Senate panel votes to tighten rules on big pharmacy firms

BATON ROUGE, La. (LSU Manship School News Service) — A bill aimed at increasing transparency in how pharmacy benefit managers operate advanced out of the Senate Insurance Committee Wednesday, signaling a push to regulate an industry that critics say drives up drug prices and puts local pharmacies at risk.
House Bill 264, authored by Rep. Michael Echols, R-Monroe, cleared the committee with amendments that would ban pricing schemes, strengthen oversight and increase transparency in the often-confusing world of drug benefits.
PBMs are third-party companies that manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, large employers and government programs like Medicaid. They negotiate with drugmakers and reimburse pharmacies, all while claiming to lower costs for patients. In practice, critics say they frequently do the opposite.
A 2023 New York Times investigation found that the three largest PBMs–CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx–frequently steer patients toward higher-priced drugs, inflate prices and pocket billions in hidden fees. Owned by major healthcare conglomerates like CVS Health, Cigna, and UnitedHealth Group, PBMs operate largely behind the scenes but have significant control over drug costs for more than 200 million Americans.
These layers of secrecy are what Louisiana lawmakers are now trying to peel back. But the Louisiana bill does not go as far as a law that took effect in Arkansas last year, which has led to concerns that CVS could close its stores in that state.
Echols' bill would prohibit PBMs in Louisiana from engaging in spread pricing, a practice where they charge insurers more than they reimburse pharmacies and keep the difference.
It would also require PBMs to pass 100% of manufacturer rebates to insurers or employers. It also would mandate annual certification under oath that they followed state transparency rules and give the Louisiana Department of Insurance power to audit their contracts and compensation programs.
'It creates a broader model nationally for transparent, fair BPM operations,' Echols said. 'It provides robust transparency, prohibits some of the spread pricing games that have been played in the past, and creates a local pharmacy reimbursement that has national standards.'
Trump signs executive order aimed at slashing prescription drug costs
To some extent, the debate in Louisiana echoes the turmoil in Arkansas, though Echols' bill is not as far-reaching.
Arkansas passed a law in the spring of 2024 banning PBMs from owning or operating pharmacies.
Last month, a year after the law was enacted, CVS Health sued to block it, warning that the policy would force the company to close 23 CVS Pharmacy locations in the state, eliminate more than 500 jobs and reduce patient access to life-saving medications.
CVS Caremark, the PBM arm of CVS Health, manages prescription drug benefits for millions of Americans.
Don Caffery, who represented the Louisiana Independent Pharmacies Association, called some of the changes in the Louisiana bill essential.
'Moving to a model prohibiting steering and prohibiting spread pricing, these are things that are going to keep independent community doors open ,' he said. 'This is simply about allowing the pharmacy to recoup the price of the drug and keep their doors open.'
The bill drew wide support from local pharmacies, many of whom did not wish to speak publicly. Sen. Rick Edmonds, R-Baton Rouge, said he has heard from constituents struggling to get prescriptions filled.
'We are obligated to take up this issue and not let this happen to our local pharmacies or our constituents,' Edmonds said. 'I just want a fair dollar for dollar for our constituents, for our local pharmacies and our providers.'
Sen. Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge, pressed Echols on whether the bill would truly benefit independent pharmacies and patients.
'I think 'scheme' is such an accurate word,' she said, referring to current PBM pricing practices. 'This has been one of the biggest schemes I've seen in a long time.'
But she questioned whether the bill would keep money in the pockets of consumers and union workers.
A representative from a Baton Rouge-based union testified against the bill, raising concerns that parts of the bill might conflict with a federal law that regulates employer-sponsored health plans, but there was testimony that the bill aligns with a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave states limited authority to regulate PBMs, particularly on reimbursement rates.
Still, the amendments added to Echols' bill focus less on rate-setting and more on tightening the appeals process for pharmacies and shielding certain proprietary PBM information from public disclosure.
Echols said the bill began as a transparency measure in the House but has 'broadened' through its amendments in the Senate.
'At the end of the day, if the money isn't going to the patient, it has to go somewhere,' he said. 'This is an opportunity to lower premiums for our people and help our independent pharmacies.'
Louisiana bill inspired by Make America Healthy Again movement heads to governor
Musk calls for killing House's 'big, beautiful bill'
Trump calls for scrapping debt limit
US Education Department to determine funding EBR Schools gets for diversity program
California teen stripped of track title after imitating iconic celebration
Judge blocks deportation of family of man charged in Boulder attack
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

15 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What's the best age to buy a house?

