Billion-Dollar Middlemen Exposed – Why Your Medication is So Expensive

Pills and prescription bottles on a dark surface

Congress finally confronts the secretive middlemen making your prescription drugs unaffordable while pocketing billions in hidden profits.

Key Takeaways

  • Bipartisan lawmakers are targeting pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) as key culprits in America’s skyrocketing prescription drug costs
  • PBMs use deceptive pricing schemes like “spread pricing” that have cost state Medicaid programs millions, while three companies control 80% of the market
  • The proposed legislation would require PBMs to report earnings from deceptive pricing practices and ban anti-competitive behaviors
  • Both Democrats and Republicans agree on the need for transparency, though critics warn that focusing solely on PBMs without addressing pharmaceutical companies may be insufficient
  • States that eliminated PBM spread pricing in their Medicaid programs have already saved millions of taxpayer dollars

The Hidden Healthcare Cartel Driving Up Your Medication Costs

Most Americans struggling to afford their prescription medications have never heard of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), yet these shadowy middlemen wield extraordinary power over drug pricing and availability. In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, Congress is now focusing on these entities to address the growing crisis of unaffordable medications. Three companies – CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx – control approximately 80% of the PBM market, creating what critics describe as a virtual cartel that inflates prices while reducing competition in the pharmaceutical supply chain.

“PBMs are the pharmaceutical supply chains hidden middlemen that are driving up costs for prescription medications, delaying access to necessary treatments, adding hoops for patients to jump through, and robbing hope from patients,” said Chairman Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) during a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing focused on PBM reform.

Deceptive Pricing Schemes Costing Americans Billions

At the core of congressional concerns are several anti-competitive practices employed by PBMs. “Spread pricing” occurs when PBMs charge insurance plans more for medications than they pay pharmacies, pocketing the difference. They also extract rebates from drug manufacturers but rarely pass the full savings to patients or insurance companies. Additionally, PBMs are accused of under-reimbursing independent pharmacies while favoring their own affiliated pharmacy chains, creating a conflict of interest that has driven many community pharmacies out of business.

The impact of these practices is felt most acutely by patients with chronic conditions requiring expensive medications. West Virginia and North Dakota have already taken action, saving millions in Medicaid costs by eliminating spread pricing. These state-level successes have provided a blueprint for federal action, with bipartisan lawmakers now pushing for similar transparency nationwide. The lack of transparency in how PBMs operate affects both private employers and government healthcare spending, contributing to the overall inflation of drug costs.

“Republicans and Democrats agree we must rein in PBM abuses. We know how PBMs play games to pad their bottom lines at the expense of consumers,” said Ranking member Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) during the congressional hearing.

Follow the Money: Industry Donations Complicate Reform

The push for reform faces significant obstacles, not least of which is the pharmaceutical industry’s outsized influence in Washington. Both PBMs and pharmaceutical companies have donated substantial sums to key lawmakers on committees overseeing healthcare policy. This financial entanglement raises questions about Congress’s ability to enact meaningful reforms. When confronted with criticism, PBMs and pharmaceutical manufacturers typically point fingers at each other, creating confusion that has stalled previous reform efforts.

“The problem with PBMs begins and ends in Congress,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. “[PBMs and pharma companies] are two rent-seeking special interests that are jockeying to capture as much of the ill-gotten rents as they can.”

Bipartisan Solutions on the Horizon

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have reintroduced two bills aimed at increasing transparency and accountability for PBMs. The Prescription Pricing for the People Act requires the Federal Trade Commission to study the effects of industry consolidation and provide policy recommendations. The PBM Transparency Act would ban deceptive pricing schemes and require PBMs to report earnings from spread pricing and pharmacy fees to federal regulators. These measures represent the most significant bipartisan effort to date to address the PBM issue.

“Iowans are fed up with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and eager for Congress to act to put a stop to pharmacy benefit managers’ shady practices. These bipartisan legislative solutions will bring much-needed transparency to prescription drug pricing and ensure the federal government can effectively target the abusive practices that unfairly drive up drug costs,” said Senator Grassley.

Senior advocates have also thrown their support behind the legislation. “AARP, which advocates for the more than 100 million Americans aged 50 and over, is pleased to support the Prescription Pricing for the People Act of 2025 and Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Transparency Act of 2025. We value your ongoing bipartisan efforts to lower drug prices for consumers and taxpayers. It is outrageous that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,” said Bill Sweeney, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at AARP.

A Partial Solution to a Complex Problem

While targeting PBMs represents progress, some experts caution that comprehensive drug pricing reform must also address pharmaceutical manufacturers’ pricing practices. Drug companies set initial prices and frequently increase them faster than inflation. Some research indicates these companies spend more on marketing and stock buybacks than on research and development, undermining the industry’s claim that high prices are necessary to fund innovation. A complete solution would likely require addressing both ends of the pharmaceutical supply chain.

The effectiveness of the proposed reforms remains debated, with potential revenue reductions for PBMs estimated at approximately $900 million annually. While significant, this represents only a fraction of overall drug spending in America. Nevertheless, the bipartisan focus on PBMs marks an important step toward transparency in a healthcare sector long shrouded in secrecy and complexity. For millions of Americans struggling to afford their medications, any progress toward lower prices cannot come soon enough.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR