
State PBM regulation hits a SCOTUS roadblock
Driving the Day
STATES DEALT A PBM BLOW — The Supreme Court declined Monday to consider an appellate court's 2023 decision overturning portions of an Oklahoma law regulating pharmacy benefit managers, raising questions about the implications for state actions to rein in the companies' business practices.
The 10th Circuit appeals court ruled that federal laws regulating private employer-sponsored health plans and Medicare's drug benefit preempt the 2019 state law's provisions that aimed to bolster independent pharmacies' bargaining power with PBMs, which help negotiate retail drug prices between drugmakers and payers. Community pharmacies have long panned the middlemen — which are responsible for 80 percent of the market — for steering customers toward pharmacy chains they own.
Nearly three dozen states and Washington, D.C., plus several pharmacy organizations, joined the case as 'friends of the court' on the side of Oklahoma, illustrating state-level interest in overseeing how PBM practices affect where patients pick up their prescriptions. Several states have considered PBM bills in recent years as congressional efforts to police the industry have floundered.
Reaction: 'We are disappointed, but hopeful that the Court will take up this issue in the near future and clarify that States can indeed regulate PBMs in the way envisioned by Oklahoma's laws in question,' Leslie Berger, a spokesperson for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, said in a statement.
B. Douglas Hoey, CEO of the National Community Pharmacists Association, said the group is 'very disappointed' the Supreme Court didn't act to 'reinforce' a unanimous 2020 decision upholding Arkansas' regulation of PBM reimbursement practices — a ruling widely seen as giving states more leeway to act amid Congress' silence.
'Now the lower courts are divided, and the states are confused about what they can do to protect patients and small-business pharmacies from the unfair, anticompetitive practices of the PBMs, higher drug costs and from PBMs overruling doctors' prescribing decisions,' he said.
PBMs celebrate: The PBMs' lobbying group, which challenged Oklahoma's law, applauded the high court's denial of Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association and suggested it portends a similar fate for similar laws in other states.
'In recent months, various businesses and unions have joined to challenge state restrictions on health benefit in Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Tennessee,' PCMA general counsel Jack Linehan said in a statement. 'These cases and the Mulready decision send a powerful reminder that overbroad state laws are not only illegal, but they boost healthcare costs for businesses and their workers.'
NCPA said the 10th Circuit's decision likely stands for now, but only for the six states covered by that court. 'States contemplating PBM reform should not be dissuaded,' it said.
PBMs have taken Arkansas back to court — this time over a new law that would prevent them from owning pharmacies like CVS in the state.
IT'S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. No more excess humidity in D.C. would be great.
Send tips to David Lim (dlim@politico.com, @davidalim or davidalim.49 on Signal) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com, @Gardner_LM or gardnerlm.01 on Signal).
In the courts
MORE DENIALS — Federal courts have rebuffed two attempts by anti-vaccine activists to challenge past losses.
The Supreme Court also denied on Monday a bid by Children's Health Defense — the group founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to have its censorship case against social media giant Meta heard. The group alleged that the owner of Facebook and Instagram colluded with the federal government to deplatform its content.
And the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied CHD attorney Rolf Hazlehurst's motion to reopen his son's case claiming that childhood vaccines caused his autism.
Judge Edward H. Meyers signed the order Thursday, according to the court docket, but the document is not yet public due to court rules that embargo the release of decisions until parties decide whether to request the redaction of any medical or otherwise private information.
Mary Holland, CHD's president and CEO, said the group is disappointed by both decisions. 'It is our understanding that Mr. Hazlehurst is already evaluating the next steps,' she said in a statement.
Separately, she said 'the problem' the organization presented in its Meta case 'has lessened' — seemingly a nod to Kennedy's ascension to power within the federal government.
'The censorship-industrial complex agreements of the past seem to have gone by the wayside, at least for now, and for that I am grateful,' she said.
In Congress
A BBB ORPHAN DRUG WIN? Drugmakers notched a win in the GOP megabill Monday, David writes.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough allowed an expansion of Medicare's drug-price negotiation exemption for orphan drugs to include medicines that treat multiple rare diseases to remain in the package. She initially ruled that it violated the so-called Byrd rule — which limits what can pass with a simple majority during the reconciliation process — over the weekend.
The decision means the policy remains in the underlying GOP reconciliation package being debated by the Senate.
Pharma Moves
Parexel, a clinical trial consulting company, has hired two FDA alums — Dr. Lola Fashoyin-Aje as senior vice president and head of regulatory oncology, cell and gene therapies and Tala Fakhouri as vice president of consulting for artificial intelligence and digital policy. Fashoyin-Aje was director of the Office of Clinical Evaluation within the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, while Fakhouri was associate director for data science and AI in the Office of Medical Policy at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Anindita 'Annie' Saha will take on the lead AI policy role at the FDA's drug division, according to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO. Saha is a 20-year agency veteran who will also keep her role as associate director for strategic initiatives at the Digital Health Center of Excellence within the FDA's device center. Saha replaces Fakhouri.
