Key Takeaways – About one‑third of U.S. pharmacies have closed since 2010, with independents closing at more than twice the rate of chains.
- Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) act as powerful middlemen that negotiate prices, set coverage rules, and can dictate which drugs are available to patients.
- Critics argue PBMs limit patient access, inflate drug costs, and create conflicts of interest through vertical integration with insurers.
- Independent pharmacists often operate at a loss, receiving insufficient reimbursement from PBMs despite high patient‑care costs.
- State legislatures and federal lawmakers are responding with bans on PBM ownership of retail pharmacies and new penalties for unfair practices.
- Despite regulatory pressure, many pharmacists remain committed to serving their communities and continue to fight for fair reimbursement.
Pharmacy Closures Accelerate
Between 2010 and 2021, roughly 33 % of American pharmacies shuttered their doors, a trend that has continued into the present decade. The closures are not evenly distributed; independent pharmacies experience closures at a rate more than double that of large chain pharmacies. Researchers from the University of Southern California attribute this disparity to a combination of rising operational costs, declining reimbursement rates, and the dominant market influence of middlemen who control pricing and formulary decisions. As a result, millions of Americans now live in “pharmacy deserts,” where obtaining a prescription may require a lengthy drive and extended waiting periods.
Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)
Pharmacy Benefit Managers emerged in the late 1950s as intermediaries between drug manufacturers, insurers, and pharmacies. Their primary functions include negotiating rebates with manufacturers, determining which medications are placed on health‑plan formularies, and processing claims on behalf of insurers. Because PBMs wield considerable negotiating power, they can steer large volumes of prescriptions toward higher‑rebate drugs, even when clinically equivalent alternatives exist. This dynamic often places brand‑name medications at a financial advantage, shaping both patient access and overall drug spending.
Impact on Independent Pharmacies
Independent pharmacies, which typically serve localized communities and emphasize personalized care, are disproportionately affected by PBM‑driven pressures. Unlike chain stores that benefit from corporate purchasing power, independents must negotiate directly with PBMs on a case‑by‑case basis, leaving them vulnerable to inconsistent reimbursement rates. Minh Nguyen, an independent pharmacist, explains that when a prescribed drug is not on a PBM’s preferred list, patients are often forced to forgo treatment or seek alternatives, undermining the pharmacist’s role as a trusted health advisor.
PBM Influence on Drug Selection and Pricing
The financial incentives embedded in PBM contracts frequently prioritize rebate size over therapeutic value, leading to a preference for more expensive brand‑name drugs. Rebates are calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, creating a perverse incentive for PBMs to promote higher‑priced products that yield larger returns. Consequently, medications that are clinically appropriate but carry lower rebates may be excluded from formularies, limiting physician and patient choice. This practice contributes to rising out‑of‑pocket costs for patients and inflates overall health‑care expenditures.
Daily Financial Struggles of Pharmacists Dave Randolph, who opened Dave’s Pharmacy over a decade ago, describes a daily reality in which each prescription is filled at a loss. He recounts repeatedly requesting higher reimbursements from PBMs, only to receive no adjustments despite years of appeals. Randolph illustrates the structural imbalance by noting that PBMs have become so vertically integrated that many are owned by, or own, insurance companies, effectively steering patients toward their own affiliated pharmacies. In his view, six to ten pharmacies—both independent and chain—close each day across the United States, further consolidating market control. Critique of PBM Business Model
The consolidation of PBMs within the broader health‑care landscape raises concerns about conflicts of interest and reduced competition. Because many PBMs are owned by large insurers, they can dictate formulary placement, reimbursement rates, and even the physical location of pharmacies. This integration enables PBMs to capture a disproportionate share of the prescription‑drug spend while offering limited transparency to regulators and patients. Critics argue that such dominance stifles innovation, reduces bargaining power for smaller pharmacies, and ultimately drives up costs for consumers who have fewer options for affordable medication.
Industry Response and Defense
Prem Shah, Executive Vice President of CVS Health, staunchly defends the role of PBMs, asserting that they are essential for making prescription drugs affordable and for counterbalancing the pricing power of pharmaceutical manufacturers. Shah contends that CVS Health passes on more than 99 % of negotiated rebates to its clients, using the savings to lower patient co‑pays. He also explains that reimbursement models differ by drug type, with lower rates for brand‑name products and higher margins on generics, thereby subsidizing overall operations. According to Shah, this structure enables PBMs to sustain a vital function within the health‑care ecosystem.
State and Federal Regulatory Pushback
In response to mounting criticism, all 50 states have enacted legislation governing PBM practices, with several states enacting stricter measures in recent years. Arkansas, for example, enacted a law in 2026 that prohibits PBMs from owning retail pharmacies, while Louisiana banned “patient steering,” the practice of directing patients to specific pharmacies for financial gain. At the federal level, a 2025 executive order from the Trump administration called for a comprehensive reevaluation of PBM roles, and House legislators reintroduced the “Pharmacists Fight Back Act” in December 2025. The proposed legislation seeks to penalize unfair PBM conduct and to reform reimbursement structures, signaling a growing bipartisan consensus on the need for greater oversight.
Personal Commitment of Pharmacists
For many independent pharmacists like Dave Randolph, the fight to keep doors open is deeply personal. Randolph emphasizes that the community’s reliance on face‑to‑face care provides a irreplaceable human connection that transcends mere transactional pharmacy duties. He notes that patients continue to choose his pharmacy for its trusted, individualized service, and that this ongoing relationship fuels his determination to persist despite mounting regulatory and financial challenges. As long as patients seek his expertise and companionship, Randolph says he will keep advocating for fair reimbursement and for policies that preserve the vital role of independent pharmacies in the health‑care system.
(Word count: approximately 880)