When government agencies are guided more by politics than policy, the result is often higher costs, reduced access, and unintended harm to the very people they claim to protect. Under former Chair Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) too often embraced this playbook—launching investigations and reports designed more to feed a narrative than to present sound analysis.

One need look no further than the FTC’s aggressive (and ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard as evidence of an agency more interested in making headlines than presenting sound economic analysis. A federal judge rejected the FTC’s case, noting it failed to demonstrate real consumer harm and rested on speculative assumptions about future market behavior. Similarly, the agency launched a rhetorical crusade against hospital mergers, painting all consolidation in the sector as inherently harmful—even though reams of independent research tell a different story.

That same pattern—ideologically motivated investigations with selective evidence—has now made its way into the drug pricing debate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the agency’s recent interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). While the report claims to expose harmful practices in the drug pricing system, it instead advances a flawed and politically motivated case against some of the only actors working to contain pharmaceutical costs. The FTC’s distorted findings have already fueled misguided legislation in several states—and if not corrected, could lead to a nationwide spike in healthcare costs.

The timing and tone of the report are no accident. It comes amid one of the most expensive lobbying blitzes in recent memory, led by none other than Big Pharma. According to a new Wall Street Journal report, drugmakers spent over $31 million last year on federal lobbying and have poured millions more into advocacy campaigns, donations to nonprofits, and ad buys targeting so-called “middlemen.” Their goal? Blame PBMs for high drug prices and deflect attention from their own pricing practices.

It’s a message that’s gaining traction, despite the facts. In truth, PBMs are private sector negotiators that secure discounts on behalf of employers, insurers, and government programs like Medicare. They help keep drug prices in check by demanding better deals from manufacturers and steering patients toward more affordable options. The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget has also credited PBMs with driving a “dramatic shift toward generics” that saved the system billions.

But the FTC report ignores this. Instead, it cherry-picks outlier data to suggest that PBMs impose massive markups and harm independent pharmacies—claims that are directly contradicted by a number of studies, including an earlier report from the FTC and recent research from Compass Lexecon. The latter analysis – which incudes a comprehensive analysis of PBM formularies as opposed to the handful of specialty drugs the FTC analyzed in its interim report – shows PBM-affiliated pharmacies actually have lower average reimbursement rates than unaffiliated ones and that independent pharmacy numbers have grown over the past decade. Nevertheless, states like Arkansas have rushed to pass sweeping bans on PBM-owned pharmacies based on these misleading reports and actions by the FTC.

This is what happens when politics overtakes evidence. The FTC, once a respected, data-driven institution, has increasingly allowed ideology to guide its enforcement priorities—whether in antitrust actions, labor policy, or healthcare. Its flawed PBM report is not just a bureaucratic misstep; it’s a political gift to pharmaceutical giants who’ve spent years—and millions—trying to eliminate their most effective competition.

Even members of Congress are beginning to echo the industry’s talking points. But not all are falling for it. As I previously wrote, principled voices like Sens. Ron Johnson and Rick Scott have correctly identified such PBM regulations as “pro-Pharma bills” that undermine “negotiating power with drug companies.” They recognize that weakening PBMs only serves to strengthen drugmakers’ ability to raise prices unchecked.

Meanwhile, Big Pharma continues its behind-the-scenes influence campaign, funding advocacy groups, sponsoring media platforms, and even holding direct meetings with policymakers. Their reach is astounding—and effective. But policymakers must resist the urge to legislate based on headlines and lobbying pressure rather than facts.

The stakes are high. If this regulatory momentum continues, Americans could soon find themselves paying more for prescriptions, waiting longer for specialized medications, and watching their neighborhood pharmacies close—all because of government overreach.

It’s time for a course correction. The FTC should abandon politicized enforcement and return to rigorous, impartial economic analysis. Congress and state lawmakers should reject industry-manufactured narratives and focus instead on policies that increase competition and reduce costs. And the public should demand accountability from both regulators and the drug industry alike.

Healthcare policy should be grounded in what works—not in who shouts the loudest or spends the most. Let’s not sacrifice patient access and affordability to serve a politically convenient storyline.

_______________
Michael Busler is a public policy analyst and a professor of finance at Stockton University in Galloway, New Jersey, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in finance and economics. He has written op-ed columns in major newspapers for more than 35 years.