Louisiana Attorney General Sues CVS Health Over Customer Data Misuse

Categories: Louisiana Business NewsLouisiana HealthcareLouisiana News

The ongoing CVS Health lawsuit raises concerns about the impact on independent pharmacies and drug pricing.

News Summary

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has filed lawsuits against CVS Health, alleging that the pharmacy chain misused customer data, inflated drug prices, and undermined independent pharmacies. The legal actions, prompted by controversial text messages from CVS warning customers about potential drug cost increases, seek civil penalties and restitution. The lawsuits highlight issues of unfair market practices, price inflation, and the impact of CVS’s dominance in the pharmacy benefit manager sector on local healthcare providers.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana – Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has filed multiple lawsuits against CVS Health, alleging the pharmacy chain misused customer data and exploited its market dominance to inflate drug prices while harming independent pharmacies. The legal action stems from an investigation prompted by CVS’s mass text messages sent on June 11, which warned residents about potential increases in drug costs and possible pharmacy closures if proposed legislation aimed at CVS was enacted.

The lawsuits were submitted in St. Landry Parish and seek “injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution” from the pharmacy giant. Murrill claims that CVS’s recent actions are examples of unfair and deceptive acts in violation of state trade law. The issues at hand include accusations that CVS used its customer messaging platform—as typically utilized for notifying patients about prescription refills—to lobby politically against legislative changes that could have a significant impact on its operations.

The controversy began when CVS sent out the text message alerting customers, a move which has drawn sharp criticism. Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry has accused CVS of exploiting customer data for political means, suggesting that the pharmacy chain’s practices constitute a breach of trust with its clients.

In addition to the allegations of customer data misuse, Murrill’s lawsuits assert that CVS is guilty of artificially inflating drug prices and undermining independent pharmacies. This competitive edge stems largely from CVS’s dominance in the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) sector, where it processes about 80% of prescription drug claims. Concerns about CVS’s market practices have been noted previously; a 2024 report from the Federal Trade Commission highlighted that CVS and its affiliated mail-order pharmacy, Express Scripts, engage in price inflation that adversely affects independent pharmacies.

The legislation currently in consideration sought to prohibit PBMs from owning pharmacies, a move that could compel CVS to close its 119 locations across Louisiana. Such closures would impact approximately 1 million residents who rely on these pharmacies for their medications. Murrill argues that CVS’s current business practices manipulate drug prices, limit competition, and funnel profits back to the corporation instead of reinvesting in local independent pharmacies.

Moreover, one lawsuit alleges that CVS has been under-reimbursing independent pharmacies, leading them to financial struggles while simultaneously encouraging patients to seek their medications from CVS locations instead. The pharmacy chain claims that it should not pay higher reimbursement rates to less efficient pharmacies, maintaining that its practices serve to keep costs down for consumers.

Another significant contention in the lawsuits is CVS’s alleged prioritization of higher-cost drugs over lower-cost alternatives, further distorting the drug market and adversely impacting state healthcare costs. CVS has countered arguments by stating that the removal of its pharmacies from Louisiana would ultimately lead to an increase in costs to the state by approximately $4.6 million. This assertion seeks to illustrate the potential financial drawbacks of legislative changes aimed at CVS’s operations.

In light of the current legal challenges, Governor Landry has indicated a willingness to advocate for new legislation targeting CVS if existing laws do not enable effective prosecution in court. This commitment signals a determined stance against what the state perceives as exploitative practices by a company that plays a significant role in both local and broader healthcare landscapes.

As the state prepares to navigate this complex legal landscape, the implications of these lawsuits and potential legislative efforts will be closely watched by stakeholders throughout Louisiana’s healthcare system, from patients to independent pharmacy owners and policymakers.