2026 Candidate Survey
We asked candidates for the Arizona Legislature where they stand on eight policies that shape what patients pay at the pharmacy counter. Below is each issue, the question we asked, and where Save Our Benefits AZ stands.
Issue 01 of 08
Forced Pharmacy Closure
Will you support legislation prohibiting integration between PBMs and retail pharmacies, forcing pharmacy closures across Arizona?
Supporters of separating PBMs from pharmacy ownership argue that common ownership creates conflicts of interest. In practice, the 2026 proposal would force integrated pharmacies to close or divest, including retail, specialty and mail-order locations that many Arizonans rely on. Closures hit hardest in rural communities and among patients with complex conditions who depend on specialty pharmacies for hard-to-handle medications. Fewer pharmacies means less competition, longer drives and fewer options. Concerns about conflicts of interest can be handled with targeted oversight and disclosure rather than a mandate that shrinks the pharmacy network patients use today.
Issue 02 of 08
Dispensing Fees
Would you support increasing dispensing fees, even if it means increasing prescription drug costs for Arizonans?
Pharmacists provide real professional value, and independent pharmacies point to rising operating costs as a reason to raise dispensing fees. But a fee charged on every prescription adds up quickly, especially for seniors and patients with chronic conditions who fill several prescriptions every month. A mandated increase works like a per-pill tax: it raises costs for patients, employers and health plans regardless of whether the service changes. Arizona can support pharmacies through expanded clinical services and fair contracting without adding a built-in cost to every prescription.
Issue 03 of 08
Test and Treat
Do you support allowing pharmacists to test for common illnesses like strep, flu and COVID-19 and dispense treatment when positive?
Some physician groups have raised concerns about scope of practice and continuity of care. Still, testing and treating common, well-understood illnesses like strep, flu and COVID-19 is a sensible use of pharmacists' training. Much of Arizona lacks enough primary care, and test and treat gives patients faster care closer to home. It also lowers costs by avoiding unnecessary doctor or urgent-care visits. Clear protocols and referral requirements can address safety concerns, so this policy expands access while controlling spending.
Issue 04 of 08
Transparency in Drug Pricing
Would you support legislation to improve transparency for all operators in the healthcare ecosystem, including wholesalers and drug manufacturers?
Federal reform has already brought new transparency and reporting requirements to PBMs. But PBMs are only one link in the drug supply chain. Manufacturers set list prices, and wholesalers add markups. Both often operate with far less public scrutiny. Transparency rules that apply to only one player give policymakers and patients an incomplete picture of where costs come from. Applying consistent standards across the whole supply chain is fair and evidence-based, and it is the only way to find out what is driving prices.
Issue 05 of 08
Patent Thickets
Will you support creating state oversight against anti-competitive conduct by large drug manufacturers?
Patents rightly reward innovation, and manufacturers argue that strong intellectual-property protection funds new cures. The problem comes when companies file dozens of secondary patents on minor changes to keep a drug's monopoly going long after the original invention. These patent thickets delay lower-cost generics and biosimilars and keep prices high for years. State oversight of anti-competitive conduct protects patients and taxpayers without weakening legitimate innovation. It helps competition work the way it is supposed to.
Issue 06 of 08
Anti-Steering
Should PBMs and plans be restricted from using incentives like lower copays to guide patients toward affiliated pharmacies, even if it raises insurance and drug costs?
Critics say plans should not use incentives to steer patients toward affiliated pharmacies. However, lower copays and plan-design tools are among the main ways employers and health plans keep prescription costs down. Banning these incentives removes savings that patients see directly at the counter. It also limits employers' ability to design affordable benefits, which pushes up premiums and drug costs for everyone. Patients remain free to choose any in-network pharmacy. Incentives simply reward the lower-cost option.
Issue 07 of 08
Rebates
Should rebate amounts be publicly disclosed and passed through at the point of sale, even if it causes premiums to increase?
Rebate disclosure and point-of-sale pass-through sound appealing. But rebates already benefit consumers: employers and plan sponsors choose how to use them, and most use them to lower premiums for everyone on the plan. Requiring point-of-sale pass-through shifts that value from all members to the subset who fill certain prescriptions, so premiums go up for everyone else. Public disclosure of negotiated amounts can also weaken the negotiating leverage that produces rebates in the first place. That can lead to higher net drug prices.
Issue 08 of 08
Drug Advertising
Would you support reforms to rein in drug manufacturers' direct-to-consumer advertising?
Drug makers argue that advertising informs patients about available treatments. Yet the United States is one of very few countries that allow prescription drug ads aimed at consumers, and those ads overwhelmingly promote expensive brand-name drugs rather than equally effective, lower-cost options. Generous tax deductions mean taxpayers effectively help pay for this marketing, while the resulting demand drives up spending for patients and plans. Reasonable reforms to the tax treatment and content of these ads would keep the focus on clinical need instead of marketing.