Shara Selonick has joined the Senior Care Pharmacy Coalition, which advocates for long-term care pharmacies, as vice president of strategy and government affairs. She most recently was a public health adviser at the FDA.
Document Drawer
The Government Accountability Office published a report on its forum on 'reducing spending and enhancing value in the U.S. health care system.
AbbVie is scheduled to meet with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Tuesday to discuss the Health Resources and Services Administration's 340B rebate guidance. AHIP is scheduled to meet with OIRA on Wednesday to discuss the policy.
WHAT WE'RE READING
The Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandate for preventive services may now shift the legal landscape toward defining what constitutes 'evidence' underpinning federal recommendations, Lauren writes.
Kennedy's influence over federal health regulation under a Republican president is being seen in a once-unlikely area — psychedelics as sanctioned mental health treatments, POLITICO's Erin Schumaker reports.
A federal judge ruled last week that the Health Resources and Services Administration didn't violate the law by requiring Johnson & Johnson to get its approval before changing how it reimburses providers participating in a drug discount program, Stat's Ed Silverman writes.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Urged by NBA To Clarify 37-Year-Old Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The National Basketball Association (NBA), along with support from the National Football League (NFL), is urging the United States Supreme Court to provide a definitive interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a law enacted in the 1980s to protect consumer video rental and viewing records. Why It Matters As digital content and streaming services have redefined the modern viewing landscape, federal courts are divided on whether this decades-old law should apply to those accessing free online content. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd and 7th Circuits have ruled that the law does apply to consumers of a videotape service provider's non-audiovisual goods and services, while the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this interpretation. "Only this Court can resolve the split," Shay Dvoretzky and Raza Rasheed, attorneys for the NBA, wrote in a brief filed Wednesday. Newsweek has reached out to the NBA for comment. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, on January 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, on January 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP What To Know The case centers on Michael Salazar, who in 2022 filed suit against the NBA after subscribing to its free online newsletter and watching complimentary videos on while logged into Facebook. Salazar alleges his video viewing history was shared with Meta, Facebook's parent company, without his consent, via tracking software incorporated on the NBA's website. The NBA argues that Salazar is not protected under the VPPA because he subscribed to the NBA's free email newsletter, not its audiovisual content. In October 2024, the 2nd Circuit ruled that Salazar was a "consumer" under the VPPA because he had exchanged personal information for access to NBA content. The 7th Circuit agreed with the 2nd Circuit's decision, but the 6th Circuit rejected those decisions, holding that the VPPA's protections only to those who subscribe to videocassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials. "This case is an excellent vehicle for addressing both the VPPA split and whether Salazar had standing to begin with," attorneys for the NBA wrote in a brief. Salazar's attorney, Joshua I. Hammack, argues that the Court should not consider the case because a final judgment has not been reached, and two amended complaints have been filed since the NBA petitioned the Court for certiorari. "This case is far from an 'ideal' or 'perfect vehicle,'" Hammack wrote in a brief. Newsweek has also reached out to Hammack for comment. In May, the NFL filed a brief supporting the NBA's petition and emphasizing the potential industrywide repercussions. The NFL argued that Supreme Court intervention is necessary to address a rise in class action lawsuits against content providers under the VPPA. "Absent the Court's intervention, sports leagues and other online content providers will continue to face a slew of class actions under the VPPA," attorneys for the NFL wrote in the brief. What is the VPPA? The VPPA was passed by Congress in 1988 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The law is also referred to as the "Bork bill" because it was passed after Robert Bork's video rental history became public during his Supreme Court nomination. The law states that a "videotape service provider" who knowingly discloses information about any of its consumers is liable to provide relief. What People Are Saying Shay Dvoretzky and Raza Rasheed, attorneys for the NBA, in a brief filed Wednesday: "The parties agree that the petition presents an important, certworthy VPPA question. This case is an excellent vehicle to resolve that question and whether Salazar has Article III standing. The Second Circuit's decision on both questions was wrong, and it threatens widespread damage to the modern internet economy. The Court should intervene." Joshua I. Hammack, attorney for Michael Salazar, in a brief: "Nothing about 'subscribing' is unique to audiovisual goods or services. There is simply no basis to rewrite the VPPA's definition of 'consumer' to impose a limitation that appears nowhere in the text." What Happens Next The NBA has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Court has yet to decide whether it will hear the case. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@


Buzz Feed
38 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Brazil's Message To The American People Is Going Super Viral
Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro is on trial for allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss with a coup plot. He faces up to 40 years in prison if convicted. After Bolsonaro lost the election, his supporters stormed Brazil's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace. Sound familiar? It's kind of like Brazil's version of January 6. Sooo, Brazil's Supreme Court has raided Bolsinaro's home, put him on an ankle monitor, and banned him from social media and foreign contacts. Meeeeeanwhile, Trump has been defending Bolsonaro on TruthSocial, posting a letter saying, "I'll be watching the WITCH HUNT of Jair Bolsonaro, his family, and thousands of his supporters, very closely. The only Trial that should be happening is a Trial by the Voters of Brazil — It's called an Election. LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!" Trump also posted a letter to current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, threatening to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods and calling the trial of Bolsonaro a "Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!" "I want to say something to the American people: If Trump was Brazilian and if he did what happened at Capitol Hill, he'd also be on trial in Brazil. And possibly he would have violated the Constitution. According to justice, he would also be arrested if he had done that here in Brazil." People in the replies are saying some sort of version of this: "America is not a serious country anymore." This person commented, "We're a joke to the rest of the planet. We're like the parent in the grocery store who will never discipline their child who is screaming and throwing literal shit at other customers." Another person shared this picture: And this person asked, "Can we deport trump to Brazil and put him in trial there instead?"

