CVS Health Files Federal Lawsuit to Halt Arkansas’ Act 624, Citing Harm to Patients, Jobs, and Healthcare Access
On May 29, 2025, CVS Health® filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Arkansas’ controversial Act 624, a newly enacted law that the company argues will cause sweeping harm to public health access, eliminate hundreds of jobs, and force the closure of 23 CVS Pharmacy® locations across the state. According to CVS Health, the law is not only unconstitutional but also deeply harmful to the interests of Arkansas residents, particularly those who rely on consistent access to medications and specialized pharmacy care.
At the center of the legal action is CVS Health’s claim that Act 624 unlawfully targets the company’s operations under the guise of protecting local businesses. The law, CVS argues, was explicitly crafted to exclude and restrict large out-of-state pharmacy providers like CVS Health while carving out protections for in-state competitors, many of whom operate under less stringent pricing standards. The company contends that this protectionist measure places politics over patients and erects unnecessary barriers to access at a time when the healthcare needs of Arkansans are already acute.
A Law With Consequences
Act 624 is scheduled to take effect in January 2026 and, if implemented as written, would compel the closure of 23 CVS Pharmacy locations throughout Arkansas. These closures would include some of the few pharmacies in the state that currently offer 24-hour service—a critical resource for patients needing urgent prescriptions outside normal business hours. In total, CVS estimates that more than 500 local jobs would be lost, most of which are held by frontline healthcare workers who serve as the primary link between patients and their medications.
Beyond the job losses, the company warns that the legislation would erode pharmacy access for more than 10,000 Arkansans with complex medical conditions, including those who depend on coordinated pharmaceutical care, chronic disease management services, and specialty drug access. These are services often unavailable at smaller, independent pharmacies.
CVS Health maintains that Act 624 will ultimately result in higher healthcare costs for consumers and payers across Arkansas. According to the company, the closure of its community-based pharmacy locations would create regional monopolies for smaller in-state operators, some of whom already charge higher prices. As fewer options become available, competition would dwindle, driving up the price of medications and limiting patient choice.
Legal Grounds for Challenge
The company’s lawsuit argues that Act 624 violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Chief among these is the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce. By favoring in-state pharmacy businesses and disadvantaging CVS Health—an out-of-state corporation—CVS argues that Act 624 constitutes an explicit and unconstitutional form of economic protectionism.
The complaint also alleges that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause, which requires states to treat similarly situated entities in a non-discriminatory manner. CVS contends that the law imposes unequal regulatory burdens on companies based not on the nature or quality of their services, but on their business structure and geographic headquarters.
In addition, CVS argues that federal law preempts Act 624 in key respects. For example, federal statutes regulating the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) industry already establish a framework for how reimbursements and pharmacy network participation should be handled. By introducing state-level requirements that conflict with federal regulations, CVS claims Arkansas is overstepping its authority.
The lawsuit represents not only a legal effort to protect CVS Health’s ability to operate in Arkansas but also a broader stand against what the company views as a dangerous precedent: state governments enacting laws that benefit local special interests at the expense of patient health, access, and economic fairness.
Impact on Arkansas Communities
At a time when many communities across the country are grappling with pharmacy deserts—areas where patients have limited or no access to prescription medications—the planned closures would disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. Several of the 23 CVS Pharmacy locations targeted for shutdown are in rural or underserved areas, where alternatives may be many miles away.
Moreover, the threatened elimination of over 500 jobs will have a tangible effect on local economies, particularly in small towns where CVS is among the few major healthcare employers. These employees include pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, administrative staff, and customer service personnel—all of whom contribute to the fabric of Arkansas’ healthcare delivery system.
For patients managing complex conditions such as cancer, diabetes, HIV, and autoimmune disorders, CVS offers services that go beyond simply dispensing pills. Many of these pharmacies provide clinical consultations, medication adherence programs, and specialized support through CVS Specialty® services—capabilities that smaller operators may not be equipped to provide.
The Broader Economic Context
While proponents of Act 624 have claimed that the law is intended to level the playing field for independent pharmacies, CVS Health argues that the data simply do not support the narrative that large chains are crowding out small businesses in Arkansas. In fact, according to the company, there are more independent pharmacies operating in the state today than there were in 2019—14 more, to be precise—even accounting for openings and closures.
Further undermining the argument for Act 624 is the company’s disclosure that CVS Caremark®, the PBM arm of CVS Health, reimburses independent pharmacies in Arkansas at rates that are, on average, higher than those paid to CVS Pharmacy locations. This undercuts the notion that PBMs are systematically undercutting local pharmacy viability in favor of their own networks.
CVS argues that rather than improving healthcare outcomes or promoting competition, Act 624 will shift costs to employers, small businesses, health plans, and consumers—many of whom are already struggling with rising healthcare premiums. By reducing access and increasing prices, the law creates a lose-lose situation for virtually every stakeholder except those local businesses insulated from competition.
A Commitment to Continued Service
Despite the legal and political turbulence, CVS Health has pledged to continue operating its 23 Arkansas pharmacy locations for the immediate future. While no closures have been formally announced, the company is carefully evaluating its options and hopes that the legal process will ultimately allow it to preserve access for its patients and communities.
“We’re fighting this law not just to protect our business,” a CVS Health spokesperson said, “but to protect the hundreds of thousands of Arkansans who rely on our pharmacies for accessible, affordable, and dependable healthcare services. This isn’t about corporate profits—it’s about making sure patients can get the medications and care they need, when they need them.”
A Crucial Legal Battle for Healthcare Access
The legal challenge to Act 624 represents a pivotal moment in the evolving relationship between state legislatures, healthcare providers, and large employers in the U.S. pharmacy landscape. With CVS Health taking a firm stance against what it calls an unconstitutional and dangerous law, the case will likely spark national conversations around healthcare access, fair competition, and the limits of state power in regulating commerce.
Whether the courts ultimately side with CVS Health or uphold Arkansas’ legislative authority, the outcome of this case will carry significant implications—not only for the future of CVS in Arkansas, but for pharmacy regulation and healthcare policy across the country.
