New Arkansas law aimed at restricting companies from influencing drug prices is first of its kind
At least half a dozen states are weighing new restrictions aimed at limiting pharmacy benefit managers' ability to influence drug prices, including prohibitions on steering business to affiliated pharmacies.
Why it matters: With Congress gridlocked on PBM legislation, more states are taking the lead in addressing industry practices that critics say drive up costs and are pushing independent pharmacies out of business, Axios' Tina Reed writes.
Driving the news: Last week, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a first-in-the-nation law barring PBMs from owning pharmacies in that state.
39 state attorneys general have urged Congress to enact similar similar curbs, saying the companies "wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers."
Zoom in: The Arkansas law, Act 624, received bipartisan support in the state legislature plus endorsement from the Arkansas Pharmacists Association.
"PBMs are massive corporations that negotiate drug prices between pharmacies and insurance companies," according to a news release from Sanders' office.
"However, in recent years these PBMs have bought up pharmacies, allowing them to take advantage of the convoluted healthcare landscape, inflate pharmaceutical prices and push competitors out of business."
Zoom out: Among the states that might follow suit is Indiana, which is weighing legislation that would ban PBMs from owning pharmacies or having ownership ties with health carriers.
Mississippi is working on a measure that would end the practice of "spread pricing," in which PBMs charge an insurer more than they pay a pharmacy for a drug, and pocket the difference. The bill also would restrict patient steering to affiliates and require mandatory data reporting to the state.
Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Virginia also have bills pending.
In March, Alabama passed a requirement that PBMs reimburse independent pharmacies at rates no less than those paid by Medicaid.
The intrigue: Large PBMs often are vertically integrated with insurance carriers, and critics say they're capable of funneling the majority of volume and profits directly to insurers and employers.
The other side: The Arkansas measure drew sharp criticism from the trade group representing PBMs, which said it would force the closure of dozens of retail pharmacies, suspend home delivery of prescription drugs and restrict access to specialty pharmacies.
PBMs like UnitedHealth Group's Optum Rx, which said it had "serious concerns" about the measure and was working with the state to ensure access to drugs for vulnerable populations.
Patients who receive integrated mental health services that include medicines via an Optum-owned pharmacy for schizophrenia and severe depression could be cut off from their drugs, while cancer patients who get their specialty medications at home could lose that access, Patrick Conway, the CEO of Optum Rx, said during UnitedHealth Group's first-quarter earnings call.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Protecting Protest Rights And Dissent Amid Trump's Attack On Freedom
Source: David McNew / Getty The Trump administration's recent militarized response to protests in Los Angeles represents an escalation in its assault against various rights and freedoms. It comes after nearly five months of tactics that contravene existing laws and standards; yet, the Trump administration persists. Civil rights attorney Judith Bronwne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, called out the Trump administration's escalating in Los Angeles as a 'threat to our democracy and our communities.' 'As the administration pursues aggressive and dehumanizing methods of immigration enforcement – relying on racial profiling to target those they suspect are immigrants and then kidnapping and deporting them without warrants, legal counsel, or judicial oversight – it is no surprise that communities across the country are standing up in solidarity with our immigrant families, neighbors, friends and coworkers,' Dianis said. 'Dissent is being met with flash-bang grenades, tear gas, and military vehicles, as protestors are criminalized and their lives put in danger for exercising their fundamental rights to assemble and speak freely.' And it's not just Trump. The Republican controlled Congress continues efforts to pass legislation that not only robs families and communities of necessary programs, but also whittles away at civil liberties and public safety and well-being. Protest rights and free speech have been under attack at the state level for many years. As of April 2025, there were 41 anti-protest bills introduced since the beginning of the year. Even before the 2020 racial justice uprisings following George Floyd's murder, several states passed laws restricting rights or enhancing penalties for protests. But the current protests against the Trump administration's expansive deployment of ICE and other federal authorities, including illegal deployment of the military, represent a broader movement to protest fundamental rights like due process and keep people safe. The way people are treated matters. Resisting repression of these fundamental rights and others remains an essential strategy in safeguarding families and communities impacted by systemic oppression. Protesting and acts of civil disobedience have always been used to object to brutality and injustice. Whether you're a concerned citizen, mayor of a major city, state court judge, or member of Congress, everyone has a duty to speak up and stand firm against tyranny. As we've seen with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, and U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, the current administration does not care who you are or what title you hold. While all the attention has been on Los Angeles, and