Republicans and Democrats find a unifying target: pharmacy benefit managers

Amye Joseph says America’s political polarization has made it an “interesting time” in her Tennessee household. She and her husband, Charlie, have been married 35 years. She’s a Republican. He’s a Democrat.

But their shared disenchantment with profit-driven healthcare has provided a unifying target: pharmacy benefit managers, known as PBMs. The Josephs’ frustration is focused on CVS Health. The conglomerate, which reported $400 billion in revenue last year, includes a major health insurer (Aetna), one of the country’s dominant PBMs (CVS Caremark), and America’s largest retail pharmacy chain.

“We hate CVS. I’m going to be straight-up,” Amye Joseph said.

She laments the lack of face-to-face interaction with pharmacists, prices that seem to rise without explanation, and pressure from the couple’s CVS Caremark drug plan to use CVS stores instead of their local pharmacy. “They’re not even a middleman,” she said. “They’re a money grab for CVS.”

PBMs were conceived as a way to manage prescriptions and hold down costs. But these middlemen have become bipartisan punching bags, accused of sucking up profits at the expense of employers, governments, and patients.

And while healthcare debates still divide Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., taking on PBMs has become a unifying cause in an era of widespread frustration over rising healthcare costs.

In recent years, every state has imposed restrictions on PBMs. The Josephs’ home state of Tennessee, where the GOP has a lock on state government, is among a growing number looking to outlaw companies that own PBMs from also owning brick-and-mortar pharmacies, as CVS does.

That’s aligned conservative, business-friendly Republicans with Democrats traditionally more open to government regulation.

This legislative push reflects a feeling even in the GOP that the market for prescription drugs is being gamed, said Antonio Ciaccia, CEO of 46brooklyn Research, a nonprofit think tank that tracks drug pricing.

“Republicans are looking at this issue, saying, We know what competition is supposed to do, and it isn’t happening,” said Ciaccia, a critic of the PBM industry. “This is not a free market.”

Charlie Joseph, a retired fire captain who now works as a custodian, was miffed when he realized he could save money on his blood pressure medication if he paid cash at his local pharmacy rather than using his CVS Caremark drug plan. He now buys a 90-day supply for the same price he would have paid for a 30-day supply through the CVS plan.

Earl Neikirk KFF Health News

Charlie and Amye Joseph of Elizabethton, Tennessee, don’t like dealing with pharmacy benefit managers. PBMs, designed as intermediaries between drugmakers and insurance companies to negotiate drug prices, have become targets of bipartisan anger over health costs.

“Right now, it’s more of an inconvenience than anything else as far as it goes, but there’s no consistency,” he said. “The whole healthcare thing is just frustrating, on a good day.”

CVS spokesperson Phil Blando said the price of individual drugs can vary.

“Looking at the price of a single prescription does not reflect the value of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit,” he said in a statement. “Our focus remains delivering the lowest possible total cost and the greatest overall value for members and plan sponsors.”

Unified Opposition

PBM officials say their industry has been unfairly maligned. “PBMs are the only part of the prescription drug supply chain working to lower drug costs, which makes PBMs the target of powerful groups, Big Pharma and pharmacists,” said Greg Lopes, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents PBMs across the nation.

“Drug manufacturers attempt to shift blame for high drug costs to PBMs in order to retain their profit margins and weaken PBMs’ ability to lower costs,” he said.

Drugmakers have worked for years to cast PBMs as unnecessary go-betweens, said Barak Richman, a lawyer and economist who studies healthcare competition at George Washington University. He called the fight between the two industries a corporate “cage match.”

“We have wildly passionate partisan divides on a lot of healthcare,” he said. “But there’s a lot of healthcare policy that I don’t think is obviously partisan.”

PBMs haven’t won over many Democrats or Republicans. Attorneys general from nearly 40 states and U.S. territories wrote a letter last year to congressional leaders arguing that “horizontal consolidation and vertical integration have transformed PBMs from useful administrative service providers into market-dominating behemoths.”

In state legislatures like Tennessee’s, shared ownership of PBMs and pharmacies has drawn particular fire. Independent pharmacies have little choice but to contract with major PBMs while also competing with the conglomerate-owned pharmacies. Many lawmakers have said they want to protect small businesses.

“If a corporation argues that its pharmacy cannot survive unless it is owned by the same entity that sets the reimbursement rate, then we’re not talking about a free market. We’re talking about control,” Tennessee state Sen. Bobby Harshbarger said in a February legislative hearing.

Harshbarger, a Republican who led the legislative push, is a pharmacist in a small city in northeastern Tennessee.

His mother, U.S. Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), is also a pharmacist and has sponsored a similar PBM ownership ban at the federal level. The Senate version has brought together some unlikely bedfellows, such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

State Lawmakers vs. CVS

CVS officials argued the Tennessee legislation was misguided. “Any proposed reform should be evaluated based on whether it improves access to care, simplifies the patient experience, and enhances affordability,” Blando said.

It’s unclear whether the PBM ownership ban will do that in Tennessee. An analysis by the state legislature’s researchers concluded that the bill could drive up healthcare costs in the short term.

To fight the bill, CVS launched a $7 million TV advertising campaign, claiming it would have to close all its 134 pharmacies in the state, similar to its threat in neighboring Arkansas when state lawmakers there passed a similar measure in 2025.

CVS also sent text messages to Tennessee customers, asking them to contact their lawmakers to keep pharmacies open. Ominous texts from CVS helped kill a PBM ownership ban in Louisiana last year.

Sponsors of the legislation said closure wasn’t the only option: CVS could also divest either its stores or its PBM.

Tennessee lawmakers moved forward. State Sen. Rusty Crowe, a Republican from northeastern Tennessee, where the Josephs live, told his colleagues before the vote that they should consider the fierce resistance a sign that they were onto something.

“I learned when I was in the Vietnam War, when you start taking on flak, you know you’re over the damn target,” he said.

As with most votes in Tennessee’s legislature, Republicans didn’t need support from Democrats. But they got it anyway.

State Rep. Antonio Parkinson, a Democrat from Memphis, said he felt like he was voting in favor of lower drug prices and supporting “ma and pa” pharmacies. “If there’s a benefit to my people, I’m supporting it.”

CVS has not divested or closed its pharmacies in states that have passed ownership bans — the laws have yet to take effect. The Arkansas ban is being held up in court after CVS challenged the constitutionality of the law. CVS also sued in Tennessee, though the ownership ban doesn’t take effect until 2028.

This article is from a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KFF Health News.