Latest news with #IowaCapitalDispatch
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UNI employee alleges age discrimination in lawsuit after demotion
A University of Northern Iowa employee has filed suit against the university after being demoted, alleging age discrimination. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch) A University of Northern Iowa employee is suing the institution after she was demoted from an assistant vice president position, alleging discrimination against her age that led to her taking a pay cut as well as her title and some duties being handed off to younger coworkers. Shelley O'Connell, former UNI assistant vice president and executive director of Student Health and Well Being and current assistant to the vice president, filed suit against the university and the Iowa Board of Regents June 2 and requested a trial by jury. According to court filings, she is seeking funds 'in an amount which will fully and fairly compensate her for her injuries and damages' like emotional stress, lost wages and more. 'As a proximate result of Defendants' actions … Shelley O'Connell has in the past and will in the future suffer mental and emotional harm, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of dignity, lost wages and benefits, loss of professional career, and lost earning capacity,' the court filing stated. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 59-year-old started working at UNI in 2001 as an administrative assistant, the filing stated, and according to her LinkedIn profile, O'Connell earned a master's degree in educational leadership and administration from the institution in 2007. She moved into the assistant vice president position in 2022. In her time in the role, the court filing stated O'Connell received positive performance evaluations and received an award for her 'outstanding dedication and service.' In August 2023, O'Connell had a meeting with her then-supervisor Heather Harbach, the university's vice president for student life, according to the filing, during which Harbach asked O'Connell if she had any plans of stepping down or moving out of a role supervising staff. These questions were 'motivated by (O'Connell's) age,' the filing stated, to which O'Connell replied she had no interest in retiring or stepping away. This exchange led to distance between the coworkers, according to the filing, and O'Connell brought her concerns to the university's Title IX office, saying she felt Harbach was trying to make her vacate her position based on her age. 'Shelley remained committed to her job and providing the best service to the University that she possibly could,' the filing stated. Harbach informed Shelley of her demotion in April 2024, according to the filing, providing the new title and saying her duties specific to her previous role were being transferred to Allyson Rafanello and Nick Rafanello, a married couple. The employees Shelley oversaw were transitioned to work under one of the new assistant vice presidents, and Shelley's pay was reduced by more than $50,000. Allyson Rafanello received an around-$50,000 pay increase for the new duties, the filing stated. In addition to holding the assistant vice president title, Allyson Rafanello is the dean of students and Nick Rafanello is the executive director of university housing and dining. 'Shelley will have to work longer than she had anticipated because her wages were slashed by more than $50,000 per year, thereby delaying her ability to retire,' the filing stated. The plaintiff also had 15 more years of experience at UNI than the new assistant vice presidents, according to the filing, and decades of experience in health care and public health. One of her previous duties was overseeing all university medical facilities, which was transferred to the Rafanellos after her demotion. UNI, and the board of regents, committed age discrimination by setting higher standards for O'Connell than her peers, the filing stated, as well as not treating her equally to younger employees, allowing discrimination from her supervisor, demoting her and offering less pay. UNI spokesperson Pete Moris said the university 'does not comment on pending legal matters.' The university must provide an answer to the petition within 20 days of its filing to the Polk County courthouse. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa Republican tensions mount following Reynolds' pipeline bill veto
Rep. Charley Thomson chats with attendees at a rally against CO2 pipelines at the Iowa Capitol Mar. 18, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The issue of eminent domain as it pertains to a carbon sequestration pipeline project in Iowa has put Republicans at odds with one another, but Gov. Kim Reynolds' Wednesday decision to veto a bill on the issue has amplified the tensions. On a call with landowners opposed to the pipeline project and upset by the veto, Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican from Denison and one of the lawmakers leading eminent domain and pipeline-related legislation, said there will be 'consequences for the governor's agenda' moving forward. 'The governor's lack of leadership is why we are where we are today, and it will affect her agenda going forward until the end of her term,' Holt said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Landowners on the call were similarly upset by Reynolds' decision, following years of silence on the issue. Peg Rasmussen, who owns land in Montgomery County, said 'a true leader steps in when a problem arises' but 'Reynolds did nothing.' 