Extra: 'Debanking' And The Future Of The Cannabis Industry
Since then, it has become legal in some form in 39 states and Washington D.C..
But despite being a legitimate multibillion dollar industry, marijuana is still illegal under federal law, making cannabis companies unable to use the federal banking system and reliant on cash.
Therefore, it remains challenging for businesses operating legally in their state to use the federal banking system, and they must operate primarily in cash.
Kyle Sherman, the founder and CEO of Flowhub, recently spoke with Chris Foster of Fox News Rundown about why Congress needs to update marijuana and banking laws and why working primarily in cash is terrible for both industry and the government.
Sherman also discusses the state of the marijuana business, whether it has expanded too fast in some places, and where it's possibly going.
We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview.
Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire interview with Flowhub CEO Kyle Sherman, allowing you to hear more about the growing marijuana industry and its challenges going forward.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Companies use this sneaky pricing trick to overcharge you. One lawmaker wants it banned
It's no secret that companies are collecting data while consumers browse their sites. But some companies are doing more with the info than trying to improve products or marketing efforts: They are adjusting prices for individual customers based on their personal data. Here's what happened when Albuquerque made riding the bus free Here's why Trump's proposed 401(k) executive order may be very bad news for your retirement Apple iOS 26 is now available to the public. Here's how to get it—and 5 useful new features to try This practice, known as 'surveillance pricing,' has become more common in recent years, with a growing number of companies embracing artificial intelligence as a tool to make real-time price changes for individual customers. However, a new bill aims to stop these companies in their tracks. On July 23, Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025. While some states—such as California, Colorado, Georgia, and Illinois—have proposed similar bans, Casar's bill is the first at the federal level. 'Giant corporations should not be allowed to jack up your prices or lower your wages using data they got spying on you,' Casar said in a statement. 'Whether you know it or not, you may already be getting ripped off by corporations using your personal data to charge you more. This problem is only going to get worse, and Congress should act before this becomes a full-blown crisis.' How surveillance pricing works Companies engaging in surveillance pricing use customer data taken from the cookies—text files containing data—or tracking pixels that continue to follow you after leaving their websites, which provide information on your online activity, preferences, location, and device. This data can then be analyzed by AI programs to help companies determine a personalized price for their products or services. The ban would impact the pricing systems of numerous retailers that reportedly engage in the practice—from businesses that increase prices for pickup orders when you are close to a store to ride-booking apps that charge more when your phone battery is low. Similarly, Delta Airlines recently came under fire for plans to expand its use of AI-driven pricing. 'We've seen things like people's browsing history, device type, battery, location, and more, inform pricing that focuses on how much that individual might be willing to pay for something—preying on desperation rather than using fair market pricing,' Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, tells Fast Company. (The CFA is one of several consumer-interest organizations and advocacy groups that have endorsed the proposed bill, according to a statement by Casar's office.) One of the benefits of the bill, Winters says, is that it would 'draw clear lines in the sand prohibiting the use of AI systems' to apply data-driven pricing on consumers, as well as provide customers harmed by this practice the right to sue the company behind the AI-driven prices. 'Too few bills focused on AI and data abuse have this key feature,' Winters says. 'It's one of many reasons we support the bill.' The Federal Trade Commission would be the entity responsible for enforcing the ban against surveillance pricing, which would be treated as a violation of two existing FTC acts regarding 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices' and 'unfair methods of competition,' according to the proposed bill. Surveillance pricing may be more common than you think Last year, the FTC launched an investigation into surveillance pricing, hoping to learn more about how companies were using personal data to change prices. The initial results, released in January, found that retailers were using everything from demographic and location information to mouse movements and abandoned online shopping carts in order to match prices with consumers. 'Retailers frequently use people's personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a web page,' FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a statement earlier this year. The new legislation would not impact higher prices that result from 'reasonable costs' the business takes on to serve different customers, or lower prices from discounts for teachers, veterans, seniors, students, or rewards program members. Lawmakers and advocates who support the bill suggest the ban could make a big difference for consumers struggling to find fair prices amid rising prices and economic uncertainty. 'The ability to compare prices, to rely on consistent prices, and to know why a price is being charged—this is what gives us the power to know if we are getting a fair deal,' Nidhi Hegde, executive director at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. 'Surveillance pricing destroys the social contract of the marketplace.' This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Journals
4 hours ago
- Business Journals
Waiting for pharmacy benefit manager reform from Washington? Here's what to do now.
