logo
Ohio pharmacy measure will make closures ‘explode,' group says

Ohio pharmacy measure will make closures ‘explode,' group says

Yahoo14 hours ago
A pharmacy manager retrieves a bottle of antibiotics. (Photo by)
Compromise budget language hashed out this week by an Ohio House-Senate committee will make problems hurting Ohio pharmacies infinitely worse, the leader of a group that represents them said Thursday.
He added that the Ohio Chamber of Commerce — which advocated part of the legislation — seemed blind to the effect it would have on member businesses by making it more difficult for employees to access medicine.
As it works against a June 30 budget deadline, a House-Senate conference committee approved an amendment that keeps part of a bill meant to help ailing pharmacies but slashes another.
The result, said Dave Burke, a pharmacist, former state senator, and executive director of the Ohio Pharmacists Association, will be that pharmacies will go from earning scant profits to none at all.
'It's any pharmacist's suicide bill,' he said Thursday.
Ohio pharmacies have been in trouble for years.
They've complained of high fees and low reimbursements from huge middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. Last year, Ohio lost 215 pharmacies and their total number dropped below 2,000 for the first time in memory, according to an online tracker launched by the Ohio Board of Pharmacy.
As pharmacies disappear, they create a lack of access that is particularly hard on the poor, elderly and disabled. Not only do they get their medicine at what are often main-street businesses. They also get professional medical advice about chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
PBMs, the middlemen, decide which drugs are covered, and they use a non-transparent system to decide how much to reimburse pharmacies that dispense them. The three biggest control nearly 80% of the marketplace.
As pharmacies close, Ohio Chamber blasted for siding with middlemen
Each of those companies is part of a Fortune 15 health conglomerate that also owns a top-10 health insurer. CVS owns the largest retail pharmacy chain and all three own mail-order pharmacies.
So, when the big PBMs decide reimbursements, impose rules and charge fees, they're doing so for their own pharmacies and their competitors. That's a glaring conflict of interest, their critics say.
There have been abuses in Ohio. In 2018, the Ohio Department of Medicaid peeled back the curtain and learned that a year earlier CVS and UnitedHealth's PBM, OptumRx, charged taxpayers $224 million more for drugs than they paid the pharmacies that had dispensed them. The Medicaid department fired the PBMs.
In 2022 it got rid of their hidden, seemingly arbitrary system of reimbursement in which the same companies sometimes pay 500 different prices for the same drug. Instead, prices are determined by a public survey published by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the National Drug Acquisition Cost, or NADAC.
With pharmacies no longer losing money on some drugs and making it on others, the Medicaid department set a $10 per-prescription dispensing fee to cover pharmacies' overhead. Even with the increased dispensing fees, an analysis said the state saved $140 million from the reforms.
Ohio state Rep. Tim Barhorst, R-Fort Laramie, this year proposed to use the same arrangement in many non-Medicaid transactions. That measure made it into the Ohio House budget, but then ran into opposition in the Ohio Senate, where the Ohio Chamber had been telling members the dispensing-fee requirement was a tax.
What emerged from the conference committee late Wednesday might have seemed like a compromise to its members. It kept the provision that drug reimbursements would be based on NADAC, the publicly available price list, but it got rid of dispensing fees.
To Burke and other Ohio pharmacists, it's the worst of both worlds. Not only couldn't they profit from over-reimbursements under the traditional, non-transparent system, they also couldn't cover overhead from a fixed dispensing fee.
Of the measure agreed to by the conferees, Burke said, 'That proposition only works with a second proposition — the dispensing fee. Because the bag, the bottle, the lid, the pharmacist, the tech, the lights, the heat and the air conditioning all have a cost. In any business model, whether it's medications, pizzas or cars… you can't buy ingredients for a dollar and sell pizzas for a dollar and stay in business.'
He predicted that if it becomes law, there will be a mass exodus from the already depleted ranks of Ohio pharmacies.
'If pharmacies can't make any money — this legislation makes it so that you're not making any money at all — it would probably force the closure of the overwhelming majority of pharmacies in this state,' Burke said. 'Even a child mowing yards is not going to buy a dollar's worth of gas and accept a dollar to mow your yard.'
Once conferees agree on a budget, Gov. Mike DeWine has the power to veto line-items in it. Burke said he hoped the governor would consider such a move.
'I think the governor's office would be well placed to consider a veto and we will be expressing our concerns that the legislation is flawed, and that if he doesn't, the amount of pharmacy closures in Ohio in the next weeks if not months will explode,' Burke said.
Dan Tierney, DeWine's press secretary, was non-committal when asked about the matter.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'We have not received final budget language but will be reviewing the final language when received,' he said in an email Thursday.
Burke didn't accuse any of his former colleagues of ill-intent in agreeing to the measure.
'I think they believed that if they stepped in and said we'll make sure you get paid what you paid for the drug that will fix everything,' Burke said. 'But this legislation takes everything you made a profit on and brings it to zero.'
However, he did say he was mystified about the Ohio Chamber's reasons for intervening in the matter.
'I don't know where the chamber adopted its stance from, but it's hard for me, as an independent business owner, to understand why major employers would want to increase their employees' difficulty getting medications.'
Burke was incensed that the Ohio Chamber would call dispensing fees — payments to cover overhead — a tax.
'It's amazing to me that the chamber should take the position that business owners should not make a profit,' he said. 'I thought the Ohio Chamber was all about profit, pro-business and competitive markets. But they've adopted the position that this particular sector of business owners should not make any money. They consider the dispensing fee to be a tax. So apparently, any profit that any business makes is a tax. Maybe they've gone socialist over there. I don't understand. Maybe they're not looking at their own pharmacy benefit with any understanding.'
The Ohio Chamber didn't immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment. But earlier this week, Senior Vice President Rick Carfagna said the goal was to protect Ohio businesses from paying too much to underwrite employees' drugs.
There are, however, questions about the body's relationship with the giant conglomerates that own the PBMs. For example CVS Health was a 'presenting sponsor' of the Chamber's 2024 Healthcare Summit,
Among the questions the Ohio Chamber didn't immediately respond to was how much CVS paid to sponsor the event — or how much the chamber had received from the big-three conglomerates over the past five years.
In earlier responses, Carfagna didn't address the growing number of pharmacy deserts in Ohio, or that struggling independent and small-chain pharmacies are themselves small businesses that the Ohio Chamber says it wants to protect.
Burke said all the Ohio Chamber's members will be harmed if the conference committee language becomes law and mass closures result. That would mean sicker employees with difficulties getting medicine.
'I hope the Chamber actually goes and speaks with the people they're supposed to represent and see if this policy position is reflective of the way they want to treat their employees,' Burke said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Newsweek

