Nearly all the families I know in Utah are feeling squeezed when they visit a pharmacy, and my mom’s work in the state’s healthcare industry has given me a closer look at the problem.
A 2026 Utah Foundation study found that 69% of Utahns experienced at least one healthcare cost burden, and 63% have delayed or gone without care because of cost. Among those who received the care they needed, 45% struggled to pay their medical bills.
That’s why we cannot risk following Arkansas and Tennessee by passing laws that could make the situation even worse.
In Arkansas, the state legislature passed a law effectively forcing companies to separate their Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) from their pharmacy businesses.
Tennessee has now enacted its own restrictions that will prohibit companies with ownership above specified thresholds from controlling both a PBM and a health insurer or a pharmacy.
Former Utah Attorney General John Swallow has warned that these laws could be unconstitutional. He argues that forced divestment could make the market less competitive by driving affiliated retail, specialty, and mail order pharmacies out of a state.
Rather than tackling the underlying causes of high drug prices, Swallow warns, lawmakers could reduce patient choice, disrupt access to prescriptions and leave taxpayers paying to defend the resulting lawsuits.
There’s an easy way for everyone to understand the effects of these laws: they risk shutting down pharmacies and making life harder for people who rely on them.
One retail pharmacy warned that Arkansas’s law threatened its 23 pharmacies in the state, while it said Tennessee’s legislation could force it to close 136 locations. If the same happens here, it will be disastrous, reducing competition in the system and giving remaining dispensaries a chance to raise prices even higher.
There are legitimate complaints about the prescription drug market. Independent pharmacies have raised concerns about reimbursement and competition. Patients deserve to know why medicines cost what they do and whether financial incentives influence where prescriptions are filled.
However, the government can address specific abuses without deciding how private companies must be structured.
Utah already does this. State law requires PBMs to provide pharmacies with information about reimbursement adjustments and prevents them from stopping pharmacists from telling customers about cheaper ways to buy their medicines.
That is a more conservative response than forced divestment: establish rules, demand transparency and let competitors fight for customers.
Having worked in Utah public policy, I saw the value the Beehive State places on entrepreneurship and economic freedom. My experience as a military spouse and mother has reinforced why that matters in healthcare.
Military families regularly move across state lines and find themselves navigating new doctors or pharmacies. When someone you love needs medication, what matters is whether you can get it safely, reliably and affordably. Patients care about results, not corporate organization charts.
That doesn’t mean vertically integrated healthcare companies deserve a free pass. Large businesses can abuse market power. Regulators should punish misconduct, remove barriers protecting incumbents, and give consumers the information they need to make meaningful choices.
Policing a market is different from designing one.
Forced divestment crosses that line. It replaces decisions made by businesses and consumers with a political judgment about which companies should be allowed to own what.
Utah families desperately need healthcare to become cheaper and easier to navigate. The answer is to help them make more choices, not hit them with government mandates that take away their ability to choose.