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
What is wage garnishment, and what should you do if you're facing it?
What is wage garnishment, and what should you do if you're facing it? Following the Education Department's restart of collections on defaulted student loans in May, nearly two million borrowers could reach default status this month - and have some of their paycheck withheld as a result. That's according to an estimate from TransUnion, which in June reported that approximately 1.8 million newly delinquent borrowers could see their loans default in July. The credit reporting agency estimated another one million could reach default status on their student loans in August and two million more borrowers could do so in September. Consumer fintech banking platform Current shares what to do if you're impacted. As of April, 42.7 million borrowers owed more than $1.6 trillion in student debt, according to the Education Department. And until May, defaulted student loan borrowers had enjoyed relief from a pandemic-era pause on collections. But now that collections have been back for several months, some defaulted borrowers need to worry about potential wage garnishment, which can take a large toll on someone's finances. Here's what you need to know about wage garnishment, plus a few options on what to do if you're short on cash as a result. How does wage garnishment work? Loans become "past due" or delinquent the first day after missing a payment, and servicers report that delinquency to the national credit bureaus if you're delinquent for 90 days or more. In many cases, the loan is considered in default if you miss the payment for 270 days. Once loans are in default, you can face wage garnishment, which means that the loan holder can require that your employer withhold 15% of your "disposable income" directly from their paycheck. Disposable income refers to what's left of your earnings after legally required reductions, such as federal, state and local taxes, as well as Social Security, Medicare and State Unemployment Insurance tax. The garnishment continues until your loan is paid back in full or you're no longer in default, which can happen if you rehabilitate or consolidate your loans. Wage garnishment "can happen without a court order and often catches people off guard, especially those already struggling financially," says Laura Mattia, a financial advisor and senior vice president at Wealth Enhancement in Sarasota, FL. "If you are living from paycheck to paycheck and you spend your entire income every month, this can create a large shortfall." What to do if you are facing wage garnishment When you're facing wage garnishment, paying back the loan in full is often not a possibility for many borrowers. Here are two other steps you can take. Consolidate the loan Loan consolidation involves combining your existing loans by replacing them with a new one. "Loan consolidation is often a mixed bag, which is why many financial experts, including myself, approach it with caution. But in a situation where you are facing wage garnishment, this offers a lifeline," Mattia says. "It's one of the fastest ways to get out of default and stop collections, including garnishment." She adds that it also allows borrowers to immediately enter an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, which can reduce payments to an affordable level, even as low as $0. But it's important to know that it can result in higher interest rates and it also can reset the clock on certain borrower benefits. "While consolidation isn't ideal in every situation, for someone facing imminent garnishment and without the cash buffer, it can be a practical and necessary option," Mattia concludes. Rehabilitate the loan Loan rehabilitation generally involves making nine consecutive payments over 10 months, which can get you out of default. You can start the process by contacting your loan holder. "It's not a quick fix, but it's a clear path forward - and it helps get you back in good standing," says Anna Sergunina, a financial advisor and president and CEO of Smart Financial Decisions in Los Gatos, CA. What to do if you're short on cash While you should prioritize getting out of default to avoid more wage garnishment, here are a few steps you can take in the meantime if you're short on cash. Bring in some extra cash If you don't qualify for an IDR plan and cash is tight, short-term side hustles like delivery driving, pet sitting or selling unused items can create a little financial breathing room, Sergunina says. "It's not about replacing your income," she adds. "It's about keeping up while you work toward a longer-term solution." Trim your spending Review your bank and credit card statements to see what items you may be able to cut back on. Maybe you cancel a streaming service for a couple of months until you're back on track, or swap your gym membership for home workouts. Get paid faster Earned wage access programs let workers pocket a portion or all of their paycheck in advance of their typical payroll cycle, and while some people access these programs through their employers, others can access their funds early through third-party services, including many mobile or online-only banking solutions. Some are available for free if you wait to receive the funds within several business days, or you can pay a fee to receive the money instantly. Make sure you have a fee-free overdraft cushion You shouldn't spend more than you have in your bank account. But if you're facing wage garnishment and short on the money you need to pay for your essentials, it's possible to slip. That's why you also want to have a bank account that has overdraft protection and/or does not charge overdraft fees or minimum balance fees, just in case. This story was produced by Current and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.