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.

Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state​ health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

‘Potentially catastrophic': While Congress cuts safety net, Mass. lawmakers pass budget short on cash for SNAP caseworkers
‘Potentially catastrophic': While Congress cuts safety net, Mass. lawmakers pass budget short on cash for SNAP caseworkers

Boston Globe

time31 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

‘Potentially catastrophic': While Congress cuts safety net, Mass. lawmakers pass budget short on cash for SNAP caseworkers

Specifically, the final budget deal did not include money to continue employing the current number of caseworkers in the state's Anti-hunger advocates warn that the lack of extra funding means the state's poorest residents will find it even harder to connect with food and cash benefits. Advertisement 'Food insecurity doesn't disappear when funding does,' said SEIU 509 President Dave Foley, who represents DTA workers. 'Now is the time for the state to invest in these services, not slash them.' In passing their Advertisement The final state budget package included $101.2 million for DTA, which mirrors the state House's proposal. But the total is less than the $142.9 million both Healey and the Senate originally proposed. That's slightly more than the agency received in the fiscal 2025 budget, but significantly less funding than it got overall, thanks to Anti-hunger advocates say that unless the Governor and Legislature authorize additional funding again this year, DTA may have to lay off hundreds of caseworkers at the same time federal changes deliver a vast expansion of onerous, complex work rules. Foley, the union president, also said the funding level approved by the Legislature would lead to layoffs. 'In a normal year, this would be a really significant newsworthy item,' said Victoria Negus, a policy advocate at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute who specializes in SNAP and cash assistance benefits. 'Now, it's potentially catastrophic.' A spokesperson for House Speaker Ronald Mariano said the lower level of DTA funding ultimately included in the budget is due to 'tight fiscal constraints . . . as a result of significant economic uncertainty and federal mismanagement.' Max Ratner, Mariano's spokesperson, also pointed out that the budget included funding for other food initiatives as well as money to continue the In The department has seen significant growth in caseload, McCue said, and expects more growth due to the rising cost of living and threats to federally funded safety net programs. Advertisement 'The support of the Commonwealth to our most vulnerable residents is particularly critical during this time, as we face uncertainty and attacks on vital programs that put funds directly into the hands of people experiencing deep poverty,' McCue said. As of Tuesday, Healey has nine days to review the budget and wield line-item veto power, which enables her to send provisions back to the Legislature with amendments, if she wants. Foley, the union president, said his members are 'on the front lines of the fight against hunger every single day.' 'These cuts could result in job loss for more than 300 caseworkers,' he said, urging Healey to 'immediately file a supplemental budget to restore these funds.' A spokesperson for Healey said in a statement that the governor is 'reviewing the budget.' More than 1 million Massachusetts residents receive SNAP benefits, and thousands more receive cash aid for the elderly and disabled, summer nutrition for children who rely on free school meals, and free workforce training. Of the 1 million people receiving SNAP, more than 340,000 are minors. Changes coming from Washington would strain the DTA's caseworkers further, making any layoffs more detrimental, advocates warn. If signed into law, Trump's tax bill would add more red tape and financial strain on the states, which means more work for the DTA. The Trump bill, in its current form, would expand the SNAP work requirement to include adults up to age 65 without children or with children aged 14 or older, the homeless, veterans, and former foster children. It would also restrict some states' ability to waive the work requirements, cut off legally present noncitizens from using SNAP, and reduce federal spending on SNAP by roughly $186 billion. The cuts to food assistance are designed to partly offset the cost of extending the tax cuts that became law during Trump's first term and Trump's other domestic priorities. Advertisement Further, the state will also be on the hook for a larger share of SNAP's administrative costs. The bill passed by the US Senate on Tuesday would ultimately require states to cover 75 percent of costs for SNAP, up from 50 percent — a responsibility Healey has said could cost the state an extra $53 million per year. The state share of administrative costs would grow from $106.6 million currently to $159.9 million, she said. The bill has to pass the House again before Trump can sign it into law. Nearly 3.2 million people could be cut off from SNAP if the US Senate's bill becomes law, according to the nonpartisan which didn't provide a state-by-state breakdown. 'This is an exorbitant burden on Massachusetts,' Healey Samantha J. Gross can be reached at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store