the covered entity.

In a typical contract pharmacy network, the covered entity has a written contract with each pharmacy, registers the pharmacy in 340B OPAIS and remains responsible for preventing diversion and duplicate discounts.[1][3] Separately, the covered entity (or sometimes another participant) pays a TPA for the software that qualifies claims, tracks accumulators and produces reports.[4][8]

Pharmacy-side economics are usually a dispensing fee—flat per claim, a percentage of savings, a tiered schedule, or a combination—and an invoice cadence described in industry materials as bill-on-dispense (revenue shares based on a dispense period) versus bill-on-replenishment (revenue shares after replenishment product is received).[6] Those pharmacy fees are not the same line item as the TPA’s administrative fee, even when the TPA generates the invoice file.

“True-ups” enter when earlier estimates or batch purchase splits are later reconciled to final eligible utilization. Platforms that capture claims and split purchases in near real time often market the absence of end-of-month true-ups as an operational benefit; still ask how exceptions, reversals and non-replenishable NDCs are handled.[7][6]

Buyer checklist

Questions to ask a 340B TPA about fees

Adapted from publicly published covered-entity Q&As on TPA contracts and fees—use them in RFPs and renewals.

  • Which model is it—flat monthly (per pharmacy?), percent of savings, per-claim / per-matched charge, or a hybrid—and how is “savings” defined?[5][7]
  • Are there minimum administrative fees, automatic annual increases or evergreen renewal terms?[5]
  • Do you charge switch, gateway or bank fees to collect pharmacy remittances—and do those apply even when the pharmacy does not charge them?[5]
  • What happens to your administrative fee when a claim reverses or is reclassified from 340B-eligible to ineligible?[5]
  • Which modules (split billing, specialty gateways, rebate / Beacon / ESP submissions, custom reporting) are included versus separately priced?[5]
  • How often do you true-up inventory or fees, and what implementation timeline or penalties sit in the contract?[5][7]

Practical takeaway: compare all-in cost against your claim mix and pharmacy network—not the headline rate alone—and keep your own reconciliations strong enough to defend the program if HRSA asks.[2][1]

How Aventi helps

Contingency TPA pricing aligned with program performance

  • Contingency-based, no true-ups

    Aventi’s TPA services for contract pharmacy and split billing are priced on contingency. Real-time claim capture and purchase splitting mean no end-of-month true-ups.

  • Independent and founder-owned

    Aventi is not owned by a wholesaler, PBM or pharmacy chain. We answer to covered entity clients—not a parent that also runs pharmacy or PBM economics.

  • Scale that matches real programs

    Aventi serves 300 covered entities, 24 of them hospitals, with contract pharmacy and in-house/mixed-use split billing on one platform.

  • Rebate module: Included for Aventi TPA clients

    Pharmacy and medical rebate claim preparation for the 2027 HRSA rebate model, plus related ESP/Beacon support, is Included for Aventi TPA clients. Covered entities that keep another TPA can still use Aventi for rebate claims—contact us for pricing.

Compare ownership, services and public rebate readiness on our 340B TPA comparison, start with what a 340B TPA does, or see the 2027 rebate model.

FAQ

340B TPA fee questions, answered

Industry sources describe several patterns: a percentage of 340B savings (sometimes called contingency or performance-based), a flat monthly fee (often per contract pharmacy), a per-claim or per-matched-charge fee, or a hybrid that combines a flat fee with a savings share. Peer-reviewed research notes that TPA compensation is not well standardized and is thought to include dispensing-basis fees, a share of the 340B spread, or both.

In contingency (or percent-of-savings) pricing, the TPA’s administrative fee is tied to 340B savings the program actually produces rather than only a fixed subscription. Covered entities still need to read the contract for definitions of “savings,” minimums, what happens on claim reversals, and whether other line-item fees sit underneath the share.

A true-up is an end-of-period reconciliation that adjusts fees or inventory/purchase splits after the fact—often monthly—when earlier estimates or batch processes did not match final eligible utilization. Some platforms emphasize real-time claim capture and purchase splitting so that adjustment cycle is not required; ask any vendor how (and how often) they reconcile.

Typically three commercial relationships sit alongside HRSA’s compliance framework: the covered entity’s written contract with each pharmacy, the pharmacy’s dispensing fee for filling 340B prescriptions, and the covered entity’s separate agreement with a TPA for software and administration. Revenue may pass from the pharmacy to the covered entity on a bill-at-dispense or bill-at-replenishment schedule, less the contracted pharmacy fee. HRSA still holds the covered entity responsible for diversion and duplicate-discount controls.

No. HRSA publishes contract pharmacy compliance expectations—written contracts, OPAIS registration, oversight, audits and auditable records—but does not publish a TPA fee schedule. Fee terms are negotiated commercially between the covered entity and its vendors.

Trade guidance for covered entities flags minimum administrative thresholds, switch or gateway fees, bank transaction fees to collect pharmacy remittances, charges to customize reports, automatic annual increases, fees to reclassify claim eligibility, evergreen renewal clauses, whether the TPA keeps its fee when claims reverse, and implementation timeline penalties. Ask for a full fee schedule—not just the headline model.

Aventi’s TPA services for contract pharmacy and split billing are contingency-based, with no true-ups. The rebate module is Included for Aventi TPA clients. Aventi serves 300 covered entities, 24 of them hospitals. See aventihealth.com/340b-tpa-comparison for a sourced side-by-side with other TPAs; contact Aventi for a program-specific proposal rather than relying on any published dollar figure.

No. HRSA’s 2010 contract pharmacy notice states that using a contract pharmacy does not lessen the covered entity’s duty, and that the covered entity bears full responsibility and accountability for preventing diversion and duplicate discounts. A TPA’s fee buys tools and workflows; it does not transfer statutory accountability.

Sources

  1. HRSA, Contract Pharmacy Services — https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/implementation-contract
  2. HRSA, What are the audit and compliance parameters under the contract pharmacy guidelines? — https://www.hrsa.gov/about/faqs/what-are-audit-compliance-parameters-under-contract-pharmacy-guidelines
  3. Federal Register, Notice Regarding 340B Drug Pricing Program—Contract Pharmacy Services (75 FR 10272, March 5, 2010) — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/03/05/2010-4755/notice-regarding-340b-drug-pricing-program-contract-pharmacy-services
  4. Health Affairs Scholar / PMC, Growing administrative complexity in the 340B program and the rise of third-party administrators (PMC10986201) — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10986201/
  5. 340B Report, "10 Questions to Ask Your 340B TPA About Contract and Fees" (October 19, 2023; sponsored content) — https://340breport.com/10-questions-to-ask-your-340b-tpa-about-your-contract-and-fees-sponcon-maxor/
  6. Lockton Companies / Arkansas HFMA, 340B Presentation — Lott (PDF, 2021) — https://arkansashfma.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/7.-340B-Presentation-Lott.pdf
  7. Aventi Health, 340B TPA Comparison — https://aventihealth.com/340b-tpa-comparison
  8. Aventi Health, What Is a 340B TPA? — https://aventihealth.com/what-is-a-340b-tpa
  9. Aventi Health, 340B Rebate Model — https://aventihealth.com/340b-rebate-model

Accessed November 6, 2026.

Related pages

Compare 340B TPA fees against how your program actually runs

Walk through contingency pricing, contract pharmacy and split billing, and rebate claims in one system—before you renew on a fee schedule you have not stress-tested.

See the demo Get a Free 340B Assessment

Return to Aventi Health homeCompare 340B TPAsWhat is a 340B TPA?