'The legacy you leave behind is one of bowing down to big business at the expense of Iowans,' Rasmussen said. Tensions around eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines have risen in response to proposed projects in Iowa. Three projects, Navigator CO2, Wolf Carbon Solutions and Summit Carbon Solutions have sought to build carbon sequestration pipelines through Iowa. The first two projects were withdrawn, but the Summit project received a permit from the Iowa Utilities Commission in June 2024 and has more than 1,300 voluntary easements signed for the project. Landowners opposed to the pipelines have lobbied for four years against the projects, and in particular their ability to use eminent domain. This year lawmakers narrowly passed House File 639 to change the definition of a common carrier for hazardous liquid pipelines, increase insurance requirements, set permit limits and add requirements to the IUC. Opponents of the bill said it changed the rules in the middle of the game, had unintended consequences to critical energy infrastructure and would stop Iowa from leading the nation in biofuels production. Landowners also directed their animosity towards Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill, namely at senators who failed to take up the issue for four years, then argued House File 639 was a bad bill. 'The fight for private property rights will continue,' Rasmussen, who was part of a group of landowners regularly lobbying at the State Capitol, said. 'Iowa legislators and Gov. Reynolds, we'll see you at the Capitol in 2026, and we can't wait to tell our legislators how we feel about their votes in the 2026 election.' Holt said the 'leadership void' from the governor and 'civil war' among Senate Republicans has exposed the difference between 'country club Republicans' and 'grassroots Republicans.' Rep. Charley Thomson, a Republican from Charles City who wrote the now-vetoed HF 639, and who, with Holt, has led much of the legislation on the issue, said the opposing Republicans are part of the 'anything-for-a-buck 'wing' of the party' and don't represent the 'vast majority' of Iowa Republicans. 'In the governor's view, constitutional rights, such as eminent domain protections, should not be allowed to interfere with schemes to make money, especially if those schemes are being promoted by her friends, supporters, and contributors,' Thomson wrote in a statement. Bruce Rastetter, founder of Summit Agricultural Group, which started Summit Carbon Solutions, has been a top campaign contributor to Reynolds' campaigns, sparking some of the criticism leveled at the governor. In her explanation of the veto decision, Reynolds wrote the bill had 'vague legal standards' and would impact projects beyond just the use of eminent domain. Reynolds cited the permit limits clause in the bill and increased requirements for insurance as setting a precedent that 'threatens' the state's business reputation. Senate President Amy Sinclair had the same beliefs on the bill. In a recent appearance on Iowa Press, Sinclair said HF 639 'was not a property owners rights bill' but rather a bill 'that's just going to facilitate activists.' 'To say I was a person who opposed property rights, that's 100% false,' Sinclair said on the show. Sinclair and other Republicans who were opposed to HF 639 voted for a re-write amendment to the bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, that would have allowed companies to avoid eminent domain and instead pursue voluntary easements outside of the project corridor. It also would have held operators responsible for damage to the land for the project's lifetime. Thomson said Reynolds' stated concerns were a 'polite window-dressing' for the governor's 'real message' that she will 'veto any bill that Summit Carbon Solutions dislikes.' In reaction to the veto, Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, vowed during a Radio Iowa interview to 'work to kill every single piece of legislation that has [Reynolds'] name on it.' The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment on the attacks from lawmakers. Summit Carbon Solutions, in a statement following the veto, said it looks forward to 'continued discussions with state leaders' as the project advances. Thomson and Holt said they are supportive of House Speaker Pat Grassley's call to petition for a special session in order to override the veto of the bill. The motion for a special session, and to override the veto, would require support from both chambers, which Senate majority leadership indicated Wednesday would be unlikely. Corey Cerwinske, a Bremer County Supervisor attending the virtual press conference, said lawmakers should introduce articles of impeachment on the governor for her 'malfeasance.' Holt said while the veto 'may violate' the constitutional rights of Iowans, the governor's action 'probably doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.' In her veto explanation, Reynolds asked the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement a section of the bill that required attendance at informational meetings and during live testimony. This was a problem brought up by landowners and lawmakers during the proceedings for the Summit Carbon Solutions permit. They alleged IUC would send representatives to meetings rather than commissioners, and that all three commissioners were not present during live testimony. The IUC in a Thursday press release said it 'fully supports' the 'transparency goals' the governor requested and 'will begin implementing' the practices. The release said the commission will also reinstate its public, monthly commission meetings beginning in August. 'The IUC remains dedicated to fair, transparent, and accountable governance of Iowa's energy and utility infrastructure,' the statement read. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa Board of Regents hears opposition to proposed DEI policy from students, state officials
