Senate panel votes to tighten rules on big pharmacy firms
BATON ROUGE, La. (LSU Manship School News Service) — A bill aimed at increasing transparency in how pharmacy benefit managers operate advanced out of the Senate Insurance Committee Wednesday, signaling a push to regulate an industry that critics say drives up drug prices and puts local pharmacies at risk.
House Bill 264, authored by Rep. Michael Echols, R-Monroe, cleared the committee with amendments that would ban pricing schemes, strengthen oversight and increase transparency in the often-confusing world of drug benefits.
PBMs are third-party companies that manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, large employers and government programs like Medicaid. They negotiate with drugmakers and reimburse pharmacies, all while claiming to lower costs for patients. In practice, critics say they frequently do the opposite.
A 2023 New York Times investigation found that the three largest PBMs–CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx–frequently steer patients toward higher-priced drugs, inflate prices and pocket billions in hidden fees. Owned by major healthcare conglomerates like CVS Health, Cigna, and UnitedHealth Group, PBMs operate largely behind the scenes but have significant control over drug costs for more than 200 million Americans.
These layers of secrecy are what Louisiana lawmakers are now trying to peel back. But the Louisiana bill does not go as far as a law that took effect in Arkansas last year, which has led to concerns that CVS could close its stores in that state.
Echols' bill would prohibit PBMs in Louisiana from engaging in spread pricing, a practice where they charge insurers more than they reimburse pharmacies and keep the difference.
It would also require PBMs to pass 100% of manufacturer rebates to insurers or employers. It also would mandate annual certification under oath that they followed state transparency rules and give the Louisiana Department of Insurance power to audit their contracts and compensation programs.
'It creates a broader model nationally for transparent, fair BPM operations,' Echols said. 'It provides robust transparency, prohibits some of the spread pricing games that have been played in the past, and creates a local pharmacy reimbursement that has national standards.'
Trump signs executive order aimed at slashing prescription drug costs
To some extent, the debate in Louisiana echoes the turmoil in Arkansas, though Echols' bill is not as far-reaching.
Arkansas passed a law in the spring of 2024 banning PBMs from owning or operating pharmacies.
Last month, a year after the law was enacted, CVS Health sued to block it, warning that the policy would force the company to close 23 CVS Pharmacy locations in the state, eliminate more than 500 jobs and reduce patient access to life-saving medications.
CVS Caremark, the PBM arm of CVS Health, manages prescription drug benefits for millions of Americans.
Don Caffery, who represented the Louisiana Independent Pharmacies Association, called some of the changes in the Louisiana bill essential.
'Moving to a model prohibiting steering and prohibiting spread pricing, these are things that are going to keep independent community doors open ,' he said. 'This is simply about allowing the pharmacy to recoup the price of the drug and keep their doors open.'
The bill drew wide support from local pharmacies, many of whom did not wish to speak publicly. Sen. Rick Edmonds, R-Baton Rouge, said he has heard from constituents struggling to get prescriptions filled.
'We are obligated to take up this issue and not let this happen to our local pharmacies or our constituents,' Edmonds said. 'I just want a fair dollar for dollar for our constituents, for our local pharmacies and our providers.'
Sen. Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge, pressed Echols on whether the bill would truly benefit independent pharmacies and patients.
'I think 'scheme' is such an accurate word,' she said, referring to current PBM pricing practices. 'This has been one of the biggest schemes I've seen in a long time.'
But she questioned whether the bill would keep money in the pockets of consumers and union workers.
A representative from a Baton Rouge-based union testified against the bill, raising concerns that parts of the bill might conflict with a federal law that regulates employer-sponsored health plans, but there was testimony that the bill aligns with a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave states limited authority to regulate PBMs, particularly on reimbursement rates.
Still, the amendments added to Echols' bill focus less on rate-setting and more on tightening the appeals process for pharmacies and shielding certain proprietary PBM information from public disclosure.
Echols said the bill began as a transparency measure in the House but has 'broadened' through its amendments in the Senate.
'At the end of the day, if the money isn't going to the patient, it has to go somewhere,' he said. 'This is an opportunity to lower premiums for our people and help our independent pharmacies.'
Louisiana bill inspired by Make America Healthy Again movement heads to governor
Musk calls for killing House's 'big, beautiful bill'
Trump calls for scrapping debt limit
US Education Department to determine funding EBR Schools gets for diversity program
California teen stripped of track title after imitating iconic celebration
Judge blocks deportation of family of man charged in Boulder attack
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know
President Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' introduces significant changes to federal spending and tax policies. Read Next: Try This: While aiming to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and extend tax cuts, the proposal has raised concerns about its potential impact on retirees who rely on federal programs for income, healthcare and essential services. 'These potential shifts could slow benefit growth, raise Medicare premiums or target higher earners with stricter eligibility or tax rules,' said Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital. 'The biggest concern is uncertainty right now, and retirees rely on predictability, so even these small changes can have a big impact on them.' Here are four things retirees need to know about Trump's 2026 budget proposal. According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Trump's budget proposal, currently being debated in Congress, raises the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade, it would automatically trigger spending cuts, including a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare. Such cuts may lead to reduced payments to providers, potentially affecting seniors' access to healthcare services. An analysis by the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy organization, found that the 'bill would undermine access to long-term care by shifting costs to states, likely resulting in cuts to HCBS (Home-and Community-Based Services). It would also make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage and avoid gaps in care.' Find Out: Key programs under the Older Americans Act, such as nutrition services and caregiver support, are at risk of significant funding reductions or elimination. For example, the National Council on Aging found that the Trump administration proposes to move the Aging Network Support program to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and reduce the program's funding by over 40%. The program allows seniors to live independently in their homes. This matters for individuals saving for retirement, because adult children often incur significant costs for caring for their parents. According to an AARP study, 'On average, caregivers spend 26% of their personal income on caregiving expenses. One in three dips into their personal savings, like bank accounts, to cover costs, and 12% take out a loan or borrow from family or friends.' The budget proposes substantial cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could disproportionately affect low-income seniors who depend on these programs for healthcare and food security. According to NPR, 'If approved, starting in fiscal year 2028, states would be required to pay between 5% and 25% of food benefit costs for the first time. … In addition, states would receive less federal support to administer SNAP. The proposed changes would decrease the federal reimbursement rate for administrative costs to run SNAP from 50% to 25%.' An analysis of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts by The Commonwealth Fund found that these changes create ripple effects that affect the economies of entire communities, not just low-income households. 'For example, some of the food purchased in Georgia may have been grown in Kansas or processed in Tennessee, so lower grocery purchases in one state may cause losses in other states,' the Commonwealth report stated. 'A nurse who loses her job at a Louisiana clinic might reside in Texas; thus, a job lost in one state could create economic losses in another.' While the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' proposes extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it does not include provisions to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, contrary to some expectations. The bill does introduce a new $4,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older, providing tax relief for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 and couples with incomes of $150,000 annually. However, the substantial tax cuts and increased spending outlined in the proposal are projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This significant increase in the deficit raises concerns among financial experts about potential future tax hikes to address the fiscal imbalance. 'If the proposal is passed, it could increase taxes on retirement income, making Roth conversions and smart withdrawal strategies more important than ever,' Cirksena said. 'The best move right now is do not wait. Review incomes, run scenarios and add some flexibility into your plan. Better to adjust early than react late.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The entirely predictable Trump-Musk divorce threatens Musk's business empire
Elon Musk's decision to go all in on Donald Trump never made much sense. His scorched-earth approach to breaking up with Trump is even harder to square. As a close Trump ally, Musk's actions inevitably affected Tesla – the biggest piece of his business empire and the maker of one of the most visible and expensive items that Americans can purchase: electric vehicles. First, Musk turned off Tesla's core customers, Democrats on the coasts, by pouring money and using his influence to help Trump return to the White House. Then he took a chainsaw to the federal workforce. Trump confirmed their relationship has soured, with Musk repeatedly blasting the president's sweeping domestic agenda bill in recent days and a public fight on social media on Thursday. Now, Musk's war of words with the president risk turning off the same Trump voters who may have considered buying a Tesla until this week. Not only that, but Tesla's ambitions for self-driving vehicles require government approval, something that no longer looks like a sure thing amid the Musk-Trump feud. Other Musk businesses like SpaceX are built on government contracts – contracts that Trump wasted no time threatening on Thursday. The past 12 months – with Musk marrying himself to the polarizing Trump brand and then breaking up with him – look like a textbook example of what a CEO should not do, especially a consumer-facing CEO. 'It's a bit of a head-scratcher that Musk is going so rogue-negative towards Trump so quickly. It's a potentially very hazardous path,' Dan Ives, a senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities and a longtime Tesla bull, told CNN in a phone interview on Thursday. The Musk-Trump break-up, playing out on the billionaires' respective social media platforms, was both entirely predictable and shocking nonetheless. After Musk blasted Trump's policy bill as a 'disgusting abomination' earlier this week, Trump suggested Musk has 'Trump derangement syndrome.' Musk responded by undercutting Trump's political prowess, saying: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election.' As two of the world's most powerful people continued to trade public barbs, Tesla shares dropped lower and lower. Tesla shares (TSLA) plummeted 14% on Thursday as the bromance between Trump and Musk imploded in front of the entire world. The selloff erased about $152 billion from Tesla's market value and $34 billion off Musk's net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Tesla shareholders are dismayed on multiple levels. First, Musk taking on the president so publicly could further shrink the car maker's customer base by angering Trump backers. 'You could end up alienating both sides of the aisle in the course of just a few months. When you're a consumer-facing company, that's the opposite of what you want to do,' Ives said. Secondly, Tesla relies on the federal government for tax credits and for approval of its controversial full-self driving technology, a green light that investors had been hoping for after the election. Neuralink, Musk's brain chip startup, is also reliant on FDA approval. Bigger picture, the Trump administration will help set the regulatory landscape for autonomous vehicles, not to mention artificial intelligence and other Musk priorities. And the president has not been shy about flexing the power of the federal government to hurt his opponents. 'You want Trump nice in the sandbox. You don't want Trump on your bad side,' Ives said. Bill George, an executive fellow at the Harvard Business School and former CEO of health tech company Medtronic, described the recent feud as a 'brutal breakup.' 'Never go to war with the president of the United States,' he said. 'There's going to be a lot of collateral damage to your business.' Trump threatened on Thursday to go after Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it! SpaceX, Musk's privately held space company, relies heavily on federal contracts, especially from NASA. SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet recently won business from the Federal Aviation Administration to help the agency upgrade networks used to manage US airspace. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, said the lesson is not about CEOs taking political positions. 'The lesson here is that there is no honor among thieves. These are two mob bosses that have had a parting of ways. And now they are going to take each other down,' Sonnenfeld told CNN. Harvard Business School's George noted that Musk and Trump had been acting like 'best bros' just days earlier. 'The lesson here is that you can either work in government or run your business,' George said. 'But you can't do both.' Sign in to access your portfolio

Business Insider
18 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's AI czar says UBI-style cash payments are 'not going to happen'
Americans probably won't be getting a universal basic income as long as President Donald Trump's AI czar has a say in the matter. David Sacks, the cofounder of Craft Ventures and a member of the so-called " PayPal Mafia," which includes Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, is now a top White House policy advisor for AI. It's an important role as rapid advances in AI bring about generational changes in how the world lives and works. The technology is already reshaping the job market, as chatbots like ChatGPT begin to do the work of entry-level employees. Those at the forefront of the AI revolution have long warned about the risk AI poses to jobs, and have called for a universal basic income to soften the blow. A UBI is a government program that distributes no-strings-attached checks to all residents to spend how they please. Numerous cities and states are already experimenting with its humble cousin, a guaranteed basic income, which distributes checks to specific populations in need. The idea has a long history, and support for these kinds of programs has skyrocketed at the local level in recent years. Any consideration of a basic income at the federal level, however, will likely have to wait. Sacks is not a fan. The AI czar said on X this week that such government "welfare" is a "fantasy." "The future of AI has become a Rorschach test where everyone sees what they want. The Left envisions a post-economic order in which people stop working and instead receive government benefits," Sacks wrote. "In other words, everyone on welfare. This is their fantasy; it's not going to happen." Although reports from recipients who participate in basic income programs are overwhelmingly positive, they have faced political pushback. Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts have gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks increase reliance on the government and dissuade recipients from working. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman helped fund one of the largest basic income studies, which found, in part, that it encouraged recipients to work harder. Elon Musk, who until recently was the face of Trump's effort to reduce government spending, has said a basic income will likely play a role in future economies as AI continues to rapidly develop. Sacks' comments came as another prominent AI leader, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, called for not just a universal basic income, but a "universal high income" at SXSW in London this week. When asked about AI's impact on jobs, Hassabis said there would be a "huge amount of change," but that "new, even better" jobs could replace affected positions and boost productivity. "Beyond that, we may need things like universal high income or some way of distributing all the additional productivity that AI will produce in the economy," Hassabis said.