Bipartisan Push Targets Pharmacy Benefit Managers
State and federal policymakers are showing rare bipartisan interest in reining in pharmacy benefit managers. Some states have weighed banning companies that own a PBM from also owning retail pharmacies, as CVS does, and two states have adopted such restrictions. A similar federal proposal has drawn prominent sponsors from both parties.
The issue sits within broader healthcare debates over how prescription coverage is managed and how pharmacy ownership relates to benefit administration. At both state and federal levels, policymakers from opposing parties have shown uncommon shared interest in limiting pharmacy benefit managers. Some states have examined prohibiting a company that owns a PBM from also owning retail pharmacies, as CVS does. Two states have enacted such restrictions. A comparable federal proposal has attracted prominent sponsors from both parties.
If such restrictions spread, patients, pharmacies, and companies that combine PBM and retail operations could see changes in how prescriptions are filled and how costs are negotiated. Independent pharmacies and consumers may gain leverage or face unintended shifts in access and pricing. Employers and insurers that rely on PBMs could also adjust benefit designs. The outcome may depend on implementation, market response, and whether state and federal efforts align.