Ban pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies.

Jake Auchincloss · Massachusetts · Democratic

policy impact 3.00 specificity 4.00 extraction confidence 95%

Contest this claim

Occurrences

introduced the Community Health Center Drug Pricing Protection Act to exempt Community Health Centers (CHCs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) from the Trump administration’s proposed 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program.

Auchincloss introduces a bill to shield community health centers from a proposed 340B rebate model pilot program.

Press Releases | Newsroom | U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss Of Massachusetts 4th District
primary · press_release · model gpt-5.4-mini

Mrs. Harshbarger (for herself and Mr. Auchincloss) introduced the following bill... To prohibit pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from being under common ownership... It shall be unlawful for any person to both... own, operate, control, or direct the operation of the whole or any part of a pharmacy; and... own, operate, or control... a pharmacy benefit manager.

Auchincloss joined the introduced PBM Act of 2024, which would prohibit common ownership of pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers and require divestment after enactment.

Text - H.R.10362 - PBM Act of 2024
secondary · other · model gpt-5.5

Evidence

Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Diana Harshbarger, alongside Senators Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley, reintroduced the Patients Before Monopolies (PBM) Act with expanded bipartisan support to rein in drug pricing middlemen, known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), from enriching themselves and crushing competition at the expense of patients and independent pharmacies.

Within the lookback window, Auchincloss publicly reintroduced the PBM Act, a concrete legislative step toward restricting PBM vertical integration with pharmacies, but it remained only a reintroduction and not enacted law.

unresolved same_term A for effort

RELEASE: Auchincloss, Warren, Harshbarger, Hawley Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Rein in Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Cut Drug Costs | U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss Of Massachusetts 4th District
primary · model gpt-5.4-mini · confidence 96%

Contest this evidence item

Sponsor: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA] (Introduced 02/10/2026). Latest Action: Senate - 02/10/2026 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Tracker: This bill has the status Introduced. Official Title as Introduced: A bill to prohibit pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and prescription drug or medical device wholesalers from being under common ownership with certain medical service providers, and for other purposes.

The 119th Congress version of the PBM ownership-ban proposal was introduced and referred to committee, showing the policy text exists in federal legislation but has not advanced beyond introduction.

unresolved same_term A for effort

All Information for S.3822 - A bill to prohibit pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and prescription drug or medical device wholesalers from being under common ownership with certain medical service providers, and for other purposes
secondary · model gpt-5.4-mini · confidence 95%

Contest this evidence item

To prohibit pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from being under common ownership, and for other purposes.

The underlying PBM Act text expressly contained the ownership prohibition, confirming the substance of the promise, but this older bill text does not show enactment or implementation.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Text - H.R.10362 - PBM Act of 2024
secondary · model gpt-5.4-mini · confidence 90%

Contest this evidence item

As of the June 18, 2026 review, Congress.gov still shows S.3822 as introduced on February 10, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with no later actions, floor passage, or enactment listed.

The federal ownership-ban proposal remains only an introduced bill with committee referral and no enacted ban, so the promise has not been delivered.

never same_term A for effort

All Information for S.3822 - A bill to prohibit pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and prescription drug or medical device wholesalers from being under common ownership with certain medical service providers, and for other purposes
secondary · model gpt-5.4-mini · confidence 95%

Contest this evidence item

Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Diana Harshbarger, alongside Senators Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley, reintroduced the Patients Before Monopolies Act. The release says the bill would prohibit a parent company of a PBM or insurer from owning a pharmacy business and require divestment within one year of enactment.

Auchincloss publicly advanced legislation matching the promise, but the release describes a bill proposal rather than an enacted federal ban.

unresolved same_term A for effort

RELEASE: Auchincloss, Warren, Harshbarger, Hawley Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Rein in Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Cut Drug Costs | U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss Of Massachusetts 4th District
primary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

Contest this evidence item

Auchincloss's official legislation page lists H.R.8779 as cosponsored, updated 05/13/26, with the description: To prohibit pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from being under common ownership, and for other purposes.

