Op-Ed: Why Banning PBM-Owned Pharmacies Risks Patient Care

The recent court-ordered pause on Arkansas’s Act 624—a first-in-the-nation ban on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) owning pharmacies—has, for now, delayed a change that could have disrupted care for patients who rely on specialty pharmacy services. Its broad restrictions make no distinction between poor practices and effective care models and would limit access based solely on ownership. With the law on hold pending appeal, there is an important opportunity to carefully consider how such a ban would affect those who depend on complex, coordinated therapy.

Arkansas Capitol Building | Image credit: pabrady63 | stock.adobe.com

As a pharmacist who has spent more than a decade helping patients navigate complex, chronic health conditions, I’ve seen firsthand how fragile access to care can be, especially for those dealing with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and autoimmune disorders. These patients require specialty medications, close monitoring, and a coordinated care team. The difference between having experienced professionals and not can mean the difference between a quiet evening at home and a stressful night in the emergency room.

I am fortunate to serve as the General Manager of Specialty Pharmacy at Lumicera Health Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of Navitus Health Solutions, which pioneered a fully transparent PBM model more than 20 years ago, passing 100% of negotiated rebates and discounts on to clients. Lumicera doesn't just dispense medication. Our team coordinates care with providers, secures prior authorizations, helps patients manage side effects, and ensures financial assistance is in place when costs threaten treatment. More than 60% of the patients we serve nationwide are not affiliated with Navitus as their PBM. Health plans and employers choose Lumicera based on our clinical model, high satisfaction scores—including an 85.5 Net Promoter Score—and our ability to deliver consistent outcomes across complex therapies.

Act 624 and similar proposals elsewhere ignore these realities. They focus on who owns the pharmacy rather than whether that pharmacy delivers safe, effective, and affordable care. Specialty care is not interchangeable with standard prescription services. It often requires strict handling and storage, specialized pharmacist training, and ongoing patient education—capabilities that many community pharmacies cannot provide consistently. Lumicera holds dual accreditation from URAC and ACHC, reflecting our ability to meet rigorous quality standards and leverage technology to track adherence, flag interactions, and intervene early—services that prevent complications, save lives, and reduce costly hospitalizations.

The Arkansas case should serve as a wake-up call. We can address legitimate concerns about PBM business practices without penalizing patients or dismantling high-performing care models. Congress is already considering national PBM reforms on transparency, rebate pass-through, and fiduciary duties that target bad actors while protecting access. State policymakers should follow that example: focus on patient outcomes, not ownership structures.

The patients I’ve supported over the years don’t ask who owns their pharmacy. They care about whether their medication arrives on time, whether someone answers when they call with a question, whether they can afford their next refill, and whether the people helping them see them as more than a number. Thanks to this legal pause, policymakers now have an opportunity to step back and design solutions that protect these priorities. Let’s not waste it.