“Pass the Patients Before Monopolies (PBM) Act to force health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to divest their pharmacy businesses in order to lower prescription drug costs.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited sources are reachable and support the CHAMPIONED outcome for this specific promise. Source 1 (Warren's own Senate press release, Dec. 11, 2024 — matching the promise date) confirms Warren as the LEAD introducer/sponsor of the bipartisan, bicameral Patients Before Monopolies (PBM) Act, which prohibits a PBM's or insurer's parent company from owning a pharmacy business and requires divestment — establishing real leadership, not a mere vote or support. The quote 'PBMs have manipulated the market to enrich themselves — hiking up drug costs, cheating employers, and driving small pharmacies out of business' appears verbatim. Source 3 (Hall Benefits Law) confirms the bill DID NOT become law — it died at the close of the 118th Congress on Jan. 3, 2025 — so this is not FULL. Source 2 (Warren's Senate reintroduction release, May 13, 2026) confirms she reintroduced the bill as lead sponsor and continues to drive the effort, with the substantive quote 'Our PBM Act is gaining momentum because people are realizing that you can't lower health care costs without tackling corporate greed' verified. Because Warren authored, led, and reintroduced the bill (sustained leadership) but the Act has not passed, CHAMPIONED is the correct rating. Minor note: the second source quote's trailing phrase 'in the health care system' was truncated in the fetched text; the load-bearing portion is confirmed and nothing indicates fabrication.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.