deservedly so, there have been protests happening across the country. // Here are four considerations as mass protests continue to unfold, including planned 'No Kings' day actions on June 14, challenging Trump's escalating repression Protesting may not be for everyone, but understanding your rights is essential for exercising them effectively. Various advocacy organizations, such as the Black Alliance for Just Immigration and Free Press, have created 'know your rights' resources that provide an overview of the rights at stake and offer tips for protecting oneself and one's community. These guides are not a substitute for legal advice but serve as a valuable starting point. View this post on Instagram A post shared by BAJI (@instabaji) // While knowing one's rights is essential, it's also important to consider personal safety and security. Everyone needs a plan beyond basic situational awareness. The Trump administration's response to recent protests, including those in Los Angeles, highlights the need for vigilance. The escalation of repression and retaliation by the federal government against protesters and elected officials alike underscores the importance of staying informed and aware. Media outlets and social media platforms can often sensationalize events, making it crucial to verify information through reputable sources. Also, just knowing what is really at stake can help raise awareness about the harms being caused and the broader impact. Consider checking out these resources from BAJI, given the escalating immigration attacks and increased interactions with various levels of law enforcement impacting our communities. The media's insistence on publishing what Trump and other officials say without any qualification or context remains a problem. Simply writing DHS says, or Trump officials say, when there is clear information to the contrary, requires more discernment than many outlets give on the first take. Being objective and telling 'both sides' of a story should not require running interference for an administration trying hard to prove its fascist street cred. Similar to concerns raised by community advocates around crime reporting, reports of protests and other forms of dissent require a different lens that doesn't automatically give deference to government authorities. Also, deep fakes, out-of-context photos and videos, and other inflammatory content, since protests first started in Los Angeles last week. As discussed on the recent Wired podcast 'Uncanny Valley,' there is widespread disinfo spreading online about the Los Angeles protests. Take a step back and consider the sources and context of information being shared, do reverse image searches when possible, or simply refrain from sharing a possibly inflammatory post. It takes a few minutes, but it can go a long way in stopping the spread of disinformation at a time when people's lives could depend on it. As we've seen from our ancestors, collective action and collaboration require sustained commitment to defend our rights and freedoms in the face of government repression. Several national and local organizations offer events, trainings, and resources to help individuals stay informed and safe while participating in protests. The Advancement Project, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, the Movement for Black Lives, and many others are excellent resources for finding information and support at this time. In addition to leading conversations on digital safety, organizations like Media Justice provide valuable resources and spaces for challenging the weaponization of technology and digital platforms. Reporting for Truthout documented the expansive surveillance state that is rapidly scaling up, with immigrants serving as 'the first target.' From license plate readers and traffic cameras to facial recognition software, this technology puts us all at risk. The Working Families Party offers an alternative for those seeking an organizing space and a political home outside the traditional confines of the Democratic Party. As a fusion party, WFP often works alongside the Democratic Party, but it also develops its own candidates and infrastructure across the country. // Efforts like the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley offer webinars and research that help bridge connections across groups. Instead of wasting energy trying to change hearts and minds, their work focuses on building across commonalities and shared interests. If you're bothered by the expansion of private prisons for immigration and are thinking about exploring prison abolition, Critical Resistance might be an organization for you. // There are numerous amazing groups doing impactful work; it's impossible to name them all. But you can find a place to plug in and share your time, treasure, and talents. Or look local and see where you can plug in. Ask people in your family or social circle where they volunteer. Everything we do to build into our communities and lift each other up counts. SEE ALSO: 200 George Floyd Demonstrators Gather In Chicago To Protests Trump Administration's Police Reform Rollbacks 19 Unforgettable Photos From LA Protests Against ICE SEE ALSO Protecting Protest Rights And Dissent Amid Trump's Attack On Freedom was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. What's in the bill House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. Who would lose health coverage The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Why Republicans want Medicaid changes Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. What polling shows While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Department's early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up David Becker, a former department attorney who worked on voting rights cases and now leads the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the Justice Department's moves represent a departure from focusing on major violations of federal law. Advertisement 'This would be like the police department prioritizing jaywalking over murder investigations,' he said. A Justice Department spokesperson responded with 'no comment' to an emailed request for more information about the actions, including whether similar ones had been taken in any other states. Conservatives for years have called for an overhaul of the Justice Department in both personnel and priorities. President Trump also has criticized how elections are run, falsely blaming his 2020 loss on widespread fraud. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order seeking a sweeping overhaul of election operations — an authority the Constitution grants to the states and Congress. Advertisement After his win last November, Trump installed key allies at the Justice Department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has made similar claims about the 2020 election. Multiple reviews in the presidential battleground states affirmed Democrat Joe Biden's win in 2020, Trump and his allies lost dozens of lawsuits, and even Trump's attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the department's civil rights division, said most of the DOJ's actions appeared reasonable and focused on issues that had already been raised by conservative activists in those states. They also are the type that would be expected from a conservative administration, he said, with the exception of the Colorado request. He called that 'well out of bounds.' 'This administration has prioritized grievance, even perceived grievance when there is no basis in fact,' said Levitt, who also served as a senior policy adviser in the Biden administration. 'And it's dismaying, but not surprising, that the civil rights division would do the same.' The department's request to Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, asked for all records relating to last year's presidential election. Federal law requires those to be kept for 22 months. In the request, the department stated it had received a complaint alleging that Griswold's office was not in compliance with federal law relating to voter registration. The request also directs Griswold to preserve any records of the 2020 election that might still be in the state's possession. Advertisement Griswold, in an interview, called the request a 'fishing expedition' and said her office responded by providing state voting files. 'I'm not even sure they know what they are looking for,' Griswold said. 'They can request all the data they want, and it's not going to prove anything.' In North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers recently wrested control of the state election board from the Democratic governor, Justice Department lawyers filed a lawsuit accusing state election officials of failing to ensure that all voter records include identifying information, such as a driver's license. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit that accurate voter rolls are critical to ensuring elections are conducted 'fairly, accurately, and without fraud.' The previous board had acknowledged the issue and updated the state's voter registration form. The new board leadership has vowed to address it. In Wisconsin, which Trump won in 2016 and 2024 but lost in 2020, department lawyers recently sent a letter to the state election commission accusing it of not providing a complaint process for those raising concerns. This comes as Republican state lawmakers are pushing legislation to expand the ability to appeal decisions made by the six-member commission, which is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Republican lawmakers have long complained about commission decisions they perceive as benefiting Democrats. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a law firm that frequently defends Republicans on election issues, supports both efforts, said Lucas Vebber, the firm's deputy counsel. 'It's ensuring that Wisconsinites are entitled to have their complaints heard and adjudicated,' he said. 'As something as important as our elections, it's vital to ensure that process is transparent and available to everyone.' Advertisement Representative Lee Snodgrass, a Democrat on the Wisconsin Legislature's elections committee, said state law needs some tightening around how election complaints are handled, but she's dubious about the motives of the Trump administration and conservative activists in the state. They are looking for ways 'to cast doubt on election integrity, so if they don't get the results they want, they can cry foul,' Snodgrass said. In Arizona, DOJ lawyers said the state was not clearly telling voter registration applicants to provide a driver's license if they have one and asked the state to conduct a review to identify any noncitizens. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, responded by saying Arizona requires those registering to vote in state and local elections to provide proof of citizenship and conducts checks using the state's motor vehicle records. In Oregon, Justice Department lawyers weighed in on an ongoing lawsuit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch. It alleges the state has failed to comply with federal laws on maintaining voter lists and making these records available for public inspection. John Powers, a former Justice Department attorney who now serves as legal director for the Advancement Project, said he was concerned about the moves coupled with the Justice Department's staff departures and its withdrawal from voting rights cases. Powers said he hoped, with midterm elections next year, that the department would not pursue minor technical issues in a way that could undermine public confidence in elections. 'I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about what the future might hold,' he said. Advertisement
