Politics by tantrum

How Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill may have abused their powers after a pharmacy bill failed to win Senate passage

I’m not sure if a bill to ban pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies was a good idea. The controversial legislation failed at the close of the regular session of the Louisiana Legislature on Thursday after the state Senate refused to rush the bill through to passage, despite House members having approved it in an 88-4 vote on Wednesday afternoon.

CVS Health Corporation sent text messages on Wednesday to thousands of its customers, warning that the legislation would force it to shutter most of its pharmacies in the state.

I received one such message: “Last minute legislation in Louisiana threatens to close your CVS Pharmacy - your medication cost may go up and your pharmacist may lose their job. Contact your elected officials to protect your access, send a message at cvs.co/la.”

Here’s how the Baton Rouge Advocate described the bill in a story on June 11:

A bill that could reshape the landscape of Louisiana pharmacies emerged on the second-to-last day of the legislative session, provoking a furious debate on the House floor and a massive public lobbying campaign from drug-store chain CVS.

House Bill 358 surfaced Wednesday afternoon from a conference committee with a major new addition: It would ban pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies. The goal, supporters said, is to stop those big companies from using their buying power to squeeze out local independent pharmacies and give consumers fewer choices.

But CVS, which owns both a pharmacy benefits manager and a chain of drugstores, said the bill would force them to close 119 Louisiana pharmacies, affecting 1 million patients across the state and 22,000 patients who receive high-cost specialty drugs that smaller pharmacies could find difficult to handle.

It would also put 2,700 CVS employees out of work, the drug retailer said.

After reading several stories about the bill, I remain undecided about whether I’d support it.

What I do know is that Gov. Jeff Landry and his Mini-Me, Attorney General Liz Murrill, revealed a great deal about their bullyish, authoritarian natures after the Senate did not consider the bill.

Landry, Murrill, and another Landry Mini-Me—Rep. Dixon McMakin, R-Baton Rouge—were outraged that senators refused to function as a rubber stamp for them.

“It is about time something in this building we have done tells a national industry we’re not going to stand for it anymore,” McMakin thundered, referring to the CVS text messages that claimed the bill he supported would force the company to close pharmacies. “No we’re not, you liars. Quit being liars. Quit using scare tactics,” McMakin said.

Next, President Donald Trump’s Mini-Me, Donald Trump Jr, got in on the act, tweeting, “Louisiana, it’s time to pass HB358 and end the charade that costs hard-working Americans so much money when buying prescription drugs.”

Not to be outdone by McMakin’s and Trump’s tantrums, Landry threatened to summon lawmakers back to Baton Rouge for a special session to consider the bill.

“Yes we will have a special to lower prescription drugs for our citizens. It's that important!" Landry said in a statement.

To that, Republican Senate President Cameron Henry explained that his Senate colleagues had concerns about the rushed nature of the process. The bill had only passed the House on Wednesday afternoon. And Landry and others were demanding that the Senate approve a new amendment without a hearing.

“The more that members had the opportunity to really digest what that bill would do—and the conversations they were having back home with both their local pharmacy, the chain pharmacist, who it was going to affect—we really had a difficult time getting a true grasp of what the bill was going to do,” Henry said.

“There’s a legislative process for a reason,” Henry added. “That amendment did not have one ounce of public testimony through the process.”

Henry also noted that, if passed, the bill wouldn’t take effect until 2027. “I don’t know why you would call a special session for a bill that doesn’t take effect until 2027,” he said.

Not to be out-outraged by McMakin, Trump, and Landry, AG Murrill entered the chat to send a cease-and-desist letter to CVS and announced that at Landry’s direction, she was launching an investigation into the company.

Are you beginning to see the pattern that I’m seeing?

Again, knowing nothing about the bill other than that Landry, Murrill, Trump, and their flunkies wanted senators to approve it without so much as a hearing suggests to me that it might be a bad idea.

All these hysterics by Landry, Murrill, and others after the Senate refused to rush their bill through to passage on the last day of the session were revealing and raise serious questions.

1. If this bill is so critical to Louisiana and its people that they plan to hold a special session to reconsider it, why didn’t Landry and others talk about it sooner? Why did they wait to present this new amendment for a vote on the second-to-last day before adjournment?

2. Why has Landry still not learned how to deal more effectively with the Senate?

If he wants senators to do his bidding, has he considered doing something more than issuing royal decrees?

From his first bruising special session of his term, Landry has shown that he does not respect the independence of that body. You’d think by now, he’d try treating them with more respect. But you’d be wrong.

3. And why are Landry and Murrill more than willing to abuse power to get their way?

It’s one thing to urge the Senate to pass a bill and throw a tantrum when they won’t. But it’s another thing entirely to bully and threaten legal action against a corporation for simply communicating with its customers about a matter of public policy.

As I last checked, the First Amendment still applies in Louisiana.

I’ll say it again: I don’t know much about this legislation. Maybe it’s a good idea, maybe not. But the appalling, childish behavior of its proponents in the wake of its failure on Thursday was revealing.

The whole sorry episode suggests Landry and his allies weren’t eager to answer honest questions about their amendment, were wholly unprepared to debate CVS and others over its merits, and had only threats and intimidation to offer in support of the bill.

Landy and Murrill attacked CVS for what they claim were underhanded tactics in trying to defeat a bill. (I fail to see what CVS did wrong.)

However, by criticizing the corporation and attempting to bully the Senate, they disgraced themselves—and may have made it less likely that their bill will ever become law.