Third federal lawsuit challenges Arkansas' restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers
A woman shops at a Walmart pharmacy in Illinois. ()
A third federal lawsuit, filed Monday, challenges Arkansas' first-in-the-nation law restricting the activity of pharmacy benefit managers in the state, arguing that it limits both a competitive pharmacy market and patients' access to prescription drugs.
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) negotiate prescription benefits among drug manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and health insurance providers, and the biggest ones also own pharmacies and insurers. Navitus Health Solutions, one of the plaintiffs in Monday's lawsuit, urged lawmakers in April not to pass the bill that became Act 624 of 2025. The law bans pharmacy benefit managers from holding a permit to operate a drug store in Arkansas after Jan. 1, 2026.
In Monday's complaint, Navitus and the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) allege that Act 624 will unfairly prevent out-of-state companies from doing business in Arkansas in the name of keeping local independent pharmacies afloat.
'Not only does Act 624 set out to protect local businesses from competition by out-of-state businesses, but it also aims to punish a discrete population of companies for perceived misconduct,' the complaint states.
The Arkansas Insurance Department received thousands of complaints in 2024, claiming PBMs either illegally paid them below, at or just above the national average of what drugstores pay wholesalers for drugs, independent pharmacists and the department's general counsel told lawmakers last year.
Arkansas governor signs first-in-the-nation ban on drug middlemen owning pharmacies
Act 900 of 2015 required pharmacy benefit managers to pay pharmacies this average price at minimum, and the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed and upheld the law in 2020 after PCMA challenged it.
Lawmakers and the Arkansas Pharmacists Association have claimed PBMs also routinely violate two 2018 laws that prohibit them from reimbursing their affiliated pharmacies in Arkansas at a higher rate than their locally owned competitors. The plaintiffs in Monday's lawsuit claim this allegation is false.
'Arkansas has never formally alleged in any judicial proceeding that PCMA's members or Navitus has violated these laws, and such allegations would not hold up in court if ever it did,' the complaint states.
The Federal Trade Commission released an interim report in July 2024 saying PBMs are eliminating competition and increasing drug prices at the expense of patients. The report also states that three pharmacy benefit managers — OptumRx, Express Scripts and CVS Caremark — manage 79% of prescription drug insurance claims for approximately 270 million people. Lawmakers of both political parties frequently cited the FTC report when expressing support for Act 624.
CVS Pharmacy Inc., Caremark's parent company, and Express Scripts each challenged Act 624 in federal court on May 29. Similarly to Monday's lawsuit, the other two argue that the law violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with interstate commerce. The three complaints also allege that federal law preempts state laws that affect employee health plans and Medicare coverage.
All three suits take issue with Act 624's exemption of the state's largest employer, Walmart, from the ban on PBMs owning pharmacy permits. They also claim Arkansans will lose access to mail-order and specialty pharmacy services, which are the only means of obtaining specific drugs.
The lawsuits all ask the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas to bar enforcement of the law as well as declare it unconstitutional.
Similarly to the CVS complaint, PCMA and Navitus' complaint calls Act 624 'unconstitutional economic protectionism, violating the foundational constitutional rule that states may not enact laws to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.'
PCMA and Navitus complaint
'This discrimination is not justified by any legitimate, non-protectionist local interest. Even if the state could articulate such an interest, the means chosen — categorically excluding out-of-state PBM-affiliated pharmacies — are not substantially related to the achievement of that interest and are far more restrictive than necessary,' PCMA and Navitus' complaint states.
The complaint also calls Act 624 an unconstitutional bill of attainder, meaning it imposes a legislative punishment 'without the benefits and procedural safeguards of a judicial proceeding.'
PCMA and Navitus' lawsuit claims that more than 40 pharmacies that cumulatively employ more than 600 Arkansans will lose their permits and be forced to close by the end of the year. CVS claims in its lawsuit that it will be forced to close 23 pharmacies that served more than 340,000 patients and filled over 2.4 million prescriptions in 2024.
Express Scripts' complaint states that Act 624 'imperils the health' of the 50,000 Arkansans it serves, including members of the military, their families and veterans because the PBM is the primary mail-order pharmacy provider for Tricare, the military's health insurance program.
Act 624 allows the state pharmacy board to issue limited permits to PBMs if they provide 'drugs that are otherwise unavailable in the market to a patient or a pharmacy that would otherwise be prohibited' under the law.
Attorney General Tim Griffin reiterated a previous statement that he will defend Act 624 from its challengers.
