Congress orders FTC to investigate PBM pricing tactics and report back

What it does

This bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to study how pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other intermediaries operate in the drug supply chain, with a focus on whether they engage in anticompetitive practices like steering patients to their own pharmacies, using proprietary data unfairly, or manipulating drug formularies to favor expensive medications. The FTC must report back to Congress within one year with findings and policy recommendations to improve transparency and competition, plus a separate interim report at 180 days.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a mandated FTC study and report on PBM and intermediary conduct, with a focus on anticompetitive practices and policy recommendations. It is not a direct regulatory change or enforcement action, but rather a fact-finding and recommendation instrument.

What the text implies

• The study may expose PBM self-dealing (e.g., steering to owned pharmacies, using proprietary data for competitive advantage) that could trigger future FTC enforcement actions or congressional legislation restricting PBM practices.
• A finding that PBMs manipulate formularies to favor higher-cost drugs could undermine the industry's claim that rebates and discounts offset price increases, potentially shifting political pressure toward direct price regulation.
• The interim report at 180 days creates an early public signal that may influence investor expectations and PBM stock valuations before the full report is released.
• The study's focus on 'sole-source drug' manufacturers suggests potential parallel investigation into drug-maker anticompetitive conduct, not just PBM behavior, broadening the scope beyond intermediaries.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates transparency and investigative pressure on an opaque, concentrated industry (PBMs) that directly affects drug prices and patient access. Citizens benefit from a formal FTC study that may expose anticompetitive practices and lead to enforcement or legislative remedies; there are no direct costs to the public, and the study mechanism itself does not shield any party from liability.

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Pharmacy Services Administrative Organizations (PSAOs), Senate Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on the Judiciary, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY), Merck (MHVYF), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Fintech Acquisition Corp III (FBIN)

Where it stands

13 cosponsors: 7 Republicans, 6 Democrats.

• Feb 11, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Feb 11, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
• Apr 3, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

13 lobbying clients named this bill on 18 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $10,727,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 17 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 94% of bills with at least one filing.

Chuck Grassley, the sponsor, reported $49,167 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Medical Association — $5,643,000 on 2 filings
• Biotechnology Innovation Organization — $2,360,000 on 1 filing
• Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc — $1,420,000 on 2 filings
• National Association of Chain Drug Stores — $290,000 on 1 filing
• National Community Pharmacists Association — $270,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.