Have any recent court rulings or federal enforcement actions targeted PBM conduct related to insulin pricing?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal authorities have actively targeted PBM conduct tied to insulin pricing: the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative lawsuit against the three largest PBMs (Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx) and affiliated GPOs in September 2024 alleging anticompetitive rebate practices that inflated insulin list prices [1] [2]. That federal action sits alongside a sprawling multidistrict litigation and scores of state and local lawsuits seeking to hold PBMs and manufacturers accountable; some appellate courts have kept PBM cases in federal court while other matters have been remanded to state courts [3] [4] [5].
1. Federal enforcement: the FTC’s high-profile administrative case
The FTC opened a formal, public enforcement campaign against the Big Three PBMs, filing an administrative complaint that accuses Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — and their rebate-aggregating affiliates — of using rebate-driven formulary practices to favor high list‑price insulins and exclude lower‑priced alternatives, thereby inflating prices and harming patients [1] [6]. The agency framed the case as an attempt to stop a “broken rebate system” that shifted costs onto vulnerable patients and enriched PBMs via rebates tied to list prices [1].
2. Legal posture: administration, procedure and hearings
The FTC brought its challenge in its administrative forum (an agency proceeding) rather than as a standard federal district-court antitrust suit; that procedural choice has spawned litigation over jurisdiction and process, and PBMs have sought stays and appeals in related matters [7] [8]. The agency has scheduled evidentiary hearings related to its in‑house case with an evidentiary phase contemplated in 2026, though PBMs pressed for stays and motions to dismiss that could reshape timing [9].
3. Parallel litigation: MDL and dozens of state/local suits
Separately, state attorneys general, local governments and private plaintiffs consolidated hundreds of cases into an insulin-pricing MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; those complaints allege a coordinated scheme among manufacturers and PBMs involving secret rebates and formulary manipulation [3] [10]. Plaintiffs are actively seeking to add PBM-affiliated rebate aggregators as defendants in the MDL and related tracks, a development that the FTC’s administrative complaint helped illuminate [11].
4. Courts and jurisdictional fights: federal vs. state forums
Appellate rulings have been mixed but consequential: the Fourth Circuit ruled that West Virginia’s suit against a PBM belonged in federal court, while other cases have been remanded to state courts or have generated questions about federal jurisdiction based on PBMs’ federal contracts and rebate negotiations [5] [4] [8]. PBMs argue federal issues predominate and have sought to move or retain actions in federal courts; plaintiffs and states push back, seeking state-law remedies and local accountability [4] [8].
5. Evidence and agency theory: rebates, GPOs and “chase‑the‑rebate”
The FTC’s theory centers on what it calls a “chase‑the‑rebate” dynamic: PBMs allegedly prioritize drugs with large manufacturer rebates (which track to high list prices), steering patients to higher list‑price products and deploying affiliated group purchasing organizations to aggregate rebates — a flow the FTC says concealed profits from plan sponsors and patients [1] [7]. The agency also warned manufacturers that their participation could draw future enforcement intervention [1].
6. PBMs’ counterarguments and industry defense
PBMs and their backers counter that rebate negotiation tools lower net costs for plan sponsors and that FTC intervention misunderstands industry mechanics; they warn that curbing rebate tools could raise patient costs and undermine negotiated discounts [6]. Several PBMs have challenged the FTC’s procedural choices and sought judicial relief, arguing the administrative route raises due‑process and jurisdictional questions [4] [7].
7. Political and policy backdrop: federal pressure and legislative proposals
Federal scrutiny has multiplied alongside executive and legislative initiatives: a 2025 executive push on drug pricing and proposed PBM‑transparency bills signal coordinated policy momentum to regulate rebate practices and authorize enforcement [12] [13]. States meanwhile have enacted or litigated PBM reforms—creating a patchwork of legal risk that amplifies the impact of the FTC’s action [9].
8. What’s unresolved and why it matters
Key outcomes remain unsettled: the FTC’s administrative case must clear procedural and evidentiary hurdles; parallel MDL and state suits face jurisdictional battles and motions that will shape remedies and who pays [9] [3]. Available sources do not mention final judicial rulings imposing penalties on PBMs for insulin pricing as of the documents provided — the record shows active enforcement and robust litigation, not completed adjudications [1] [10].
Bottom line: federal enforcement actions have directly targeted PBM rebate practices tied to insulin pricing (FTC administrative complaint) while an expansive web of private and government litigation presses PBMs and manufacturers in courts across the country; the coming procedural rulings and evidentiary hearings will determine whether regulators can dismantle the rebate structures the FTC says inflate insulin costs [1] [3].