Illinois bill aims to lower prescription costs, rein in pharmacy benefit managers
A bill that seeks to control the rising cost of prescription drugs while also offering financial help for many small, independent pharmacies in Illinois cleared the state Senate on Thursday and awaits action in the House.
The bill, known as the Prescription Drug Affordability Act, contained in House Bill 1697, would put new regulations and impose new fees on a large but little understood segment of the prescription drug industry — pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.
'This really restricts the ability of PBMs to extract large amounts of money out of the prescription drug system,' Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Peoria, the bill's chief Senate sponsor, said in an interview.
PBMs act as a kind of third-party intermediary in the insurance industry who manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of insurance plans. They do that by negotiating prices with drug manufacturers, setting reimbursement rates paid to pharmacies, developing formularies, or 'preferred drug lists,' and maintaining pharmacy networks where insured individuals get their prescriptions filled.
But they have also come under criticism in recent years for being too closely integrated with some of the nation's largest retail pharmacy chains and for helping drive up the cost of prescription drugs, often at the expense of smaller, independent community pharmacies.
'They extract extra profit from patients through opaque and often predatory tactics,' Gov. JB Pritzker said in calling for the legislation during his State of the State address in February. 'Not only are they driving up health care costs for Illinois families by hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but they are also putting small, local, independent pharmacies out of business.'
Many large PBMs, such as CVS Caremark, a subsidiary of CVS Health, also either own or are affiliated with large retail chain pharmacies. Critics of their practices argue they use their position to steer patients to their own pharmacies, often to the detriment of smaller, independent pharmacies. That has resulted in what some people call 'pharmacy deserts' in many small towns, rural areas and low-income urban communities.
'PBMs routinely reimburse my pharmacy below cost for brand name prescriptions, medications where they're already pocketing massive rebates from drug manufacturers,' David Bagot, an independent pharmacist from Petersburg who is also president of the Illinois Pharmacists Association, told a Senate committee Wednesday. 'Meanwhile, they pay their own affiliated pharmacies – including PBM-owned community, mail-order and specialty pharmacies – much higher rates for the same medications.'
The bill would prohibit PBMs from 'steering' insured patients to their own affiliated pharmacies, either by requiring them to use a particular pharmacy or by forcing the patient to pay more for their medications if they use a different outlet.
It would also prohibit the practice of 'spread pricing,' or charging an insurance plan one price for a given drug while reimbursing pharmacies at a lower rate for that same drug and pocketing the difference.
In addition, the bill calls for levying a fee on PBMs based on the number of patients they insure. Money from that fee would go into a fund for the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to award up to $25 million a year in grants to independent pharmacies and pharmacies located in rural counties, medically underserved areas, low-income communities and pharmacies that serve high concentrations of Medicaid patients.
It also would require PBMs to remit all the money they receive in the form of rebates from drug manufacturers to the insurance plan sponsors. And it would require them to disclose to state regulators how much they receive in rebates each year.
Pharmaceutical industry lobbyists argued many provisions of the bill, including the fee levied on PBMs, will actually end up being passed on to insurance plans and consumers, thus resulting in higher prescription drug prices.
'This is not a prescription drug affordability bill,' said Lori Reimers, lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. 'Costs will rise. When you give more money to pharmacies, when you restrict tools that lower cost, the cost of insurance and health plans are going to go up on your constituents.'
Reimers noted that since 2016, Illinois lawmakers have enacted 20 new laws pertaining to PBMs including laws granting the state Department of Insurance regulatory powers over PBMs, all with the intent of bringing down drug prices.
'And I don't think anybody's here saying that drug prices have gotten lower yet,' she said. 'But here we are with a much bigger bill.'
The bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support, 56-1. Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Cherry Valley, cast the only no vote.
