Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) save Americans billions of dollars each year by lowering the prices of prescription drugs and the costs of prescription drug coverage. However, as I explain in this Article, mandatory disclosure regulations recently enacted in several states and at the federal level under the Affordable Care Act threaten to disrupt the cost savings that PBMs currently produce for consumers. These regulations require PBMs to disclose competitively sensitive financial information to various participants in the prescription drug market. Although mandatory disclosure regulations are premised on the idea that PBM clients can only ensure that they are paying a competitive price for a PBM’s services if they know the specifics of the PBM’s financial arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacies, there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe mandated disclosure of this information is necessary. Not only are these regulations unnecessary to achieve competitive outcomes, they also impose significant costs on PBMs. The additional disclosure increases both direct costs and litigation costs for PBMs. More importantly, the regulations foster tacit collusion and reduce PBMs’ ability to negotiate discounts with pharmacies and rebates with drug manufacturers. By disrupting competition in the prescription drug market, mandatory disclosure regulations will ultimately increase the prices that consumers pay for prescription drugs.
Current Print Issue
In 2013, the Supreme Court showed an unusually high rate of unanimous decisions—the highest, in fact, since 1940. This increase in unanimity, long favored by Chief Justice John Roberts, places a spotlight on an insufficiently appreciated fact: in 1941, the Supreme Court experienced a radical transformation. Almost immediately, it changed from a court that had operated by consensus, with very […]
This Article intervenes in a burgeoning literature on “administrative constitutionalism,” the phenomenon of federal agencies—rather than courts—assuming significant responsibility for elaborating the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Drawing on original historical research, I document and analyze what I call “administrative equal protection”: interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause in a key federal agency at a time when the Clause’s […]
May government officials restrict the display of “gruesome images” (in the words of one injunction), chiefly of aborted fetuses but also of slaughtered or injured animals? How about gruesome words, for instance signs accusing abortion providers of being “murderers” or “killers”? Some courts have upheld such restrictions, chiefly relying on the perceived need to shield […]
Symposium on Reassessing the Restatement of Employment Law
The Cornell Law Review hosted a Symposium on Reassessing the Restatement of Employment Law on Friday, November 21, 2014, at Cornell Law School. The Symposium offered the first commentary on Restatement of Employment Law, a twelve-year project, which the American Law Institute approved in 2014. Click for Symposium Agenda
Symposium on Extraterritorialism
The Cornell Law Review will publish its annual Symposium issue for Volume 99 with a focus on extraterritorialism in September 2014. The flurry of recent Supreme Court decisions turning on a revived door-closing territorialism is attracting the attention of legal scholars in various substantive as well as methodological fields of federal law, and the lines […]
Cornell Law Review Submissions Box Is Now Open
The Cornell Law Review is currently accepting article, essay, or book review submissions. The Cornell Law Review Online is also accepting submissions for volume 100.
Welcome to CornellLawReview.org
Welcome to CornellLawReview.org, the new online home of the Cornell Law Review. In the spirit of its mission as a student-run journal, the Law Review is launching this site to provide greater access to its top-notch legal scholarship and more publishing opportunities for legal academics. The website will host all of the content that the Law Review publishes in print […]