Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pbm Perspective topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PBM trade group tells committee HB 1959 is anti‑competitive
Summary
Michael Power of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association testified in opposition to HB 1959, calling it "anti‑competitive" and warning the bill could pick winners and losers; he cited existing Tennessee PBM reforms and asked whether the bill would benefit patients or in‑state pharmacy owners.
Michael Power, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, told the Insurance Committee that PCMA opposes HB 1959 as amended and characterized it as "anti-competitive," saying it risks the government picking winners and losers among firms. "House bill 19 59 as amended appears to provide preferential treatment to some in state businesses over businesses that reside out of the state," Power said in testimony.
Power described the national PBM landscape and urged members to weigh existing Tennessee regulatory tools: he noted that "70 full service PBMs" operate nationally and that Tennessee already conducts market-conduct examinations. Members pressed Power on audit details and potential effects on access; Power said some audits indicate independent pharmacies are often reimbursed at parity or higher, and he declined to provide precise audit transaction counts without the reports on hand.
