Arkansas pharmacy bill heads to governor's desk, pharmacy freedom of choice bill enters legislature
A bill to permit non-profit hospitals to maintain a licensed pharmacy is on the governor's desk after a Thursday vote, and a pharmaceutical patient freedom of choice bill was submitted to the legislature the same day.
Arkansas Legislative Council makes pharmacy-protecting PBM rule permanent
Senate Bill 58 will remove the prohibition on non-profit, tax-exempt or government-funded hospitals from having a retail pharmacy permit. The legislation included a provision that a patient was not required to use a hospital's pharmacy and to inform them this was the case.
Meanwhile, House Bill 1442 proposes to support patients and prevent anti-competitive practices for pharmacy patients.
Arkansas bill limiting insurance settlements on governor's desk for signature
The legislation allows patients freedom of choice in their pharmacy and requires pharmacies to have equal access to drug pricing programs. It also reflects SB58's prohibition removal, by requiring a non-profit hospital patient's pharmacy choice to be recorded.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
House food service workers, Democrats stage boycott in fight to keep union jobs
House food service workers, with support from Democratic lawmakers, called for a boycott of some Capitol complex restaurants Thursday — demanding that incoming dining subcontractors maintain the previous union-negotiated base pay and benefits. Congressional Labor Caucus co-chairs Reps. Steven Hordford (D-Nev.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) joined food service employees in front of the Capitol building after final votes Thursday to protest the new vendors' delay in recognizing the Unite Here Local 23 bargaining unit's existing agreement. Union members are asking lawmakers, staff and Capitol visitors to boycott six of the new venues: Starbucks, Pakistani food restaurant CHA Street Food, Jimmy John's, Panera, Java House and PX Tacos. 'We have 124 members in our labor caucus. That means, along with the rest of the Democrats, half the people will not be buying Starbucks coffee,' Dingell told reporters at the boycott announcement. The House of Representatives is ending its contract with food service company Sodexo, which employed close to 200 workers, in favor of new vendors to take over in the coming months. More than 100 Democratic lawmakers signed a letter last week calling for the subcontractors to rehire employees at the in-Capitol outlets where they previously worked and keep the previous union contract's minimum $22.15 hourly wage, health care and retirement benefits. 'Many of us know these workers directly and have cherished our interactions with them over the years,' the letter reads. 'It is critical that you retain these workers to avoid any disruption to their livelihoods and to preserve their institutional knowledge and established relationships with Members of Congress and their staff.' Employees have only received return offers from one of the seven contractors so far — Metz, which is running the cafeterias, according to a statement from Unite Here. 'My coworkers and I have struggled over the years to make this the kind of job we can raise our families on,' union steward and long-time Capitol dining employee Rickie Toon said at Thursday's event. 'We call on everyone who cares about the dignity of labor to honor this boycott.' The union-organized boycott begins immediately, though the House is out of session for August recess starting this afternoon.
an hour ago
Senate kicks off fraught appropriations process against shutdown deadline
The Senate on Wednesday took a step toward approving its first appropriation bill, agreeing to advance military construction and Veterans Affairs spending in a 90-8 vote. But lawmakers have a long way to go to avoid a government shutdown, with 12 appropriations bills to get through before the Sept. 30 deadline. The House, which has passed two appropriations bills, saw its legislative session ended early by Speaker Mike Johnson amid turmoil over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Senate is set to begin its August recess next week, though Senate Majority Leader John Thune has kept open the possibility of canceling the weekslong break at President Donald Trump's request to advance his nominees. And unlike many of the things that Republicans have done this Congress, passing any of the 12 appropriations bills in the Senate will require 60 votes to pass. Thune, during an appearance on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures," said "we've got to find a way" to start moving the measures. "We are going to need to get appropriations done. That will require some cooperation from Democrats and hopefully they will be willing to make sure that the government is funded," Thune told host Maria Bartiromo. Democrats seek to strategize on funding Democrats met behind closed doors on Tuesday to try to hash out a cohesive strategy for approaching government funding ahead of the s hutdown deadline. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also met with their Democratic appropriators. At a brief joint press conference afterward, Schumer and Jeffries said Democrats were committed to a "bipartisan, bicameral" appropriations process but blamed Republicans for making a clear path forward to averting a shutdown difficult. "As has always been the case we are prepared to engage in those discussions in good faith, but House Republicans are not there. House Republicans are in fact marching us toward a possible government shutdown that will hurt the American people. We remain ready, willing and able to have the type of appropriations process that will yield a good result for the American people, but that process must be bipartisan and bicameral in nature," Jeffries said. Schumer said Senate Democrats supported the first appropriations bill on military construction and VA funding because it will help veterans and undo some cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency -- but that other issues wouldn't be as simple. Democrats are weighing a number of considerations as they think about how to deal with government funding, especially with most saying they feel scorned after Republicans struck $9 billion in previously-approved funds from the federal budget. Republicans were able to pass the rescissions package, which included cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting, without any Democratic support. Democrats say it amounts to a betrayal of a previous agreement that's left them reluctant about future deals. "Speaking for myself, I am really hard put to vote for appropriations when I know Republicans are just going to ride roughshod and reverse them down the line on a strictly partisan basis," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said on Monday. "The pattern of partisan betrayal on the part of my colleagues gives me a lot of pause so I am really torn about it." Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, echoed those sentiments. "There's a trust issue that we have to have to legislate where you reach an agreement and then there's a switch-a-roo on rescissions and you have 60 votes and it suddenly goes to 50," Welch said. "What we thought was solid and set in stone suddenly melts away, that is a problem." Thune on Tuesday also called for a bipartisan path forward on the appropriations process, but put the onus on Democrats to work with Republicans. "The Democrats have indicated, because they're so upset over the rescissions bill last week -- which, by the way, cut one-tenth of 1 percent of all federal spending -- that somehow they can use that as an excuse to shut down the appropriations process and therefore shut down the government," Thune said at a press conference with Senate Republican leadership. "We think that would be a big mistake, and hopefully they will think better of it and work with us." The White House, though, has made the case the government funding process should be "less bipartisan." "It's not going to keep me up at night, and I think it will lead to better results, by having the appropriations process be a little bit partisan. And I don't think it's necessarily leading to a shutdown," White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told reporters last week. "Who ran and won on the on an agenda of a bipartisan appropriations process? Literally no one. No Democrat, no Republican," he added. "There is no voter in the country that's went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process.'" Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said on the Senate floor before Wednesday's vote that she thought his process should move forward in its historically bipartisan fashion despite Republicans' recent moves to work on government funding through a rescissions package. "To be clear, if Republicans continue cutting bipartisan deals with more rescissions, that's not cooperation," Murray said. She added, "So for anyone considering the partisan route, you cannot write a bill without talking to Democrats and then act surprised when Democrats don't support it. You want our votes. You work with us, and this bill today that we're considering shows that is possible."