Buying a home is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make. So, you may be wondering: What is the best age to buy a house? Are you too young to think about homeownership? Or do you feel like you've waited too long to buy? Here's a look at the average age of first-time home buyers and how to decide the right age to make a move. Learn more: A step-by-step guide to buying a house This embedded content is not available in your region. In this article: Average age to buy a house Pros and cons of buying when younger Pros and cons of buying when older Is there a 'right time' (or age) to buy? FAQs Young adults are now waiting longer to buy their first homes. In 2024, the average age for Americans to buy their first house reached a record high of 38, according to a report from the National Association of REALTORS®. The shift is largely due to soaring home prices and student loan debt levels. Many young adults are also delaying marriage and prioritizing personal growth and career development over homeownership. That said, the right age to buy a home may vary depending on your financial situation, desired location, lifestyle, and long-term goals. Building equity. Buying early and owning your own home for an extended period gives you time to build up equity. Your home equity is the difference between what your home is worth and the amount you still owe on your mortgage. You can leverage home equity to invest or meet other financial goals in the future, and even use it to afford a down payment on your next house if you move. However, you don't accumulate equity when you rent. Predictable housing costs. Annual rent increases are relatively common. But when you purchase a home with a fixed-rate mortgage, you get set monthly mortgage payments. (Note: Property taxes, homeowners insurance, and homeowners' association fees, if applicable, may fluctuate over time.) Tax perks. You can save at tax time by deducting mortgage interest, property taxes, and other home costs on your return. Homeowners who itemize deductions can take advantage of this perk. Reach out to a tax professional to learn more. Freedom of expression. Most landlords impose restrictions on the customizations you can make to rental properties. Owning a home, though, means you can renovate or upgrade your space to make it more functional. Lower price point. Home prices generally rise over time. So, buying young means you can take advantage of the lower price point. Plus, if you stay in the house for a long time, you could pay off your home loan before you retire. Limited mobility. Leasing means you only have to stay put for a year (or less in some cases) before you can relocate. But buying a home is more of a long-term investment, and selling too prematurely could be costly. Lending terms. There are loan programs for people with low or no credit scores or those with limited income, minimal cash reserves, or high debt levels. The problem is, you may not qualify for the best lending terms offered to prospective buyers. Specifically, you could get stuck paying a higher mortgage stability. Buying in your middle or older years gives you more time to build a solid financial foundation. Remember, good credit, ample reserves, and a low debt-to-income ratio make you more attractive to lenders. More clarity. It's also highly likely that you'll have more clarity on where you want to live long term when you're older. Whether you're retiring in your dream area or relocating to be closer to adult children, buying a home later in life can bring peace of mind. You'll have confidence knowing you're living exactly where you want to be. Forfeited equity growth. Again, buying young can work in your favor as home values climb. But buying older gives you less time to build up equity that you can convert to cash to use however you see fit. Mortgage payments during retirement. Some homeowners experience a significant dip in income during their golden years. Unfortunately, costly mortgage payments could stretch your budget thin. Uncertainty. There's no way to know what the future holds. You could face medical challenges or other unexpected obstacles as you age that make it difficult for you to afford or maintain your dream home. The right time to buy a home isn't always about age. It's more about your financial situation, future plans, and ability to manage homeownership costs. Here are some questions to ponder: Do you meet the lending criteria for a mortgage? Do you have a minimal debt load? Can you afford to make a down payment on a new home? Do you have at least three to six months of expenses saved for emergencies? Can you comfortably afford the monthly mortgage payments? Do you plan to live in the home for an extended period of time? Do you have the means to cover maintenance and repairs? Do you have a designated point of contact to assist with questions or address your needs? Answering yes to most of these questions is a sign that you're ready to buy a home, regardless of your age. Before moving forward, analyze your situation, needs, and goals to make an informed decision. Dig deeper: Should you buy a house? How to know if you're ready. A 2024 National Association of REALTORS® report revealed that the average age of first-time home buyers is 38. However, depending on your financial situation and goals, the right age for you could be much younger or older. Again, there's no right or wrong age to purchase a home, as it depends on your unique situation. However, most states require you to be at least 18 unless an adult signs real estate contracts on your behalf. If you're financially stable with a solid credit profile, adequate savings, and a clear vision for your future, homeownership in your 20s could be a smart financial move. You'll have several years to build equity, benefit from predictable housing costs, and even enjoy a paid-off home before retirement should you purchase your 'forever home.' Laura Grace Tarpley edited this article.

Miami Herald

24 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Will skipping ‘Made in China' beat tariff price hikes?