The Iowa Board of Regents read for the first time a policy that would bar required university courses with "substantial" DEI content. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Members of the Iowa Board of Regents told the public Wednesday they are listening and slowing down the process of implementing new board policy relating to diversity, equity and inclusion in classroom instruction. Regents said whatever policy is eventually approved might look different than its current form. Regent David Barker said a proposed policy barring universities from requiring students to take courses with 'substantial content that conveys DEI or CRT (critical race theory)' to earn their credentials, with pathways to certain course exceptions, 'will be an important first step' in preventing the teaching of controversial ideas as fact and raising confidence in higher education once again. The board discussed the policy in its June 11 meeting, the first of two readings ahead of a vote for approval in July. Under the proposed policy, students could not be required to take courses with 'substantial content' covering areas 'as primary principals' that include topics like antiracism, allyship, microaggressions, types of biases or privileges, social justice, critical race theory and systematic oppression, marginalization or gender theory, among others. Mark Braun, executive director of the board of regents, acknowledged during discussion the vagueness behind the term 'substantial,' but said board staff will work with the institutions to more clearly define it and demonstrate where it should apply as the policy is implemented. He emphasized that this policy would only apply to required courses and not electives. 'To a large extent, this will help highlight just how many academic programs do not require courses that meet the substantial standard,' Braun said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Also included in the policy is an option for seeking exemption, Braun said, as the board understands some courses must include this content for different reasons. According to the policy draft, universities can submit which majors, minors and certificates should be exempted from the rules 'each even-numbered year, no later than June 30.' The board must approve these requests. Regent Christine Hensley and Barker said during the meeting they learned from the emails sent after the suggested policy was released by concerned parties, some of which Barker said were 'a bit on the arrogant and pompous side' or 'showed a misunderstanding of the policy.' However, what helpful information he said he received helped him determine that a better version of this first-draft policy could be developed. Reynolds vetoes $1.5 million for UNI tuition program The goal behind the policy is not to subdue a certain point of view, Barker said, but to prevent attempts on both sides of the political spectrum to present 'contested, controversial ideas as settled fact.' When the policy was first released, Hensley said the discussion this week was supposed to act as the first and second reading, which she said 'lit a firestorm' in many people worried about the policy heading too quickly toward approval. 'I am a very, very strong proponent of when you have something that is controversial, and I would say that this has been controversial, it's important that you take a pause — you push the pause button — you step back, and you take in information from the various groups out there,' Hensley said. Critics of the proposed policy have done more than send emails to board members — some took to public comment Wednesday to express their concerns. Groups and individuals at the institutional and state level have called the revisions classroom censorship and a violation of the law. While many of the students, faculty and citizens who spoke during public comment thanked the board for pushing the vote back, the consensus remained that the policy would harm campuses and their communities while claiming to protect student rights. After the University of Northern Iowa faculty union published a statement opposing the policy last week, United Faculty President Christopher Martin took to public comment Wednesday to explain the three truths he sees about the proposal — first, that it was crafted from out-of-state recommendations instead of in response to major problems in Iowa, second, its implementation will act as censorship by the government, and third, it is against the law. 'There is no middle position, no position of slight appeasement,' Martin said. 'Either you stand for free expression at Iowa's universities or you don't, and God help Iowa, its public universities and all the citizens of this state if you don't.' Ashley Maempa, a doctoral student studying history at the University of Iowa, said she was 'deeply concerned' with both this policy, which she said was an example of over-compliance with the law, and other legislation impacting her institution and other state universities. While the claim behind making these decisions has been that they are protecting students, Maempa said the policy would empower 'a politically appointed government body to make a political decision about what concepts are merely opinions and what has legitimate scholarly basis.' The people who should be deciding what is taught in classes should be the people who are trained to do so, she said, rather than the board, whose members do not have as much experience in these matters. 