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
College sports bill moving to House floor in Congress after passing committee votes
Two U.S. House of Representatives committees on Wednesday, July 23 advanced a bill that would establish a variety of national rules concerning how college sports operate, making this the most comprehensive measure connected to the industry set to reach the chamber's floor in decades. After considering nearly a dozen amendments, the Energy and Commerce Committee ultimately voted 30-23 to send the bill to the House floor. It was a straight party line vote in which one vote was not recorded. The Education and Workforce Committee also signed off on the bill later in the afternoon by a margin of 18-17. Barring last-minute intervention from another committee, the bill could receive a vote in September, perhaps within the first two weeks after the House is scheduled to return Sept. 2 from a summer recess that is expected to begin at the close of business July 23. If the bill moves to the Senate, its future will remain uncertain, as 60 votes will be needed to prevent a filibuster. So, even if all 53 Republican members back the measure — which so far has received bipartisan support and opposition in the House — seven Democrats also will have to approve. Dubbed the SCORE Act (Student Compensation And Opportunity Through Rights and Endorsements), the bill includes antitrust-exemption language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new College Sports Commission, to make operational rules affecting schools and athletes in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years. That would include rules about transfers and the number of seasons for which athletes can compete. It also would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The employment issue is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit in a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In addition, the bill also would codify college athletes' name-image-and-likeness activities, basically following the terms of the recent settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. And it would require most Division I schools to provide a series of health and educational benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules, but do not have the force of federal law. The most well-financed schools would be required to establish no later than July 1, 2027 — and then maintain — at least 16 varsity teams. (Over the past two decades, according to NCAA data, Division I schools have sponsored, on average, 19.) And schools would be required to make public information about student athletic fees and how those funds are used. Schools with media rights revenues of at least $50 million in their most recently completed fiscal year would not be allowed to use student-fee money 'to support intercollegiate athletic programs.' (Schools could get around this by replacing student-fee money with more money from their general funds.) Without further changes in the bill, Senate approval seems unlikely. House Democrats have mostly opposed the bill and longstanding negotiations between Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a college-sports bill proponent who now chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, and Democratic senators, including Cory Booker, N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, Conn., have remain stalled. However, as approved on July 23, the bill included a number of changes from the version that was advanced by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee by a 12-11, party-line vote on July 15. The changes appeared designed to make the bill more attractive to Democrats. Among those are: ▶ Mandates that would apply to NCAA's — and potentially the College Sports Commission's — governance structures. It includes requirements concerning the involvement of athletes and schools outside the Power Four conferences. It also would require the NCAA, and potentially the CSC, to 'establish a council to serve as the primary deliberative body' that is 'composed of individuals who represent each conference that is a member' of the association. No such group currently exists within the NCAA, which comprises three competitive divisions. And changes to Division I's governance setup that are being discussed by those schools aim to reduce the size of its Board of Directors and a secondary policy-making group. ▶ Requiring future studies on several college sports topics by the schools, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Comptroller General. These would seem to combine to cover ground contemplated by a college sports commission President Donald Trump had been considering. The schools would be required to report within 180 days of enactment and then, every two years, on issues relating to compliance with the SCORE Act and 'recommendations to improve the health, safety and educational opportunities of student athletes.' The FTC would have to study the possibility of establishing an independent entity to address certification and regulation of agents who represent college athletes. The Comptroller General would have to conduct a study within two years of enactment covering the impact of the SCORE Act on schools' Olympic sports programs, 'including the funding of Olympic Sports' and to "develop recommendations for support of Olympic Sports, given the unique nature of Olympic Sports and intercollegiate athletics" in the U.S. It also have to analyze 'trends with respect to roster sizes for Olympic Sports,' especially at Power Four schools. Contributing: Tom Schad