The language the Senate passed was an amendment to a House bill that originally dealt with training for 911 dispatchers. The bill now goes back to the House for concurrence with the Sente amendments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House settlement explained: How Louisville Cardinals, Kentucky Wildcats would be impacted
Roughly five years after its initial filing, the House v. NCAA settlement is still awaiting a decision from the courts. It's one of the most talked-about lawsuits in the history of college athletics. And for good reason. If approved, the settlement would establish a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing model between schools and athletes. Advertisement Industry leaders have been operating for months under the assumption that the agreement would go through this spring and go into effect July 1, including those at the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky. But they've yet to receive the all-clear. Here's everything you need to know about the settlement, including how Kentucky's two major schools are planning for two different futures: one where the agreement is approved and one where it's not. What is the House v. NCAA settlement? The proposed House settlement stems from the merging of three different lawsuits filed by current and former Division I athletes against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA. Advertisement Plaintiffs Grant House (former Arizona State swimmer) and Sedona Prince (former Texas, Oregon and TCU basketball player) filed a class-action complaint in June 2020 alleging that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by restricting athletes' ability to profit off their name, image and likeness. Former Oklahoma State running back Chuba Hubbard and former Duke defensive tackle DeWayne Carter filed similar complaints against the NCAA and power conferences. Judge Claudia Wilken, who previously presided over the Alston v. NCAA lawsuit finding the NCAA in violation of antitrust laws by capping the value of athletic scholarships, later consolidated the House suit with Hubbard and Carter. On Oct. 7, Wilken granted the House settlement preliminary approval. That version of the settlement would provide $2.8 billion in back damages to athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. It would also bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. But one aspect of the agreement has delayed her final decision by nearly two months. Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the April 7 final approval hearing in Oakland, California. Afterward, Wilken gave attorneys two weeks to amend the roster limit concept. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — agreed to an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. The settlement has been back in Wilken's hands since May 16. How will settlement money be distributed? As the settlement currently stands, $2.8 billion would be provided to college athletes who could not profit off their NIL between 2016 and Sept. 15, 2024. These athletes had to file objections to or claims to be part of the settlement before Jan. 31. About 40,000 filed claims suggesting they would participate in the settlement, Front Office Sports reported in February. Advertisement The backpay is to be doled out over 10 years — 60% by the NCAA from its reserves and 40% from schools. In addition to damages, the House settlement would bring revenue sharing to college sports starting July 1 with a projected cap for 2025-26 of $20.5 million per school. How that money is divvied up will be left to individual institutions. Louisville athletics director Josh Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Kentucky athletics director Mitch Barnhart told the CJ at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. Front Office Sports reported that power conference schools are expected to dedicate 75% of the $20.5 million toward their football programs. Texas Tech's reported breakdown gives 74% to football, 17% to 18% to men's basketball, 2% to women's basketball, 1.8% to baseball and the rest to other sports. That's $15.17 million for football, $3.69 million for men's basketball and $410,000 for women's basketball. How much are college athletes getting paid? College athletes would make money through revenue-sharing agreements with their schools and still be eligible for third-party NIL deals if the settlement is approved. However, the NIL market would be more heavily monitored than it is now under an enforcement structure that some industry leaders are skeptical of. Advertisement All NIL deals exceeding $600 will have to be reported to and pass through a clearinghouse called 'NIL go,' starting three days after the settlement is approved. NIL go will be operated by Deloitte with the purpose of assessing athletes' fair market value. Officials from the clearinghouse have been sharing data about past deals with athletics directors and coaches over the last several weeks, including 70% of agreements from collectives would not have passed through NIL go; 80% of NIL deals with public companies were valued at less than $10,000; And 99% of those deals were valued at less than $100,000 Those numbers are a far cry from the millions collectives have reportedly spent on athletes over the last four years or so. Restricting compensation in this way feels, to some, like a bit of a step backward. 