'We are not political mouthpieces for whoever is in power,' Maempa said. 'We are scholars, we are teachers, we are students. We ask that you vote no on this proposed policy in July, and we ask that you do your job and take a stand for academic freedom in our Legislature.' State Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, released a memorandum ahead of the meeting going over past legislation and current Iowa Code relating to the duties of the board and education policy in Iowa, and concluded that the board has no statutory authority to limit academic instruction in this manner and would violate Iowa law by implementing the policy. 'No recent legislation has given the Board of Regents any authority over course content regarding diversity and race or sex discrimination,' Quirmbach said in a press release. 'Moreover, existing Iowa law contains strong protections guarding the academic freedom of both faculty and students, protections that the Board's proposed changes would violate.' With the start date a year away, Quirmbach said in the memorandum there shouldn't be any hurry to finalize it before campus community members have the time to fully review it, let alone form and share an opinion on what impacts they foresee. He suggested pushing the vote back to the fall to provide more time to campus constituents wishing to respond, and to the board in order to look more into the 'possible legal and constitutional vulnerabilities and the risk of legal action against the Board.' Regent Robert Cramer said during the meeting he'd like to hear from university faculty about what language they think would be best used to stop the indoctrination of students in the classroom while still ensuring they have the freedom to teach. Hensley agreed that it was right to push the vote back, and with another reading planned before vote, Hensley said it would be all right if it doesn't feel like the policy is ready for prime time even after seeing edits. 'This isn't going into effect until next year, so we've got time to get this dealt with and dealt with correctly, and I think that should be our number one priority,' Hensley said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Reynolds makes ‘difficult decision' to sign bill on pharmacy benefit managers
Pharmacists who advocated for legislation setting regulations on pharmacy benefit managers celebrated from the Iowa House gallery as the chamber sent the bill to Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk May 12, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Calling it a 'difficult decision,' Gov. Kim Reynolds signed legislation Wednesday that's intended to help keep rural pharmacies in business but could also lead to higher drug costs for Iowans. At the urging of the state's pharmacists, the Iowa Legislature approved the measure earlier this year. Senate File 383 imposes restrictions and regulations on pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, that negotiate prescription drug prices between manufacturers, health insurance companies and pharmacies. The law limits PBMs' use of strategies that favor a specific pharmacy to fill a prescription — such as cost-sharing rates, fees, and other financial penalties or incentives. The legislation would also require pharmacies to be reimbursed at the average state or national price for a drug. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Supporters have claimed the law is needed to combat 'anti-competitive' practices by PBMs that they say give an advantage to mail-order prescription refills and larger pharmacy chains that have greater purchasing power. In signing the bill, Reynolds said that while PBMs have helped negotiate drug prices and access for millions of Americans, consolidation has led to only three major PBMs controlling 80% of the market, giving them 'outsized power' in determining what patients pay for their medications. 'But this bill does not signify an end,' she said. 'The complexity and lack of verifiable data made signing this bill a difficult decision and my administration will closely monitor implementation to mitigate and ensure that any unintended consequences for private employers are addressed.' Reynolds vetoes $1.5 million for UNI tuition program A Legislative Services Agency analysis found the bill could result in higher costs and co-pays for the state's health insurance program. The Iowa Association of Business and Industry warned it could result in an additional $340 million in costs for private-sector health insurance plans and add $169 annually to the average insured Iowan's pharmaceutical expenses. Earlier this year, Rep. Jeff Cooling, D-Cedar Rapids, warned that while the bill may initially increase revenue for smaller pharmacies, the added cost for consumers and their employers will give Iowans even more incentive to fill their prescriptions at a lower cost through larger pharmacies. More bill actions See a full list of the bills signed or vetoed Wednesday by Gov. Kim Reynolds here. The Iowa Pharmacy Association said the new law 'marks a major victory for Iowa patients, independent and community pharmacies, and healthcare providers across the state' by ensuring greater oversight of PBMs. 'For too long, PBMs have put profits over patients, contributing to the closure of more than 200 pharmacies in Iowa since 2014,' said Kate Gainer, CEO of the Iowa Pharmacy Association. 'This law gives us the tools to level the playing field and protect access to care, especially in rural areas.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