The member's official records show Auchincloss cosponsored a 119th Congress House bill directly aligned with the promise, supporting an effort finding but not showing enactment.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Sponsored Legislation | About | U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss Of Massachusetts 4th District
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 93%

Contest this evidence item

Congress.gov lists S.3822 as introduced on 02/10/2026, referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the tracker status Introduced. Its official title is a bill to prohibit PBMs, insurers, and prescription drug or medical device wholesalers from common ownership with certain medical service providers.

The current Senate vehicle for the ownership-ban policy had not advanced beyond introduction and committee referral, so it does not establish delivery of a federal ban.

never same_term A for effort

All Information for S.3822 - A bill to prohibit pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and prescription drug or medical device wholesalers from being under common ownership with certain medical service providers, and for other purposes
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

Contest this evidence item

Congress.gov lists H.R.10362 as introduced on 12/11/2024, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with status Introduced. The page lists Rep. Jake Auchincloss as an original cosponsor and gives the official title as prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from being under common ownership.

Auchincloss took concrete legislative action in the 118th Congress, but the bill remained introduced and was not enacted.

never same_term A for effort

All Information for H.R.10362 - PBM Act of 2024
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 97%

Contest this evidence item

The introduced bill text says Mrs. Harshbarger, for herself and Mr. Auchincloss, introduced the bill. It states that it would be unlawful for a person to own or control a pharmacy and also own or control an insurance company or pharmacy benefit manager, with divestment required after enactment.

The bill text confirms the substance of the proposal matches the promise to ban PBM-pharmacy common ownership, but the text is proposed legislation rather than enacted law.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Text - H.R.10362 - PBM Act of 2024
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 95%

Contest this evidence item

Congress.gov lists S.5503 as sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, introduced 12/12/2024, read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The tracker status is Introduced.

The 118th Congress Senate companion to the PBM ownership-ban proposal also did not advance beyond introduction and referral, reinforcing that the policy was not enacted in that Congress.

never same_term A for effort

S.5503 - PBM Act
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 95%

Contest this evidence item

The S.5503 text says the bill would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from common ownership. It provides that it would be unlawful for a person to own or control a pharmacy and also own or control an insurance company or pharmacy benefit manager, and requires divestment within three years after enactment.

The Senate bill text matches the promised policy goal, but because it remained an introduced bill it supports effort rather than fulfillment.

unresolved same_term A for effort

Text - S.5503 - PBM Act
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 94%

Contest this evidence item

Assessments

never same_term A for effort

The promised outcome requires an enacted federal ban on PBM-pharmacy common ownership. Auchincloss materially advanced legislation matching the promise, including the PBM Act/Patients Before Monopolies Act, and the bill text would prohibit common ownership and require divestment. But the relevant House and Senate vehicles remained introduced or referred to committee and had not become law as of the current review, so the substantive ban was not delivered. Because he made a serious legislative attempt, effort credit applies.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

never same_term A for effort

Auchincloss took a serious legislative step by reintroducing and backing the PBM Act, which directly matches the promise to bar pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies. But the relevant federal proposal remained only introduced and referred to committee, with no floor passage or enactment as of June 18, 2026. Under a federal-office standard, sponsorship and advocacy show meaningful effort, but without enacted law or implemented policy the promised outcome was not delivered.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.4 · confidence 95%

never same_term A for effort

Auchincloss materially advanced the promised policy by introducing or reintroducing federal legislation to prohibit common ownership between PBMs and pharmacies, matching the substance of the promise. However, the evidence shows the 119th Congress bill was only introduced and referred to committee, and no enactment or implemented federal ban is shown. Because there was a serious legislative attempt but the promised ownership ban has not been delivered, this should be scored as not fulfilled with an effort badge.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 94%