Arkansas attempted to ban pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning pharmacies, but a federal judge blocked the law as unconstitutional and anti-competitive. The ban, signed by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, would have forced closures of pharmacies like CVS, costing jobs and limiting rural access. Similar laws in Iowa faced legal challenges. PBMs emerged to manage drug prices in a flawed healthcare system distorted by government policies. Critics say banning PBMs ignores real issues like Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement cuts and protectionism favoring select companies. Experts advocate for restoring competition, cutting FDA approval times, and reforming reimbursement to improve healthcare.
Arkansas attempted to become the first state in the nation to ban pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning or operating pharmacies. Instead, it became the first to be blocked by a federal judge for violating the Constitution – and for good reason. This kind of regulatory capture undermines the moral authority behind the legislation, and the court was justified in intervening.
On July 28, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller issued a preliminary injunction halting the Arkansas law, which was set to take effect August 5. He ruled that the ban “appears to overtly discriminate against plaintiffs as out-of-state companies,” and that the state “failed to show that it has no other means to advance its interests.”
In short, the law was not only anti-competitive but also unconstitutional.
The ban, signed earlier this year by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, would have forced companies like CVS and Express Scripts to shut down pharmacies across the state. CVS alone projected it would need to close all 23 of its Arkansas locations – eliminating nearly 500 jobs and reducing access to prescriptions, especially in rural areas where pharmacy options are already limited.
This is a policy failure masquerading as populist rhetoric. Banning PBMs may seem politically popular, with similar legislation being filed at both the federal and state levels, but it’s terrible economics and even worse health policy. Other states, including Louisiana and Tennessee, should take note – and reconsider their actions before causing further harm.
Congress should pay attention, too. Several lawmakers are proposing national legislation to ban PBMs from owning pharmacies. That would magnify the damage across all 50 states, stifle innovation, and further entrench government distortion in an already broken system.
Arkansas isn’t the only example of this approach failing in court. Just days earlier, a federal judge in Iowa issued a preliminary injunction against several new PBM regulations, including restrictions on pharmacy networks and reimbursement requirements. The court found that Iowa’s law likely violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and ERISA, reinforcing that these state-level PBM crackdowns aren’t just bad policy – they’re legally suspect and increasingly falling apart in federal court.
Yet lawmakers keep pushing them, hoping to look like they’re “doing something” about high drug prices while avoiding the real structural issues driving costs higher.
Let’s start with the facts: PBMs didn’t break the healthcare system. They are a response to a system that has long been broken by government interference. For nearly a century, federal and state policies have layered on price controls, tax distortions, and third-party payer models that disconnect patients from prices and providers from the outcomes of their care. With Medicare and Medicaid dominating reimbursement, and employer-based coverage distorted by the tax code, market signals are barely present.
As we argue in “Empower Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare,” co-authored with Dr. Deane Waldman, America’s healthcare crisis stems from the third-party payer system. The overwhelming majority of healthcare dollars flow not from patients, but from insurers and government programs. Until we reconnect patients with prices through tools like Health Savings Accounts, Direct Primary Care, and regulatory reform – costs will continue to rise and access will remain limited.
That’s where PBMs come in.
PBMs emerged to negotiate drug prices, promote the use of generics, and manage pharmacy benefit plans in a system already warped by public policy. In a true free market, PBMs might not be needed. But in today’s environment, they serve as one of the few checks on cost escalation – even if imperfectly.
Arkansas didn’t just misunderstand this dynamic, it ignored it. Even worse, lawmakers carved out an exemption for employer-only pharmacies, conveniently shielding Arkansas-based Walmart from the law’s impact. If this were truly about fairness or access, there would be no need to pick winners. That’s not policy, it’s protectionism.
Supporters argue that PBMs are driving independent pharmacies out of business. But that blame is misplaced. The real culprits are shrinking margins from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, costly federal mandates, and a lack of transparent, direct-to-consumer competition. Targeting PBMs is politically easy but economically backwards.
Banning PBMs won’t fix the system. It will make it worse.
Had the Arkansas law taken effect, it would have closed pharmacies, disrupted care, eliminated jobs, and reduced competition. Vertical integration between PBMs and pharmacies can improve coordination, reduce friction, and cut costs – benefits that disappear when politicians force companies to break apart.
Real reform means restoring competition, not banning it. That means cutting FDA approval times for generics and biosimilars. It means replacing outdated Medicare and Medicaid formulas that reward spending over results. It means decentralizing healthcare power from Washington back to the states – and ultimately, back to patients and their doctors.
