In a brazen move that speaks volumes about corporate priorities, Rhode Island-based CVS Health, along with healthcare giants UnitedHealth and Cigna, are suing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to maintain their grip on insulin pricing – and potentially shield themselves from future scrutiny of their pricing practices.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, represents more than just another corporate legal battle. It’s an attempt by these pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) to continue a practice that the FTC has described as “perverse” – one that has forced countless Americans to pay exorbitant prices for life-saving insulin.

CVS, headquartered in Woonsocket, has long been viewed as a source of local pride, providing thousands of jobs and contributing to the state’s economy. However, this latest move reveals a darker side to the pharmacy giant’s business model – one built on profiting from essential medications that millions of Americans depend on to survive.

The lawsuit comes in response to the FTC’s September action against these companies, which collectively control about 80% of the nation’s prescriptions through their PBM subsidiaries. The FTC’s investigation found that these companies have been using their market dominance to inflate insulin prices while boosting their own profits.

But the PBMs’ lawsuit goes beyond merely defending their current practices. In a particularly troubling aspect of their legal strategy, they’re attempting to challenge the very constitutional authority of the FTC to regulate their industry through its administrative court system. This move appears to be a calculated gamble, possibly banking on potential future changes in the political landscape that could reshape the FTC’s regulatory authority.

FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar didn’t mince words in response to the lawsuit, stating, “It has become fashionable for corporate giants to argue that a 110-year-old federal agency is unconstitutional to distract from business practices that we allege, in the case of PBMs, harm sick patients by forcing them to pay huge sums for life-saving medicine.”

The timing and nature of this legal challenge raise serious questions about the companies’ motivations. By arguing that the FTC’s administrative process violates their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, these corporations are essentially seeking to kneecap the agency’s ability to regulate their industry – not just regarding insulin pricing, but potentially all future pricing practices.

For Rhode Islanders, this lawsuit should serve as a wake-up call. While CVS may be a significant employer in the state, its business practices have drawn increasing scrutiny from federal regulators who have found evidence of illegal behavior that harms consumers nationwide.

The companies claim their PBM systems help lower drug prices, but the FTC’s investigation tells a different story – one of artificially inflated prices that have forced many Americans to ration insulin or go without this life-saving medication altogether.

As this legal battle unfolds, it’s crucial to remember what’s really at stake: not just the profits of these healthcare giants, but the lives and well-being of millions of Americans who depend on affordable access to insulin. The outcome of this case could determine whether these companies can continue their pricing practices with impunity or whether federal regulators can effectively protect consumers from predatory pricing in the pharmaceutical industry.