Pay transparency has quickly emerged as one of the biggest workforce issues in the life sciences industry today. As states continue to introduce new regulations, companies are being required to more closely examine how they share pay information with job candidates and current employees. Employers across industries are adapting to rising expectations for pay practices that are clearer, more consistent, and easier to understand. In an industry characterized by intense competition for specialized and high-level talent and complex compensation structures, life sciences leaders must treat pay transparency not merely as a compliance requirement, but as a strategic priority requiring strong internal alignment across an evolving global landscape.
Despite slight location-specific variations in requirements, most pay transparency laws are built around similar concepts. Employers must list pay ranges in job postings or provide them to candidates during the hiring process; depending on location, this transparency requirement may even apply to job promotions, lateral moves, or even remote roles. In addition, some states (including California and Illinois) require larger employers to report pay and workforce demographic data to state agencies, increasing the importance of the accuracy and consistency of employee information.
For companies that operate in multiple states, the growing patchwork of rules adds complexity. This workforce issue affects how companies hire, how they plan for growth, and how much trust they build with employees. The emerging new reality is where employers are increasingly expected not only to follow the rules, but also to explain how and why pay decisions are made.
The Power of Real World Data to Study Women’s Health at Scale
Veradigm examines key clinical trends, comorbidity profiles, and treatment trends across adolescence, reproductive years, and peri-/post-menopause. Download it today!
Pay transparency expectations hit the life sciences sector in particularly meaningful ways. Take the high volume of mergers and acquisitions in the life science industry for example. Pharma mergers and acquisitions are no longer focused only on acquiring blockbuster drugs. Instead, companies are buying platforms, manufacturing capacity, and key capabilities across the value chain. Even as overall healthcare deal volume declined in recent years, Bain & Company reports that strategic pharma and biotech deal value rose in 2025, driven by larger transactions and renewed confidence in targeted growth.
This trend has important consequences for life sciences employers growing quickly through acquisitions or expanding into new states. These companies often use centralized hiring and compensation systems to support employees across many locations; however, ensuring systems stay ahead of state regulations can be challenging. Companies may be hiring for research, clinical, commercial, and regulatory roles, each subject to different state rules. When hiring and pay processes are standardized, a small mistake in an application form, interview process, or compensation tool can be repeated across the company, increasing risk.
Companies focused on rapid growth can lower the risk by strengthening their internal governance and risk management efforts. Mergers and acquisitions often introduce legal and regulatory obligations, including new pay transparency and reporting responsibilities. Employment and labor issues are becoming a central part of deal planning and due diligence, adding another consideration to M&A strategy. As transparency expectations increase, inconsistencies can lead to long-term risk that growing companies can’t afford.
Talent is another common issue that challenges life sciences employers. The hiring market for specialized talent, including scientists, researchers, and life sciences executives is uniquely competitive. For high-level candidates with specific and tangible knowledge, training, or experience specifically beneficial to bringing a product to market, companies often craft individualized offer packages amid an increasingly competitive race for talent. The question is how to value highly specialized roles in a way that supports innovation while remaining fair and sustainable. Companies need a thoughtful approach to compensation — pay structures that are internally consistent, defensible, and aligned with long-term business goals. At the same time, companies must be flexible to adapt to ever-changing short-term needs. Companies must also be mindful that once an internal compensation and hiring structure is established, exceptions for individuals who bring unique talent are inevitable. The challenge lies in identifying when those exceptions start to erode the structure itself, shifting it from structured to inconsistent, misaligned, and, ultimately, ineffective. At that point, even a single exception can undermine the posted pay ranges and create conspicuous inconsistencies that invite scrutiny.
Automation Didn’t Dehumanize Care. Bad Systems Did.
We have the opportunity to design systems that give people greater capacity for the work where human presence matters most: listening, understanding, reassuring, deciding, and caring.
A connected workplace where employees talk openly about pay often limits employers from prohibiting or restricting conversations about wages and working conditions. As a result, companies must be ready to address employee questions and reactions once pay information becomes easier to compare across roles and locations. Hiring teams can also expect that candidates will have higher salary expectations, especially when posted ranges are broad to account for different states. Managing these issues successfully requires planning, clear communication, and a compensation philosophy that leadership can stand behind.
Protecting intellectual property and trade secrets is another pay transparency complexity life sciences companies face. How a role is described or how a pay range is presented can sometimes reveal information about a company’s strategy or stage of development. How and when to post certain roles, while still meeting transparency requirements, is another area for careful consideration.
Pay transparency and pay equity also interact with other workforce changes. For example, shifts in immigration policy, labor models, and the use of independent contractors affect how life sciences companies recruit, pay, and retain talent. For employers operating across multiple states with highly specialized roles, compensation decisions are increasingly public. Social media, employee discussions, and expanding reporting requirements have made employers’ pay practices more visible than ever. This underscores the importance of consistency and forward planning in the life sciences industry.
Ultimately, life sciences companies must stay vigilant in complying with evolving state and local pay disclosure and reporting rules, particularly during periods of rapid growth and change. While responding to shifting market demands, organizations must also be attentive to the human side of hiring, retention, and organizational design. A well-defined compensation strategy, coupled with early attention to risk, is key to fostering a transparent and fair workplace.
Pay transparency in the life sciences industry works best when companies are intentional about it. Organizations that take the time to define how they value roles, set realistic pay ranges, and communicate their approach tend to be better positioned when transparency requirements take effect. This kind of planning helps minimize surprises, eases internal tension, and allows leadership teams to navigate pay discussions with greater confidence as expectations continue to evolve. More importantly, it supports ongoing compliance with an increasingly complex regulatory landscape, allowing life sciences companies to stay focused on growth and innovation.
Photo: sinemaslow, Getty Images
Brett M. Anders is a principal in the Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Life Sciences group. He advises life sciences employers on a broad range of workplace law matters, including employment policies, performance management, discipline and termination decisions, and leave and accommodation issues. An experienced litigator, Brett also represents employers in complex employment disputes before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. He serves as the litigation manager for the firm’s Berkeley Heights office.
Matthew J. Epstein is an associate in the Boston office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s Life Sciences group. He advises employers on federal, state and local employment laws and helps them develop practical strategies that address legal risk, operational needs and employee relations considerations. Matt also represents employers in litigation, administrative proceedings and arbitrations involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour disputes, restrictive covenants and other workplace claims. He regularly assists employers with workplace policies, employment agreements and compliance with evolving employment regulations.
Margaret (Peggy) J. Strange is a principal in the Hartford, Connecticut, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Life Sciences group. She advises life sciences and other employers on complex workplace issues, translating emerging legal and industry developments into practical business guidance. Peggy’s counseling and litigation practice spans a broad range of employment law matters, with a particular focus on high-profile disputes, complex harassment and discrimination allegations, and workplace situations involving social media or public exposure. She represents employers in state and federal courts and appellate proceedings.
This post appears through the MedCity Influencers program. Anyone can publish their perspective on business and innovation in healthcare on MedCity News through MedCity Influencers. Click here to find out how.