Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, alongside a coalition of 32 attorneys general, has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to deliberate on states' authority to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The request was made through an amicus brief supporting Oklahoma's appeal for the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. This decision stated that federal laws override Oklahoma's regulations on PBMs.
The challenge against Oklahoma’s laws is part of ongoing legal actions by the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), which represents the PBM industry. Led by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Nessel and her colleagues aim to ensure states retain their power to oversee PBMs and protect consumer access to healthcare. They argue that "states have a compelling interest in preserving their traditional authority" over such matters.
Nessel emphasized, “In order to safeguard patients and provide equitable access to pharmaceuticals, states must have the power to regulate pharmacy benefit managers.” She expressed her support for Supreme Court intervention in this significant issue.
PBMs serve as intermediaries within the prescription pharmaceutical market but have faced criticism for practices that allegedly restrict competition and limit medication access. Despite being largely unregulated at the federal level, some states have attempted to impose their own rules, only to face opposition from PCMA.
Oklahoma’s contested laws focus on maintaining adequate pharmacy networks and preventing conflicts of interest among PBMs. However, in PCMA v. Mulready, PCMA challenged these regulations, claiming they were preempted by federal law. Although initially dismissed by a district court, the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision last summer.
The current case follows another significant ruling from 2020 when the U.S. Supreme Court determined that state regulations could apply despite ERISA preemption claims in PCMA v. Rutledge.
AG Nessel and her counterparts contend that recent decisions create conflicting interpretations of federal law concerning state regulation of PBMs. They seek clarity from the Supreme Court on these critical issues.
Joining AG Nessel in this effort are attorneys general from various states including Arizona, California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Washington.