'They're just encouraging people to cheat again,' Dan Furman, president of Louisville's official collective 502Circle, told The Courier Journal. Advertisement SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey spoke about the clearinghouse at spring meetings. When asked directly if he had confidence in these guardrails, Sankey said yes. "People are going to have opinions," he said. "Nothing ever worked when people sat around and said, 'Well, this won't work.' We're adults, we're leaders, and I think I communicated this (recently), we have a responsibility to make this work." Why roster limits are delaying Judge Claudia Wilken's decision? Instead of scholarship limits, the version of the House settlement Wilken granted preliminary approval to established roster caps. This structure would cause thousands of athletes across the country to lose their spots — mainly in football and Olympic sports. Objectors spoke out against roster limits at the final approval hearing in Oakland on April 7. Advertisement Wilken told attorneys they needed to fix this issue or else she would reject the settlement. She suggested grandfathering in athletes already on existing rosters. Executives from the Power Four conferences came back with an optional grandfathering-in model for schools. Objectors then argued for mandatory grandfathering, but lawyers from the NCAA and power conferences maintained that their proposal should satisfy Wilken's demands and solicit approval. What does Kentucky's NIL bill say? Several states have laws permitting schools to directly pay college athletes — including Kentucky. The commonwealth passed Senate Bill 3 in March, amending its previous NIL legislation so state universities could legally operate within the House settlement's proposed revenue-sharing model. Advertisement Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reported in early May that athletics directors predict many schools will use state law to begin paying athletes, regardless of whether Wilken denies the settlement. One AD told Yahoo!: 'What can the NCAA do about it?' What will Louisville do if Judge Claudia Wilken rejects House v. NCAA settlement? If Wilken denies the settlement, U of L will likely move forward with paying its athletes directly, Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings. 'That's probably the path we would go down,' Heird said. 'Just from the standpoint of the more control you can have of the situation, the better. It's been a little bit disjointed with outside entities, collectives, doing things. So I would presume that's the road we would go down.' Advertisement Should the settlement get denied, U of L wouldn't be beholden to the $20.5 million cap. Instead, paying athletes would just 'be a budget constraint,' Heird said. 'But I'd contend it's a budget constraint now.' What is Kentucky's NIL budget? UK, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. UK totaled $129.2 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Barnhart told The Courier Journal at SEC spring meetings that, rather than establishing firm percentages of the $20.5 million for each program, Kentucky will take a less rigid approach to meet each sport's needs year in and year out. What is Louisville's NIL budget? U of L, like all other universities, will be limited to $20.5 million to share with its athletes under the settlement's current terms. This $20.5 million represents 22% of the average revenue of power conference schools and Notre Dame across eight categories, including but not limited to ticket sales and media rights. Louisville totaled $105.5 million across those categories, according to its 2023-24 NCAA financial report. Advertisement Heird told The Courier Journal at ACC spring meetings that U of L knows how it will distribute the $20.5 million among its varsity sports but declined to share exact numbers. Reach college sports enterprise reporter Payton Titus at ptitus@ and follow her on X @petitus25. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: What is the House settlement? How U of L, UK would be impacted
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida lawmakers must take local land-use change limit off legislative agenda
In the last scheduled days of their tumultuous 2025 session, Florida legislators passed Senate Bill 180 'to bolster hurricane relief and recovery and enhance response efforts in Florida,' according to a Senate press release trumpeting the legislation. But among some healthy policy prescriptions, SB 180 includes a poison pill conspicuously missing from that press release: a provision that would prevent any local government in Florida from adopting any amendment that could be deemed more 'restrictive or burdensome' to its comprehensive plan — its blueprint for orderly and sustainable growth — along with its land development regulations (LDRs) and procedures. This is a sweeping, undefined provision that could rule out any changes to local growth guidelines in Florida unless developers agree and sponsor the change. And under the bill, this provision would apply retroactively from Aug. 1, 2024, through Oct. 1, 2027. Which means that if SB 180 becomes law without any amendments, much if not most local land-use planning in Florida will be suspended for three years. When state lawmakers passed Florida's Community Planning Act in 2011, their justification for eliminating the state's land planning oversight agency, the Department of Community Affairs, was that they wanted to empower local leaders to make planning decisions. But with SB 180, they have severely curtailed that power. Ironically for a bill that purports to promote emergency planning and disaster recovery, this provision could prevent local governments from making the kinds of changes to their comp plans and LDRs that would make their communities more resilient to future storms. A comp plan change that would steer future development away from storm-vulnerable areas, for example, would be considered more restrictive and burdensome. Ditto, updated regulations on stormwater management to prevent flooding. Even periodic, state-required updates to comprehensive plans could be called into question. Protest Florida state parks: USA Today Network-Florida Opinion campaign to preserve and protect our state parks These scenarios are not hypothetical. In 2023, the Legislature passed SB 250, a law with a similar though narrower three-year ban on more restrictive or burdensome changes to comp plans and LDRs for 11 counties that had been in the path of Hurricane Ian. This month, Manatee County commissioners were told