Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pharmacy Benefit Managers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas lawmakers approve ban on PBMs owning retail pharmacies after hours of testimony
Summary
The Arkansas Senate on voice vote approved House Bill 1150, a measure that prohibits pharmacy benefit managers that operate retail or mail-order pharmacies from simultaneously controlling PBM services, after several hours of pro- and anti-bill testimony from pharmacists, patient advocates, insurers and business groups.
Little Rock — The Arkansas Senate approved House Bill 1150 on a voice vote after a hearing that drew dozens of witnesses and nearly three hours of testimony for and against a proposal to end certain vertical integration by pharmacy benefit managers.
The bill, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Kim Hammer and introduced in the House by Rep. Jeremiah Moore, prohibits a PBM from simultaneously operating a pharmacy that dispenses prescriptions in Arkansas, with limited exceptions and a delayed effective date of Jan. 1, 2026. Supporters told senators the law aims to stop practices they said steer patients toward PBM‑owned pharmacies and raise prices; opponents said the measure would disrupt pharmacy access and cost jobs.
Supporters argued the bill restores patient choice and local access. “This bill stops anti‑competitive acts of monopolies who have raised prescription drug prices and stripped access from Arkansans,” said Sen. Kim Hammer, who ran the presentation and yielded to pharmacists and patient advocates. Pharmacists and patient advocates described examples they said showed patients steered to mail‑order or PBM‑affiliated specialty pharmacies, sometimes with worse outcomes. Loretta Bosing, founder of Unite for Safe Medications, said mail shipments had damaged temperature‑sensitive drugs and forced families to absorb the consequences; “That’s what makes a specialty drug a specialty drug,” she said.
Pharmacy trade groups and independent pharmacists pressed senators with data and examples they said showed PBM‑affiliated pharmacies receiving higher reimbursements and steering patients. Greg Bridal of the American Pharmacy Cooperative said audits and FTC reports show PBMs steer billions into their own channels. John Benson, CEO of the Arkansas Pharmacists Association, said the bill offers PBMs a choice: be a PBM or be a pharmacy, but not both.
Opponents, including large retail chains and a national PBM, warned of job losses and patient disruption. Ashley Ellis, a CVS district leader who supports more than 20 Arkansas stores, said a vote for the bill would cost her and hundreds of colleagues their jobs. Randy Zook of the Arkansas State Chamber said existing state laws and enforcement tools already address bad actors and urged regulators rather than a structural ban. Navitus, a pass‑through PBM, and specialty providers including Accredo argued the change would reduce services or increase costs.
Senators asked detailed questions about specialty medicines, TRICARE and veteran access, and enforcement. Supporters pointed to a Federal Trade Commission review cited at the hearing that found a high share of expensive specialty drug dollars routed to a few PBM‑affiliated pharmacies; opponents said the FTC work did not amount to a court ruling that the companies are monopolies.
After more than three hours of public testimony and extended questioning, the Senate moved the bill. A voice vote was recorded with senators answering “aye”; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the committee transcript. The chair announced the bill passed.
Votes at a glance: Motion to pass House Bill 1150 (motion recorded in committee): moved and closed as noted in committee; outcome: approved (voice vote). The bill contains an implementation provision delaying effect until Jan. 1, 2026, and preserves limited authority for the Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy to issue special permits in narrowly defined cases, according to proponents’ remarks.
Why it matters: Supporters say the measure curbs alleged anti‑competitive steering and could expand local dispensing of specialty medicines and community pharmacy viability. Opponents say it risks employment losses and patient disruption, and question whether state law or enforcement would be a better remedy. The debate highlighted federal programs such as TRICARE and VA pharmacy arrangements and left several implementation questions for regulators.
What’s next: The bill passed the committee and will proceed through the legislative process. Implementation questions — including how the law will interact with federal programs and how enforcement will be structured — will likely surface as the bill moves to later stages.
