Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has led a bipartisan coalition of 32 attorneys general in requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on states' authority to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The coalition seeks the Court's review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which held that federal laws preempt Oklahoma's regulations on PBMs.
The request is part of ongoing efforts by Attorney General Ellison and other state attorneys general to protect consumers from high pharmaceutical drug prices and abusive practices by PBMs. "No one should have to choose between affording their lives and affording to live," said Ellison. "High drug prices hurt Americans of all political beliefs, and lowering them is a bipartisan issue."
This marks the third time Ellison has led such coalitions in defense of state regulatory power over PBMs. He previously led similar efforts in October 2022 and July 2021 concerning Oklahoma and North Dakota laws, respectively.
PBMs act as intermediaries between prescription-drug plans, pharmacies, and drug manufacturers. They profit through fees charged to market participants and reimburse pharmacies less than what they are paid by plans for dispensing medications. Critics argue that PBM practices reduce competition, limit access to medications, and lack transparency.
Oklahoma's laws aim to ensure adequate pharmacy networks and prevent self-dealing among PBMs. These regulations include requirements for geographic coverage of pharmacy networks and prohibitions against excluding pharmacies based solely on employee status or steering consumers towards specific in-network pharmacies.
In PCMA v. Mulready, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) challenged Oklahoma’s regulations, arguing that federal laws like Medicare Part D and ERISA preempted them. While a federal district court initially rejected PCMA’s claims, the Tenth Circuit later reversed this decision.
Ellison’s coalition argues that states have a compelling interest in regulating PBMs to protect residents' access to healthcare. They contend that the Tenth Circuit's broad approach to federal preemption would significantly impede states' regulatory abilities.
The current case follows previous Supreme Court decisions on similar matters, including PCMA v. Rutledge in 2020, where the Court ruled that ERISA did not preempt an Arkansas law regulating pharmacy-reimbursement rates.
Joining Ellison in this latest amicus brief are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Washington.
___