by the state Department of Commerce that they would be violating that 2023 law if they voted to restore the county's strong wetland protections in its comprehensive plan. As reported by the Bradenton Herald, an incredulous Commissioner Bob McCann said, 'SB 250 was for hurricane disaster relief. How can you say getting rid of wetlands … has anything to do with disaster relief?' It is hard to imagine any reasonable limit on growth and development through a comp plan amendment or LDR change that would not be considered restrictive or burdensome unless a developer proposed it. And if developers object to limits, the bill creates grounds for them to sue. Communities at that point are given two choices under the bill: either withdraw their amendment to a plan or regulation, or go to court, and risk paying the legal costs of the developer who sued them. We'll give legislators the benefit of the doubt, and assume they didn't realize the deeply damaging impact of this provision when they voted for the bill. After all, the final version is 48 pages, with nearly 1,400 lines of text. And it was amended no less than 10 times between its introduction and final passage, likely making its details a mystery to many of the members who voted to approve it. This is but one example of the deeply flawed process that repeatedly leads to laws laced with unintended consequences. Legislative budget battle: Florida lawmakers paralyzed over tax breaks they can't afford to give Legislative leaders are currently deadlocked over tax cuts and other budget-related issues. SB 180 passed with only one negative vote each in the Senate and House. Though the session has been extended, the agenda is currently limited to budget-related items and the Senate president's Rural Renaissance bill. But with a two-thirds majority in both houses, the presiding officers could expand the agenda to address the existential threat to local land-use planning in Florida, while preserving the good elements in SB 180. We urge them to do so, not only for the fate of local land-use planning in Florida, but for the millions of Floridians who deserve a meaningful say in the future of their communities. Paul Owens is the president of 1000 Friends of Florida, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to planning for fiscally and environmentally sustainable communities. This opinion piece was distributed by The Invading Sea website. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Florida set to disrupt orderly, sustainable local growth | Opinion
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The lack of housing in New Hampshire is hurting families. Are state senators listening?
Housing is in short supply throughout New Hampshire. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) In the most recent UNH Granite State Poll, New Hampshire residents said housing is their top concern. More than three times as many people cited housing compared to the next most important issue, taxes. Yes, we are experiencing a statewide crisis of housing affordability. This crisis constrains economic growth and community vitality. Yet the New Hampshire Senate is poised to vote on a state budget that turns its back on housing, cutting funding for important programs that help our cities and towns meet their housing challenges and missing opportunities to help developers build housing that Granite Staters can afford. The Housing Champions program was created by the Legislature in 2023 with a $5 million appropriation to provide grants to cities and towns to help them voluntarily change their zoning ordinances to be more 'housing friendly.' Communities that made these changes were recognized as 'Housing Champions' and are eligible for additional funding, such as grants for infrastructure improvements. So far, 18 communities have achieved this distinction, and others are poised to follow. Despite this celebrated success, the Senate has proposed zeroing out this program. This shortsighted decision takes away the principal incentive ('carrots, not sticks') for our cities and towns to make important zoning changes. Earlier this year, the Senate passed Senate Bill 81 (then tabled it to add it to the budget) increasing the annual allocation to the state's affordable housing trust fund from $5 million to $10 million and making an additional appropriation of $25 million to the trust fund. The annual increase acknowledges the rising cost of building homes — the same money just doesn't go as far as it once did. The additional one-time appropriation acknowledges the housing deficit we're in — we need to build many thousands more homes just to meet current demand and help our economy grow. Even with good zoning, the developments that house our workforce require significant financial resources. Witness the several developments that have stalled recently in Concord because of higher costs. Senators gave themselves the opportunity to add SB 81 to the budget and then ignored it. Finally, the Senate has proposed reducing funding to the Housing Appeals Board, an innovative approach to addressing appeals of local planning and zoning decisions. The Legislature created the fast-track of the Housing Appeals Board in 2020 recognizing the delays that housing developments faced when local decisions were appealed to court. Time is money, and delays add to development costs. The Housing Appeals Board has been nationally recognized as a light-touch, small-government approach, and it has shown to be an effective and efficient means of hearing appeals. In the midst of a housing crisis, it is nonsensical to pull back on a proven way to speed up final decisions on development proposals. Our current lack of sufficient housing is a drag on economic growth and is hurting New Hampshire's families. It's time for the Senate to put its money — our money — where its mouth is: fund these vital housing programs and help move the Granite State out of its current housing crisis and toward a better, brighter future.