Pharmacies in the United States are closing at an alarming rate. The ACT Pharmacy Collaborative, a partnership between community pharmacy networks and academia, reported that 244 pharmacies closed in just the first six weeks of 2024. Similarly, Rite-Aid has closed 500 stores, CVS will close another 300 stores by the end of the year and Walgreens will close 1,200 over the next three years.
In my home state of Oregon, pharmacists are constantly facing untenable scenarios. At a recent hearing, a pharmacist from a rural community testified how a woman from a neighboring town called his pharmacy late in the day needing to urgently fill a prescription. Unfortunately, the only pharmacy in her town had permanently closed, so she was stuck frantically attempting to locate someone who took their insurance and had the medication in stock. His pharmacy had the medication, so while she drove 28 miles on rural roads, the pharmacy stayed open — 30 minutes after closing because that’s what pharmacists do. We take care of patients.
Afterwards, when the patient had the medication in hand and was counseled on how to use it correctly, the pharmacist checked to see how much was made from the prescription. To his dismay, in the end, the pharmacy was reimbursed $23 below the drug’s acquisition price. His pharmacy lost money for taking care of a patient that evening.
Now it might be easy to chalk this up as an isolated incident — an unfortunate anomaly or glitch in our health care system. However, instances like this happen on a regular basis and it has become commonplace to have a prescription reimbursed at an amount that is less than the cost to acquire and dispense the drug. Given the high cost of medications, this may come as a surprise. However, pharmacy benefit managers currently have an outsized influence on the financial health of many community pharmacies.
PBMs are middlemen — often invisible to the patient — that are located at the interface of drug manufacturers, payers and their employer-sponsors, and community pharmacies. They began over 50 years ago as a solution to help payers manage the complexity of prescription drug benefits. PBMs were highly efficient at claims processing, and they do play a role in helping payers process a high volume of relatively small claims. However, over time, the role of PBMs has evolved and expanded to where PBMs are now engaged in negotiating drug prices and determining which medications are covered by a plan’s formulary. They also operate their own pharmacies through closely affiliated partners. This gives PBMs considerable influence on how much pharmacies are paid, which drugs are covered and where patients can fill their prescriptions.
Simultaneously, over time, the PBM market has become highly concentrated. A report released by the Federal Trade Commission in July found that in 2023 the three largest PBMs companies processed approximately 80 percent of the prescriptions dispensed by U.S. pharmacies and that percentage rises to 90 percent if expanding to the six largest PBMs. All the major players are now vertically integrated with other parts of the health sector, often resulting in massive conglomerates where PBMs simultaneously play the role of plan, pharmacy and middleman. The FTC report highlights how PBMs impose “confusing, unfair, arbitrary, and harmful” contractual terms that influence the financial health of pharmacies.
PBMs have grown in such a way that it makes it nearly impossible for the average consumer — or even seasoned policy maker — to understand the problems and propose solutions. And when things are confusing, it is easy to become paralyzed and do nothing. However, in this case, doing nothing is simply not an option. Pharmacies are in crisis. The pharmacy from above has since closed, leaving another rural Oregon town with one less access point for patients.
Momentum for federal regulation that will bring more transparency and accountability to how PBMs influence the drug supply chain has built over the last few years. Multiple bills have come out of congressional committees with unanimous bipartisan support. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and high-ranking Republicans have expressed support for PBM reform. Congress has now returned to Washington, creating a final and crucial opportunity to pass PBM reform in 2024. It must be done.
To be sure, as a pharmacist, I care deeply about my profession. However, I care even more deeply about the patients that my profession serves. It saddens me that if PBM reform does not pass, then many more pharmacies will close, and more communities will lose pharmacy access. It saddens me that people residing in those communities might need to hold their breath, cross their fingers and hope they are not the patient needing a pharmacy to stay open past close as they drive those 28 miles.
Irwin is a clinical associate professor at Oregon State University’s College of Pharmacy and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. She is also a former president of the Oregon State Pharmacy Association.



















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.