Gov. Sanders and other state leaders deserve credit for wanting to fix what’s broken. But this isn’t the way. The Arkansas PBM ban – and similar efforts in Iowa and elsewhere – would fail patients, fail pharmacies, and fail the free market. Thankfully, the Constitution did its job. Now policymakers need to do theirs – by rejecting bans and embracing competition.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, former chief economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, and co-author of the book Empower Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare. Follow him on X @VanceGinn.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
This article presents a clear ideological perspective favoring free-market principles and limited government intervention in healthcare. It critiques state-level legislation banning pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning pharmacies as economically harmful, legally flawed, and protectionist. The tone emphasizes regulatory overreach and government distortion of markets, framing PBMs as necessary market actors within a flawed system. The language endorses deregulation, competition, and decentralization, aligning with conservative and pro-business viewpoints. While critical of populist legislative efforts, it promotes market-based reforms and individual choice, reflecting a center-right economic philosophy rather than neutral reporting.
Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare. Follow him on X @VanceGinn.
SUMMARY: An Arkansas man, Travis Posey, who admitted to killing four people in a 2024 mass shooting at a Fordyce grocery store, has been sentenced to four life sentences without parole plus 220 years for 11 counts of attempted capital murder, all to be served consecutively. The community remains deeply grieving, with victims’ families expressing disappointment over Posey’s lack of remorse. Posey initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea after more than a year in custody. The motive remains unclear. Victims included Callie Weems, Shirley Kay Taylor, Roy Sturgis, and Ellen Shrum, leaving lasting pain in the town.
Arkansas man who pleaded guilty to killing four people in 2024 mass shooting sentenced to prison
SUMMARY: Andrew McGann admitted to killing Clinton and Cristen Brink in a random, brutal attack while they protected their young daughters. DNA from the crime scene matched McGann, who acted alone. Police described the case as one of the most heinous in their 27 years, emphasizing the couple’s efforts to shield their 7- and 9-year-old daughters, who were not targeted. Investigators narrowed the search using over 500 tips, identifying McGann through a black Kia Stinger and witness photos. Knives and clothing linked to the suspect were recovered. Authorities are still investigating McGann’s motives and any possible crimes in other states.
Police: McGann admitted to killing the couple, DNA match found at the scene
The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the Trump administration’s proposed deep cuts to education, medical research, health programs, and Ukraine aid, instead approving increased funding for Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Defense for fiscal year 2026. The Labor-HHS-Education bill includes $116.6 billion for HHS, boosts cancer and Alzheimer’s research, raises CDC funding to $9.1 billion, and maintains programs like Head Start, Job Corps, and AmeriCorps. Education funding rises to $79 billion, opposing Trump’s $12 billion cuts. The Defense bill allocates $851.9 billion, supporting Ukraine and Middle East engagements. Bipartisan votes were 26-3 on both bills.
by Ariana Figueroa and Shauneen Miranda, Arkansas Advocate July 31, 2025
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Thursday largely rejected Trump administration proposals to slash funding for education programs, medical research grants, health initiatives and Ukraine security assistance.
Instead, senators from both parties agreed to increase spending in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026, as well as the Defense bill, and rebuked the White House’s move to dismantle the Department of Education.
The pushback against President Donald Trump was significant as Congress heads toward a possible standoff and partial government shutdown when the fiscal year expires on Sept. 30.
In response to the Trump administration’s separate cancellation of grants and freezing of funds approved by Congress, senators also included language in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill to create deadlines for formula grants to be released to states on time.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the bill to fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education “prioritizes funding to make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research through targeted funding.”
The measure provides $116.6 billion for HHS, an increase of $446 million in discretionary funding over the previous fiscal year. Included is a $150 million increase for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s disease research, as well as a ban on an administration cap on indirect costs at the National Institutes of Health, according to a summary from Democrats. The cap on how much NIH pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs is the subject of a permanent injunction in an ongoing lawsuit.
Trump’s budget proposal also cut funding for the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to $4.2 billion, but senators voted to instead allocate $9.1 billion for the agency.
Also included is $8.8 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and nearly $12.4 billion for Head Start.
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, said that while the bill rejects many of the funding cuts from the Trump administration, it’s “only half of the equation.”
“We have an administration right now that is intent on ignoring Congress, breaking the law, and doing everything it can without any transparency, to dismantle programs and agencies that help families,” she said. “There is no magic bullet that will change that unfortunate reality.”
The Labor-HHS-Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026 passed out of the Senate committee with a bipartisan 26-3 vote.