'PBMs leverage their affiliated pharmacies to manipulate prices, corrupt the market, and destroy competition,' Griffin said, echoing the talking points of the law's supporters in the Legislature.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
CVS responds to Gov. Sanders' New York Times Op-Ed about PBMs
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — CVS Health is ramping up its campaign against a new Arkansas law that targets pharmacy benefit managers, publicly clashing with Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders just hours after she defended the legislation in a guest essay for The New York Times. Act 624, signed by Sanders in April, bars companies from running both a pharmacy and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), a model used by CVS. PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for insurers, negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and reimburse pharmacies. In her guest essay on June 10, Sanders wrote that PBMs 'forcibly steer patients away from independent operators' and inflate drug prices. She also wrote that Act 624 lets PBMs keep operating in Arkansas, but, she said, 'they just can't continue to mistreat patients and box out other pharmacies.' Sanders claimed the three largest pharmacy benefit managers handle 80% of U.S. prescriptions and earn 70% of specialty drug revenue through their affiliated pharmacies. 'Now, CVS is threatening to close down every pharmacy it operates in our state — preferring to take its ball and go home rather than divest from its pharmacy benefit management business and actually serve the patients it claims to care about,' Sanders wrote. CVS sues Arkansas over new pharmacy law CVS issued a statement later that day disputing Sanders' characterization of the law, claiming that the new law is about 'choosing winners and losers and rewarding special interests.' 'Out-of-state competitors are disadvantaged,' a CVS spokesperson said. 'In-state competitors, including Walmart, would handsomely benefit from the closures of pharmacies owned by us and others. The losers are the people of Arkansas who will pay more.' CVS says the law could force it to close 23 pharmacies in Arkansas, affecting 340,000 patients, and block its specialty pharmacy from treating 10,000 high-risk patients with cancer, HIV and rare diseases. The company is also challenging Act 624 in federal court, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution. 'PBMs are the last line of defense between drugmakers that want to charge a lot of money, and the American businesses, unions, health plans, and government agencies that want to provide good benefits to people,' CVS said in its response on June 10. CVS argues the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets out-of-state businesses, treats similar companies differently, and conflicts with federal laws like ERISA and Medicare rules. The company also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. 'One state representative who co-sponsored this law owns 13 pharmacies by himself,' the company said, linking to state Rep. Brandon Achor's campaign website. Act 624, introduced as House Bill 1150, was backed by the Arkansas Pharmacists Association and Attorney General Tim Griffin, and passed easily. Act 624 is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2026. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Landry threatens special session over failed prescription drug prices bill
A pharmacy technician fills a container with pills to put into a drug dispensing machine for an automated line at a pharmacy in Midvale, Utah. () A low heat that's simmered for weeks over an attempt to lower prescription drug prices in Louisiana increased to a boil Thursday in the waning hours of the state legislative session, with Gov. Jeff Landry saying he will bring lawmakers back to Baton Rouge to address prescription drug policy. The eight-week regular session ended with lawmakers backing the less stringent of two measures aimed at regulating pharmacy benefit managers, often referred to as PBMs or 'middlemen' that oversee prescription drug programs for insurance companies and large employers. PBMs have faced increasing criticism from patient advocate groups who blame them for high medication prices, while independent drugstore owners say they unfairly favor large corporate pharmacies. Some of the country's largest pharmacy chains, including CVS, also operate a PBM, which critics have said leads fewer pharmacy and medication options for consumers. Landry wanted lawmakers to pass a more aggressive bill that would have prohibited companies from owning drug stores and pharmacy benefit managers, which would have threatened companies such as CVS who own both. The Senate declined to bring House Bill 358, by Rep. Dustin Miller, D-Opelousas, up for a final vote, however, allowing it to die before the legislative session ended. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Instead, the legislature passed what had been seen as a compromise between the corporate chains and independent pharmacists in House Bill 264, by Rep. Mike Echols, R-Monroe. The bill requires PBMs to be more transparent about their practices with state regulators and to pass more prescription savings on to consumers. The Senate also hastily drafted and approved a resolution instructing the Louisiana Department of Health to study the impact of banning PBMs from also owning pharmacies and to produce a report on the subject ahead of the legislature's 2026 regulation session next March. ,Landry was upset the lawmakers didn't go farther, however, and threatened to haul the lawmakers back into session later this summer to pass the same proposal. 'Yes we will have a special session to lower prescription drugs for our citizens. It's that important!' Landry said in an email from his spokeswoman Kate Kelly shortly before the bill failed. It's not clear when the governor would call a special session focused on PBMs. Several lawmakers said he was already on his way to France for the International Paris Air Show which starts Monday. He cannot sign off on the paperwork needed for a special session while outside of the state of Louisiana. Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, told reporters after adjournment the complexity of Miller's bill, along with feedback from stakeholders, led to the decision to back alternative measures. . 