Louisian has agreed to settle that were filed earlier this year over the company’s treatment of independent pharmacies and its general business practices, court records show.
The terms of the settlement were not immediately available. On Friday, a spokesperson for Attorney General Liz Murrill said he could not yet provide details.
A spokesperson for CVS declined to comment.
The cases represent two of three actions Murrill brought against CVS in June after state leaders clashed with the healthcare giant because it owns both a pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, and a pharmacy retail chain.
PBMs act as middlemen between pharmacies, healthcare plans and drug manufacturers by negotiating drug prices. They are supposed to create lower prices, but critics say they have too much control over the drug market, drive out competition and limit where people can fill their prescriptions.
A bill that sparked a in June would have barred companies from owning both PBMs and pharmacies, which critics described as an unfair practice.
Ultimately, House Bill 358 failed, and the h Legislature instead passed a different bill establishing new rules around how PBMs can operate.
But in the following weeks, Murrill took the issue to court, filing three separate lawsuits, all alleging unfair trade practices.
One lawsuit argued CVS used its size and control of insurers, PBMs and drug stores to edge out competition and drive up drug costs. Another alleged the company exacted unfair fees on and systematically under-reimbursed independent pharmacies.
CVS disputed those claims, arguing it delivered better value to patients and easier access to care.
"By combining health care delivery, pharmacy, health care benefits, and pharmacy benefit management, we make it easier for people to have what they want the most: a connected care experience," the company said in a statement at the time.
Murrill’s office and CVS have agreed to settle both those cases, according to two separate Dec. 10 orders by a federal judge who dismissed the cases. The parties can seek to reopen them if they do not finalize a settlement agreement.
The cases were originally filed in St. Landry Parish but transferred to federal court in the Western District of h.
The third case came in response to a barrage of text messages CVS sent to customers as HB 358 was being debated in the final days of the spring legislative session. The messages urged opposition to the bill, which CVS said would force it to close 119 stores in h, affecting about 1 million patients across the state.
The state accused CVS of improperly using its customers’ data to send those messages. CVS argued the texts were legal and were an important way to alert customers to the legislation, which emerged abruptly in the last days of the session.
That case remains pending in the 27th Judicial District, which is based in St. Landry Parish.
