TLRC position
Support
2026 · Consumer
Prohibit pharmacy benefits managers from owning or controlling Tennessee pharmacies and require disclosure, enforcement, and penalties for violations.
HB 1959 / SB 2040
Bill description
Prohibit pharmacy benefits managers from owning or controlling Tennessee pharmacies and require disclosure, enforcement, and penalties for violations.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, relative to the ownership or control of pharmacies by pharmacy benefits managers.
Bill sponsors
House co-sponsors · 34
Cameron Sexton R, Fred Atchley R, Lowell Russell R, Jay Reedy R, Ed Butler R, Tom Stinnett R, Mike Sparks R, Ryan Williams R, Pat Marsh R, Jeremy Faison R, Tandy Darby R, Gary Hicks R, Justin Lafferty R, John Crawford R, Rusty Grills R, Sabi Kumar R, Tim Hicks R, Mark Cochran R, Kevin Raper R, Rush Bricken R, Kip Capley R, Paul Sherrell R, Debra Moody R, Rebecca Alexander R, Esther Helton-Haynes R, Michelle Carringer R, Kirk Haston R, Aftyn Behn D, Jody Barrett R, Dennis Powers R, Rick Eldridge R, Greg Martin R, Michele Reneau R, Mark White R
Senate co-sponsors · 10
Ferrell Haile R, Shane Reeves R, Randy McNally R, Tom Hatcher R, Adam Lowe R, Bo Watson R, Ken Yager R, Joey Hensley R, Janice Bowling R, Mark Pody R
TLRC statement
HB1959, the "Freedom, Access, and Integrity in Registered Pharmacy (FAIR Rx) Act," would prohibit pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) from owning or exercising control over pharmacies in Tennessee by amending Title 63. In practice the law would sever or prevent vertical integration in which a PBM that administers prescription drug benefits also owns or controls brick-and-mortar or mail-order pharmacies, removing a structural conflict of interest that can steer patients to PBM‑owned outlets and disadvantage independent community pharmacies.
From a conservative, pro‑market perspective this is primarily a competition and property-rights measure: it protects independent pharmacists’ ability to compete on price and service, preserves consumers’ access to local pharmacies, and prevents concentrated private power (a quasi-monopoly) from using its administrative role to foreclose rivals. The measure appears narrowly targeted — focusing on ownership/control relationships rather than dictating clinical practice — and, according to available fiscal notes, does not create new regulatory boards or a major new state bureaucracy. Opponents will argue it is regulatory interference in private contracting; supporters can reasonably reply it restores fair competition and protects citizens’ earned livelihoods and local commerce.