Senators also passed the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026 on a 26-3 vote.
Dismantling of Education Department spurned
The bill text tightens requirements so that Education Department staffing levels must be sufficient to carry out the agency’s missions, and its work cannot be outsourced to other agencies or departments to fulfill statutory responsibilities, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the spending panel dealing with Labor-HHS-Education spending.
The agency saw a reduction in force, or RIF, earlier this year that gutted more than 1,300 employees and hit wide swaths of the department. The Supreme Court cleared the way earlier in July for the agency to temporarily proceed with those mass layoffs.
The bill also provides $5.78 billion for School Improvement Programs — which support before- and after-school programs, rural education, STEM education and college and career counseling, among other initiatives.
Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request had called for $12 billion in spending cuts at the Education Department but the committee allocated $79 billion in discretionary funding.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended Trump’s sweeping proposals while appearing in June before the Senate Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee.
During Thursday’s markup, Murray called the president’s proposal to defund the Department of Education “absurd.”
“I still hope we can do more when it comes to demanding accountability, transparency, and that this administration actually follows our laws,” Murray said. “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that.”
The agency has witnessed a dizzying array of cuts and changes since Trump took office, as he and his administration look to dramatically overhaul the federal role in education and dismantle the department.
The bill maintains the same maximum annual award for the Pell Grant from the previous award year at $7,395. The government subsidy helps low-income students pay for college.
Baldwin said the overall bill is a “compromise.” She pointed to how Republicans and Democrats agreed to increase funds for the 988 Suicide hotline by $2 million and by another $20 million for substance abuse recovery.
The spending bill will also provide $1.6 billion for State Opioid Response grants, which is a formula-based grant for states to address the opioid crisis.
Senators rejected the Trump administration’s request to cut National Institutes of Health research by 40% and instead included a more than $400 million bump in funding for a total of $48.7 billion.
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff said that he was grateful that the committee worked on a bipartisan basis to reject major Trump cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in his home state.
“I made (it) very clear that I would not accept the destruction of the CDC,” Ossoff said. “I am grateful that Republicans and Democrats on this committee are coming together to defend this vital institution based in the state of Georgia.”
Advocates for medical research praised the legislation.
“Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray deserve special recognition for their leadership in making this a priority. Thousands of ACS CAN volunteers from across the country have been writing to their lawmakers on this issue and it’s deeply encouraging to see their voices have been heard loud and clear,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in a statement.
The spending bill also maintains funding for Job Corps, a residential career training program for young adults, at $1.76 billion.
Trump’s budget request sought to eliminate the program entirely.
The administration says the program is “financially unsustainable, has an exorbitant perparticipant cost, risks the safety of young adults, and has often made participants worse off,” according to a summary of the budget request.
The spending bill also includes $15 billion for the Social Security Administration, an increase of $100 million from the president’s budget request, to address staffing shortages.
The administration also proposed the elimination of AmeriCorps.
However, senators kept funding for AmeriCorps for fiscal year 2026 at $1.25 billion.
Defense spending also increased
The Defense appropriations spending bill for fiscal year 2026 that senators worked on represented an increase from the president’s budget request.
“I think not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense appropriations panel.
The Kentucky Republican said the bill provides $851.9 billion for fiscal year 2026.
He said the topline is higher than the president’s budget request because “we cannot seriously address these challenges while artificially constraining our resources” — challenges such as the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East.
The bill also rejects the Trump administration’s effort to slash funding to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia.
“Shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military’s efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield,” McConnell said.
During the markup of the defense spending bill, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, introduced an amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse costs to the Department of Defense for immigration enforcement.
As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans for mass deportation of people without permanent legal status, it’s intertwined the U.S. military and immigration enforcement, ranging from deploying the National Guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles to housing immigrants on the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military base.
Durbin said that so far, DHS has cost the Defense Department $900 million, from personnel costs to housing immigrants on military bases.
Durbin said the cost to house 180 people on Guantanamo Bay cost the Department of Defense $40 million over three months.
His amendment failed on a 14-15 vote.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The article presents a mostly factual report focused on bipartisan Senate actions rejecting proposed Trump administration budget cuts, emphasizing increased funding for education, health research, and defense. While it maintains balance by including quotes from Republican and Democratic senators, the framing highlights opposition to Trump’s spending cuts and dismantling of agencies like the Department of Education. The language subtly favors the bipartisan coalition resisting the administration’s austerity measures, underscoring the benefits of preserving social programs and research funding. Overall, the tone leans slightly left by stressing protection of government services against conservative budget reductions.
