Tennessee Bans PBM-Pharmacy Ownership, Putting CVS and Optum on Divestiture Clock

Media partner

POLICY & MARKETS · MAY 27, 2026 · UNITED STATES

Vertical integration between pharmacy benefit managers and retail pharmacies has become a statutory liability in Tennessee. Governor Bill Lee signed legislation making Tennessee the second US state — after Arkansas — to prohibit PBMs from owning pharmacies, according to reporting by Becker’s Hospital Review. The law places CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx in a position where continued operation in the state requires structural separation of their PBM and pharmacy assets.

System Implications

The Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance conducted a spread-pricing audit in 2024 that documented the practices the new law targets, according to the available record. Spread pricing — the margin a PBM retains between what it charges a payer and what it reimburses a pharmacy — has been the central operational grievance driving state-level legislative action. The audit’s findings appear to have provided the evidentiary basis legislators needed to advance the bill despite a reported $7 million lobbying campaign mounted by PBM interests.

The law’s structural logic follows Arkansas’s model: by prohibiting common ownership, it removes the financial incentive for a PBM to steer patients toward affiliated pharmacies and to set reimbursement rates that disadvantage independent competitors. Whether the mechanism produces the intended effect on reimbursement levels and pharmacy market structure is a separate question — one the available record does not yet resolve.

Patient Access

Proponents of the legislation argue that independent pharmacy reimbursement improvements will expand patient access, particularly in rural and underserved communities where independent pharmacies are often the only dispensing option. The patient access impact, however, is disputed. Critics of PBM deintegration laws have argued that vertically integrated models can produce efficiencies that benefit plan sponsors and, indirectly, beneficiaries through lower premiums or cost-sharing. The available record does not confirm which effect would predominate in Tennessee’s specific market structure.

If CVS elects a market exit rather than divestiture — a scenario that remains speculative absent a company statement — patient access in communities served exclusively by CVS retail locations could be affected. The company has not publicly disclosed its compliance strategy for Tennessee.

Industry and Payer Implications

For the three dominant integrated PBMs — CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group’s OptumRx — Tennessee adds a second state jurisdiction requiring a compliance decision with material asset implications. The operational choices are limited: divest the pharmacy assets, divest the PBM license, or exit the state market. Each path carries different financial and competitive consequences, none of which have been publicly quantified for Tennessee specifically.

Plan sponsors and self-insured employers contracting with integrated PBMs in Tennessee will need to assess whether their existing contracts remain executable under the new law and on what timeline. The law’s effective date and any transition period for existing ownership structures have not been detailed in publicly available press materials. Payers should treat this as a near-term contract review trigger rather than a deferred compliance matter.

A federal bill is reportedly pending that would mandate divestiture by Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx at the national level, according to the available record. If enacted, it would render state-by-state compliance strategies largely moot — but federal legislative timelines remain uncertain and the bill’s current status has not been confirmed in the sources reviewed.

Regulatory and Legal Considerations

Arkansas enacted comparable legislation and is currently facing a federal legal challenge, according to the available record. The litigation is active and has not reached a final resolution; no federal court finding has been issued that would establish the constitutional or statutory validity of state PBM ownership prohibitions. The Eighth Circuit proceedings in the Arkansas case represent the most relevant pending judicial signal for Tennessee’s law.

A legal challenge to Tennessee’s statute is expected, mirroring the Arkansas litigation pattern. That challenge, if filed, would be an allegation — not a finding — and its outcome would depend on judicial interpretation of federal preemption arguments that remain unresolved in the Arkansas proceedings. Tennessee’s law should be treated as legally operative but subject to injunctive challenge until the courts rule.

The $7 million lobbying figure attributed to PBM interests during the Tennessee legislative process has not been independently verified in the sources reviewed; it is reported as context for the political environment surrounding the bill’s passage.

Counterpoint

The principal counterargument is that the law’s core mechanism — ownership separation — may not address the actual pricing lever. Spread pricing is a contractual and actuarial practice; it does not require common ownership to persist. A PBM that divests its pharmacy network retains the ability to set reimbursement rates that disadvantage independent pharmacies through formulary design, network tiering, and audit practices that are not addressed by ownership prohibitions. If that is correct, Tennessee’s law imposes significant structural costs on integrated firms without producing the reimbursement improvements its sponsors intend — a friction point that independent pharmacy advocates have not fully answered in the public record.

Strategic Outlook

The Arkansas-Tennessee sequence suggests a replicable legislative template is now in circulation among state legislatures. The combination of a state insurance department audit providing evidentiary grounding and an Arkansas precedent providing statutory language lowers the barrier for additional states to advance similar bills. One possible scenario is that three to five additional states introduce comparable legislation in the next two legislative cycles, though this remains speculative absent confirmed bill filings.

The pending federal bill, if it advances, would shift the compliance calculus entirely — converting a state-by-state legal defense strategy into a single federal proceeding. CVS, Cigna, and UnitedHealth Group’s litigation posture in Arkansas will likely signal how aggressively they intend to contest the ownership prohibition model before federal courts establish a definitive precedent.

Closing Insight

The deeper structural question Tennessee’s law surfaces is whether state insurance regulators, armed with spread-pricing audit authority, are becoming the effective enforcement mechanism for PBM reform in the absence of federal action — a role that was not contemplated when PBM oversight frameworks were originally designed and one that creates significant jurisdictional complexity for nationally operating managed care organizations.