'The more that members had the opportunity to really digest what that bill would do – and the conversations they were having back home with both their local pharmacy, the chain pharmacist, who it was going to affect – we really had a difficult time getting a true grasp of what the bill was going to do,' Henry said. The Senate president said opposition from senators to the Miller bill grew over the day Thursday as more constituents and lobbyists reached out to members. He also said a special session on PBM legislation seems unnecessary because the Landry-backed bill wasn't even supposed to get implemented for another two years. 'I don't know why you would call a special session for a bill that doesn't take effect until 2027,' Henry said. Arkansas approved a law similar to the Miller bill earlier this year and currently faces federal lawsuits from two of the country's largest pharmacy benefit managers. Henry expressed reluctance to follow their lead. The Miller proposal drew strong opposition from a plaintiff in one of the Arkansas cases – CVS, which owns the pharmacy benefit manager CVS Caremark. Its campaign to defeat the bill included sending text messages to thousands of members of the public, including state employees and their families Thursday, which led the governor to direct Attorney General Liz Murrill to investigate the company's actions. CVS Caremark contracts with the state Office of Group Benefits for billions of dollars to manage insurance coverage for state employees and retirees. 'This is not an appropriate use of personal information obtained through a state contract.' Murrill said Thursday morning in a news release. CVS had said the Miller bill would force it to close more than 125 stores in Louisiana, leading 2,700 employees to lose their jobs. 'Closing drug stores doesn't lower drug prices. Forcing out 20% of the state's pharmacies only makes pharmacy deserts worse,' Amy Thibault, CVS executive director of corporate communications, said in an email. When Echols made the final pitch for his compromise legislation Thursday in the House, he singled out CVS for criticism, noting he had talked with Murrill about her pursuing charges against the company for violating terms of its state contract when it sent its mass text message to state workers. 'This House is not for sale. This legislature cannot be bullied,' Echols said. Randal Johnson, with the Louisiana Independent Pharmacies Association, said the Echols bill will be a vast improvement over the current PBM regulations in Louisiana. 'We believe the consumer will have an opportunity to find out what their drugs costs, and the consumer will have the opportunity to have a less expensive cost of medication' under the Echols legislation, Johnson said. A special session can last no longer than 30 days, and its subject matter will be limited to what Landry wants to discuss if he decides to call it. Piper Hutchinson contributed to this report. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Gov. Reynolds signs bill to reform pharmacy benefit managers
DES MOINES, Iowa (KCAU) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill Wednesday aimed at bringing changes to pharmacy benefit managers, also known as PBMs. The legislation, Senate File 383, aims to help prevent more independent and rural pharmacies from closing their doors in the Hawkeye State. PBMs are the middlemen between health insurance companies and pharmacies. Whenever you fill a prescription, the PBM determines how much the pharmacy actually gets paid for dispensing your medication. Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline In recent years, that amount has sometimes been less than what it costs the pharmacy to fill a prescription, forcing them to either refuse the fill, or take a financial loss. Senate File 383 would attempt to prevent that by adding requirements for how much pharmacies must be reimbursed for filling medications, to ensure they get paid a fair price. It also adds other patient protections, like preventing PBMs from hitting you with a monetary penalty if you choose a non-preferred pharmacy, or requiring you to use a mail-order pharmacy service to use your insurance coverage. As of Wednesday, a total of 32 states have passed similar legislation, according to the Iowa Governor's Office. Opponents of the measure have argued the bill would increase health insurance premiums, but supporters maintain that in states that have previously passed similar legislation, that has not come to pass. Governor Reynolds released a statement Wednesday explaining her reasoning for signing the bill. In part, it says, 'The new bill takes steps toward addressing these challenges by targeting PBM practices that harm both patients and independent pharmacies. Local pharmacies, especially in rural areas, are vital to community health and local hospitals but are being driven out by opaque, one-sided contracts.' You can read the governor's full statement here. The Iowa Pharmacy Association applauded the bill's passage Wednesday. CEO Kate Gainer said, 'Governor Reynolds' leadership and the Iowa Legislature's bipartisan support of SF 383 sends a powerful message that the health of Iowa communities comes first. For too long, PBMs have put profits over patients, contributing to the closure of more than 200 pharmacies in Iowa since 2014. This law gives us the tools to level the playing field and protect access to care, especially in rural areas.' Story continues below Top Story: Recent incident at Sac County Jail highlights need for new facility Lights & Sirens: Suspect shot at during pursuit in stolen vehicle, Dakota Co Sheriff says Sports: West Sioux boys soccer wins first-ever IHSAA State title with 2-1 OT win Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here The Iowa Association of Business and Industry, however, opposed the bill's signing, releasing a statement saying, 'ABI is disappointed in today's action. ABI testified at every turn in favor of legislation that would support small independent pharmacies in Iowa. The bill that the Governor signed today is not that. Senate File 383 includes expensive, unneeded provisions that are going to drive up the costs of pharmacy services in Iowa without any discernable improvement in patient care. Iowans – including businesses and employees – will bear these costs at the pharmacy counter and in the structure of their health care plans. This is an additional headwind in an already challenging business environment. Now law, ABI will take every opportunity to mitigate the increased costs on our members and their team members throughout Iowa.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
