Supreme Court: No Review of Oklahoma PBM Law Urged
- Pharmacy benefit managers (pbms) have received a boost as the U.S.
- Oklahoma's 2019 law intended to ensure PBMs maintained broad pharmacy access and prevented steering patients toward favored pharmacies.
- The Pharmaceutical care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade group, challenged the law, asserting Oklahoma was improperly interfering with health plan governance designed to promote affordable choices.
The supreme Court will not review the decision on Oklahoma’s PBM law, a win for pharmacy benefit managers regarding state regulation of pharmaceutical supply chains. The solicitor general advised against the review, upholding a lower court’s stance against key parts of the oklahoma law. This law aimed to regulate pharmacy benefit manager networks, ensuring pharmacy access and preventing patient steering. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) contested the law,arguing ERISA and Medicare Part D preempted it. This outcome potentially impacts state-level efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers. News Directory 3 provides timely reports. Discover what’s next for prescription drug cost control efforts in the states.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Gain Ground as Supreme Court Declines Review
Pharmacy benefit managers (pbms) have received a boost as the U.S. solicitor general recommended the Supreme Court not review a lower court’s decision. The ruling struck down key provisions of an Oklahoma law that aimed to regulate retail networks created by these intermediaries within the pharmaceutical supply chain.
Oklahoma’s 2019 law intended to ensure PBMs maintained broad pharmacy access and prevented steering patients toward favored pharmacies. This legislative effort arose from growing concerns that opaque business practices inflated prescription drug costs for consumers and health plans, often impacting autonomous pharmacies.
The Pharmaceutical care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade group, challenged the law, asserting Oklahoma was improperly interfering with health plan governance designed to promote affordable choices. Specifically,the PCMA contended the law was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the medicare Part D program.
What’s next
The supreme Court’s decision not to review the case leaves the appeals court ruling in place, potentially influencing future state-level efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers and control prescription drug costs.