For most shoppers, "Made in China" has been a way of life for consumers. The mark is on seemingly everything. That has consumers concerned about how tariffs and trade battles between the United States and China might hit home, literally. If tariffs ultimately act as a tax on consumers – most economists say they do – how can Americans avoid paying higher prices? Stop buying things that were made in China. That's easier said than Trump recently took to Truth Social to say that the United States and China have a deal that's done, pending final approval of leaders from both countries. He said that U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% on Chinese goods, while China's tariffs remain at 10%. Officially, tariff plans with China and other countries are on hold until July 9, but U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said several times that the 55% tariff "definitely" will not change. Related: Major housing expert predicts huge change to mortgage rates in 2026 While many of the harshest tariff hikes face legal challenges, current U.S. tariff rates are at their highest levels in nearly a century; estimates from the Yale Budget Lab say that's costing the average U.S. consumer an extra $2,500 a year. A recent study by covering consumer sentiment about tariffs shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe tariffs will have a negative impact on their personal finances. Just over 40% of respondents said tariffs would "greatly worsen" their personal finances. But even if consumers decide to tackle the China tariff problem by eliminating spending on goods from the country, it doesn't mean they will save money. They also will find the task daunting, if not impossible. That's according to journalist Sara Bongiorni, who tried to live without goods from China for a year back in the early 2000s; the trials and tribulations of her effort became the basis for her book, "A Year Without Made in China." Bongiorni, now an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University, woke up on Christmas morning in 2005 to a house full of stuff, and as she rummaged through it, she realized almost everything was made in China. "I said to my husband, 'Do you think it would be possible to live for a while without things made in China? You want to try that?' He was not very enthusiastic about that idea, but we gave it a whirl." Related: Forget tariffs, Fed interest rate cuts may hinge on another problem Bongiorni didn't set out to make a political statement or to write a book. She was simply hoping "to understand at a personal level, as best we could, how much we relied on things from China in our everyday, ordinary consumer life." In a recent interview on "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe," Bongiorni recounted how her rule was to avoid the words "Made in China," which are only seen on the end consumer product sold to shoppers. That's a low bar, given that countless products are assembled in the United States or in other countries using parts from China. Those goods-like the ones with the Made in China label-will incur increased costs due to tariffs. Bongiorni noted that in certain product categories – notably toys, household gadgets, many types of electronics, coffeemakers, sneakers and footwear, and children's clothing – it was nearly impossible to find items that weren't made in China. Even when she did find rare exceptions, Bongiorni noted that the options often pushed her to higher-end goods, which meant paying more for the purchase, in some cases, more than she would expect to pay now on goods from China with tariffs attached. "I think there were so many things we didn't buy that year because you couldn't find a viable option that wasn't made in China," Bongiorni said. She also noted that, ironically, it's nearly impossible to celebrate a wholly American holiday like July 4th without goods from China, as the small flags, fireworks, parade toys, festive paper goods, and more were made there. Truly trying to avoid all goods from China – including component parts – would be nearly impossible, Bongiorni said, noting that consumers would find themselves with no easy alternatives. "The share of things, ordinary consumer items from China, account for at least 65% of things you find in a typical household," Bongiorni said. "If you push up [prices with tariffs up to 55%], that is a huge impact, especially when we've got inflation and other things going on in the economy. It's a huge thing for most families to have to shoulder that burden." More Tariffs: Aldi plans huge price cut despite tariffs driving costs higherCar buyers should shop these brands for the best tariff dealGeneral Motors makes $4 billion tariff move Bongiorni does think the United States can bring some manufacturing back onshore, but that will have a limited impact because of the breadth and volume of goods coming from China, and the convenience of having those items and getting them cheaply. "I have a hard time thinking that we can lure ourselves off of our connection to China as consumers as a long-term affair," she said, "but also I can see a huge public outcry because this is going to affect people's bottom line every month." While Bongiorni recalls her efforts fondly nearly two decades later, she says she would not want to permanently do without Made in China, even if tariffs raise costs. Avoiding goods from China and finding alternatives was "incredibly time-consuming." And when there were no viable product options, she was willing to go without certain items for a year, but would not want to sacrifice them for a lifetime. "I do think it's interesting to have an awareness of where things come from, and to get a sense to the extent you can to which you are connected to the international economy on that consumer level," said Bongiorni. "I found that enjoyable and interesting, but the idea of weaning ourselves from Chinese goods, after doing this, just seems very unrealistic.…I can't imagine living like that long-term." Related: Fed official sends shocking message on interest rate cuts The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Chicago Tribune

an hour ago

• Chicago Tribune

How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.