If you're frustrated with your pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), join the club. A recent survey found that three-fifths of large-company benefit leaders said their PBM contracts were opaque, overly complicated, and contained clauses that profit the PBM at the expense of employers and patients. Thankfully, you're not stuck. Washington is working on PBM reform, one of the rare issues for which there is agreement between both parties in Congress and the Trump administration. Of course, consensus isn't always enough to create legislation, and any passed law will take time to come into force. A recently-enacted bill in Colorado addresses some of these issues, but will not apply to many large employer-sponsored plans. What follows is a guide to the problems with PBM contracts, the reform proposals, and two approaches to addressing the existing issues that don't require waiting on Washington: Finding a new generation of PBM committed to more transparency; and Negotiating a more transparent arrangement with your current PBM. The problem with large PBMs Pharmacy benefit managers were created to reduce employer costs, yet over time they have evolved in ways that often incentivize increases in plan sponsor and employee costs: Vertical Integration: Nearly 80% of the prescription market (which totaled $600 billion in 2023) is controlled by PBMs run by the three largest health insurance carriers: CVS Caremark (owns Aetna), OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group), and Express Scripts (owned by Cigna). Spread pricing: PBMs charge employers more than they pay pharmacies for drugs, keeping the difference. Drug company rebates: These payments are often in return for PBMs steering business to their products and can include other undisclosed fees. Misaligned Incentives: By favoring their own specialty and mail-order (or retail) pharmacies, PBMs may be restricting competition and limiting their interest in negotiating the lowest pharmacy markups. A recent FTC study found that PBMs often charged employers a markup for specialty drugs distributed through their affiliated pharmacies of more than 100% — and sometimes more than 1,000%. Recently, the big PBMs have started joint ventures to manufacture their own generic and biosimilar drugs, creating another potential conflict. Secrecy: PBM common practices such as spread pricing, rebates, contractual gag clauses, price list manipulation and others have created an environment ripe with opaqueness and confusion for employers. The proposed legislation Congress has been looking closely at PBM reform for several years, and a detailed bipartisan bill was removed from last December's stop-gap budget after Elon Musk tweeted that it was too long. Leading committees are now working to pass something similar. Indeed, two bills that passed Committee last year were reintroduced: The Prescription Pricing for the People Act directs the Federal Trade Commission to complete its ongoing study of PBM practices. The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) Transparency Act bans spread pricing, incentivizes PBMs to pass 100% of the rebates they receive to plan sponsors, encourages transparency, and requires annual reporting by PBMs of their pricing, reimbursement, and rebate practices. Other proposals go further, including the Patients Before Monopolies Act, which would ban PBMs and insurance companies from owning a pharmacy. The states have been busy as well, increasing their oversight of PBM practices through new legislation and reporting requirements. Unintended consequences of all of this are a concern for consultants and employers looking to control costs. In Colorado, Governor Polis signed HB 25-1094 into law in May. Effective in 2027, this law will regulate how PBMs can earn income, how they structure their formulary, and how they reimburse unaffiliated versus PBM-affiliated pharmacies, among other changes. Unfortunately, this new law won't apply to many large employer-sponsored healthcare programs. So large employers in Colorado are still left to design their own pharmacy strategy. Switching to a transparency-oriented PBM In recent years, more employers have switched their pharmacy programs to a new crop of PBMs who are unaffiliated with large insurers—including Navitus Health Solutions, Rightway Rx, Capital Rx, and SmithRx—and offer a more transparent business model. The advantages Pass-through pricing: Employers get the full benefit of network discounts and rebates, and instead of spread pricing, they pay a disclosed administrative fee per prescription. Fewer conflicts: The independent PBMs are less likely to have pharmacy operations or other business interests that differ from those of employers. Transparent disclosures: Employers get access to granular information about the pricing of each prescription rather than the opaque summaries provided by the large PBMs. Aggressive cost management: The independent PBMs emphasize lower net cost options in their formularies and have strict prior authorization requirements for more expensive drugs. The disadvantages Negotiating intermediaries: Since the upstart PBMs are small, many band together by using rebate aggregators, entities that negotiate lower prices with drug companies. But these negotiations have a downside: They can obscure the details of drug company rebates, especially since most of the aggregators are owned by the same insurance conglomerates that own the big PBMs. Potential disruption: Changing PBMs means employees must adjust to a new formulary, pharmacy network, and prior authorization procedures. Members may also object to the stricter utilization controls these companies use. Buying power: Smaller PBMs do not have the volume that the larger players do and are also unable to take on the risk of aggressive discount and rebate guarantees which can lead to a financial arrangement that appears to be less advantageous for employers. Renegotiating with your existing PBM Many companies that have investigated using a more transparent PBM ultimately decide that the advantages of sticking with a large provider outweigh the frustrations and potential conflicts. They are: Convenience: Dealing with one company that provides medical benefits, pharmacy benefits, and mail-order pharmacy service can be easier for employers and plan members alike. Lower effective prices: Some employers find that the greater bargaining clout of the large PBMs delivers good value even if the mechanics of their arrangements remain murky. Increased transparency efforts: Faced with the prospect of increased regulation, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRX have all announced programs that disclose more information about pricing and pass more of their rebates to employers. As they are just being instituted, their real-world impact remains to be seen. In any case, employers and their advisors can't afford to wait to scrutinize their PBM's business practices and press for more advantageous contracts. The time is now to: Look at the fine print: A typical PBM contract may specify high-level drug discounts, rebates, and dispensing fees. Dig deeper, and you can find exclusions and key definitions, such as what is a 'specialty drug.' Press for full pass-through of rebates: Work through every category and proposed exception to insist that rebates for all drugs go to the employer. Ask about conflicts: How does the PBM interact with its affiliated pharmacies? Are reimbursements different than those for independent pharmacies? Are the dispensed drugs made by brands it owns? Check its approach to cost control: What is its philosophy for adding drugs to its formulary? How does it generate prior authorization guidelines for drugs with high rebates? What percent of authorization requests are approved? Audit performance: At the end of a contract, demand a detailed itemization of all claims to ensure that the PBM has met its commitments. If it hasn't, fight for a financial adjustment. Whether your company decides to find a new PBM or renegotiate its deal with the current provider, there are a lot of details to consider. An experienced broker or consultant will help you sort through those complex contracts designed to confuse. And if Washington does end up passing PBM reform, that advisor will also be able to adapt your plan to take maximum advantage of the new rules. To learn more, contact Chris Mast, an actuary and benefits consultant with Alliant Employee Benefits in Greenwood Village, CO. Mast has worked with employers across Colorado and the US for more than 20 years. He can be reached at Alliant's Pharmacy team is made up of industry experts, pharmacists, and data specialists who provide marketplace perspective and insights, vendor capabilities, and practical knowledge to secure the best pricing and contract arrangements. Our buying power and partnerships enable us to support your benefits strategy, pharmacy program, and cost management throughout the entire program lifecycle. Learn more about Alliant at
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he may want to give you a tariff rebate check: ‘A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice'
President Trump has suggested that as part of his tariff policy, he would consider sending out rebate checks or tariff refund checks to Americans, funded by the revenue collected from the tariffs imposed on imported goods. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate for people of a certain income level,' Trump told reporters Friday outside the White House. 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.' The rebate would be drawn from the significant amount of tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government—over $100 billion in the first half of 2025 alone, according to Treasury data. Trump's remarks about these rebate checks perhaps being targeted to Americans 'of a certain income level' suggest they would likely be means-tested, but Trump offered few details about the exact income thresholds or amount of the rebate. The stated purposes of the rebate are to compensate Americans who may have faced higher prices as a result of the tariffs and to potentially provide a small economic stimulus, which gives new meaning to Trump's remarks about businesses 'eating the tariffs,' with much economic debate over who is really footing the bill for them. Any such rebate policy would likely require congressional approval, and lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley have indicated support for legislation that would deliver rebate checks to working Americans, but no bill text or timetable has been specified. If enacted, the administration would need to establish eligibility rules, application or automatic distribution methods, and payment logistics. This could resemble past stimulus check programs, but that is just theoretical at this point. The rebate concept is distinct from legal or administrative tariff refunds to importers, which have been considered or mandated following court rulings questioning the legality of some tariffs. In such cases, refunds would go to the companies that paid the import duties, not directly to end consumers. Is this legal? Trump's proposed tariff refund checks—rebates funded by tariff revenue and distributed directly to American consumers—would almost certainly require explicit legislation from Congress to be legally valid, given that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to levy tariffs and appropriate federal funds. The president can impose certain tariffs under delegated statutory authorities, but courts have repeatedly found that the sweeping use of these powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is not legal. Multiple recent court rulings (including a unanimous U.S. Court of International Trade decision) have blocked Trump's broad tariffs for lacking legal basis under the IEEPA, yet the tariffs remain in place pending appeal and, theoretically, a Supreme Court ruling. Trump's busy July The suggestion of tariff rebate checks or refund checks is another new policy suggestion from Trump in a July that has been full of them, as Washington, D.C., has been roiled by a metastasizing scandal involving disgraced deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump's Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism for its decision not to release the so-called Epstein files, which the Justice Department has said do not exist. The Wall Street Journal has published a series of scoops about Trump's past closeness to Epstein, including Trump's name being mentioned in the files. In July, Trump said he had reached an agreement with Coca-Cola to bring real sugar back into the Coke formula, which the company partially confirmed days later. He also demanded the Washington Commanders football team revert to their former 'Redskins' name, threatening political obstruction for their stadium project if they did not comply. He announced the release of 230,000 files related to Martin Luther King Jr. And he escalated his feud with the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell, visiting the in-process office renovations in a hard hat and engaging in a bizarre, comedic argument with Powell about cost overruns on live television. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on
