(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Several major corporations started the New Year with resolutions swearing off corporate PAC spending after violent attacks on the U.S. Capitol. But they appear to have left the door open to continue bankrolling less transparent groups.
“Dark money” groups and other politically active nonprofits received more than $100 million since 2015 from 24 companies that are cutting off political donations to the 147 members of Congress who voted against certifying presidential election results, reviewing corporate PAC giving or pausing contributions from their PACs entirely.
That’s according to an OpenSecrets investigation using data from the Center for Political Accountability, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks donations disclosed by publicly owned companies.
The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate its successful Eighth Circuit challenge to North Dakota's regulation of the pharmacy benefit manager industry, saying it agrees with the state that the case needs revisiting in light of a recent high court decision.
Recently, the Supreme Court released its decision in
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The case considers whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) preempts an Arkansas state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ (“PBMs”) generic prescription drug reimbursement rates. The Supreme Court reversed and held that Arkansas’ state law regulating PBMs is not preempted by ERISA, clearing the way for stricter regulation of PBM pricing which may differ from state-to-state.
What Are PBMs and What Does This Ruling Have to Do with ERISA?
Insurance companies that issue fully insured ERISA group health plans and employer plan sponsors of self-funded ERISA group health plans frequently contract with PBMs to manage and administer the prescription drug component of the plan benefits.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Supreme Court recently held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) does not preempt an Arkansas law regulating Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”). PBMs generally act as intermediaries between health plans and pharmacies, providing services such as claims processing, negotiating rebates from drug manufacturers, and setting pharmacy reimbursement rates. Arkansas passed a law regulating the PBMs’ pharmacy reimbursement rates. Under this state law, a PBM could not set a reimbursement rate lower than the pharmacy’s acquisition cost. The intent of the legislation is to protect smaller, independent pharmacies that would often incur a loss when filling a prescription where their acquisition cost was higher than the reimbursement rate set by a PBM. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association sued, claiming in part that the Arkansas state law regulated employee benefit plans and therefore shoul
Advertisement
Supreme Court Holds that ERISA Does Not Preempt Arkansas PBM Law: The Impact on Employer Sponsored Group Health Plans Thursday, December 31, 2020
In a recently decided case,
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not preempt an Arkansas statute that regulates reimbursement levels paid by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to local pharmacies. The Court determined that the Arkansas law affected only the cost of prescription drugs, thus lacking the requisite connection to ERISA-covered plans to trigger preemption. The decision gives the green light for state-by-state regulations of PBM networks and payment practices. The impact of