Louisiana Senate Rejects Bill on PBM Ownership

Categories: Louisiana Business NewsLouisiana HealthcareLouisiana News

Lawmakers in the Louisiana Senate debate issues surrounding pharmacy benefit managers and their ownership of pharmacies.

News Summary

The Louisiana Senate voted against House Bill 358, which aimed to prevent companies from owning both pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies. This decision occurred just before the legislative session ended, despite the bill’s popularity in the House. In its place, the Senate passed a resolution for further study on PBM ownership effects and approved regulations for PBMs to increase transparency and consumer savings. The debate highlighted intense lobbying from major PBMs and concerns from independent pharmacies about competitive disadvantages.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana – In a dramatic turn of events, the Louisiana Senate rejected House Bill 358, a measure aimed at preventing companies from owning both pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacies, during the final hours of the legislative session on June 12, 2025. This decision came just as Governor Jeff Landry expressed his intention to convene a special session to further address issues surrounding PBM ownership and its impact on prescription drug prices.

With only an hour remaining in the session, the Senate opted to kill the bill despite its overwhelming support in the House, where it passed with a vote of 88-4. Concerns regarding the rushed nature of the bill and its late emergence from a conference committee were voiced by Senate President Cameron Henry. He noted that the bill was not scheduled to take effect until 2027, casting doubt on the immediate need for legislative action.

In place of HB 358, the Senate passed Resolution SR 209, which calls for a comprehensive study to examine the effects of prohibiting PBM ownership of pharmacies. Additionally, the Senate unanimously approved House Bill 264, which introduces new regulations for PBMs. These regulations aim to enhance transparency within the industry and mandate that more savings be passed on to consumers.

The aim of HB 264 was to address growing consumer protection concerns regarding PBM practices. The bill is seen as significant progress in improving the way PBMs operate, as it requires disclosure of operational information and better financial practices that directly benefit consumers. Advocates of the bill assert that it is a step towards greater accountability within the PBM sector.

The legislative debate over HB 358 was characterized by intense lobbying efforts from major PBMs, particularly CVS, which launched a campaign urging customers to oppose the bill. It claimed the legislation could jeopardize the future of its 119 stores in Louisiana and negatively affect approximately 1 million patients who rely on their services. Following the Senate’s decision, CVS maintained its commitment to ensuring affordable healthcare access and supporting community pharmacy benefits.

In the lead-up to the legislative deadline, various public figures, including Governor Landry and Donald Trump Jr., engaged in social media discussions to shape public opinion regarding the proposed bill. This heightened online dialogue reflects the contentious nature of the issue, as both sides sought to mobilize public support.

The legislative session was fraught with tension as accusations regarding scare tactics were exchanged, particularly in response to CVS’s messaging that suggested potential store closures. Customer reactions varied from concern over the possible impact on local pharmacies to indifference about switching pharmacies if necessary. CVS’s promotional materials, including in-store posters, highlighted their “Save our Store” initiative to galvanize customer backing.

In a related development, Attorney General Liz Murrill announced a cease-and-desist order against CVS. The order accused the company of violating state laws concerning the use of personal information gained through state contracts when executing their text message campaign.

The broader legislative discussion stems from significant concerns among independent pharmacies regarding the competitive advantages that large corporations can gain by managing both PBMs and pharmacies. Lawmakers argued that existing practices limited competition and adversely affected the profitability of independent pharmacy operators.

As the session concluded, the fate of PBM ownership remains uncertain, with the Senate having called for further studies and discussions on potential regulatory changes. The outcome signals a willingness to continue examining the complexities surrounding PBM practices and their effects on consumers and the healthcare market in Louisiana.