On February 4, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced what it called a “landmark” settlement with Express Scripts. The headlines said the agency had blown up the pharmacy-benefit-manager business model and would deliver $7 billion in patient savings over the next decade. Read the actual 15-page consent decree, though, and a different picture emerges. The FTC didn’t blow up the model. It made the existing model the opt-out option. A single sentence in Section XI tells you why.

The story so far

The case has been building for a while. In September 2024, the FTC sued the three largest PBMs and their affiliated rebate aggregators over insulin pricing, alleging that Express Scripts (with its Switzerland-based GPO Ascent), CVS Caremark (with Zinc), and OptumRx (with Ireland-based Emisar) had used opaque rebating practices to inflate insulin list prices and shift costs onto vulnerable patients. ESI signed first, on February 4, 2026. CVS followed by filing a joint motion to withdraw from adjudication on March 23. Its own settlement is now in the pipeline. Optum is still negotiating.

The stakes are high. Together these three PBMs process roughly 80% of all U.S. prescription claims. Express Scripts alone has 123.6 million pharmacy customers as of year-end 2025 and now leads the market with 30% of prescription claims, up from 23% the year before.

For a full section-by-section breakdown of what’s locked versus what plan sponsors can waive, see Chart 1 in the Appendix.

What’s actually locked in

The decree has 17 sections. Twelve of them constrain ESI’s behavior in some way. But here is the part most coverage has glossed over. Only five of those twelve cannot be opted out of by a plan sponsor in writing. Those five are where the real story lives.

The most important is Section VI, which is the structural one. As of January 1, 2027, ESI’s compensation from drug manufacturers cannot be based, directly or indirectly, on list price. That includes the “administrative fees” and “data fees” that for years have been used to launder rebate-related payments through Ascent. Section VI breaks the rebate-as-percent-of-WAC math that has driven a decade of list-price inflation. There’s no plan-sponsor opt-out and no carve-out. It is, in one sentence, the part of this decree that actually reshapes the economics of being a PBM.

The other locked pieces are quieter but consequential. Section X requires Ascent to move from Schaffhausen, Switzerland to the United States by July 1, 2028, and forces any rebate GPO ESI owns to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute’s GPO Safe Harbor, an obligation PBM-owned GPOs have long argued they were exempt from. Section IX commits ESI to spending at least $10 million per year for five years actively marketing the new transparent offering. That is an unusual affirmative-spend requirement, and it signals the FTC’s own concern about how the order will play out in practice. And Section XVI, the cooperation clause, is the one most observers are treating as boilerplate. It isn’t. We’ll get to it.

The loophole

Section XI is titled “Meeting Competition,” and it’s where the FTC met the limits of its own authority. The section explicitly carves Sections II, III, IV, V, and VIII out of the order’s mandatory architecture. Any plan sponsor (that is, any self-funded employer or insurance company that buys ESI’s services) can request in writing that ESI provide terms different from the new Standard Offering. As long as ESI offers the Standard Offering and gets a written acknowledgement that the plan sponsor has read Exhibit A, a one-page disclosure of the standard offering’s benefits, anything goes.

There is exactly one carve-in to that carve-out, and it’s buried in the proviso to Section XI. Cigna Healthcare’s own fully-insured plans cannot opt out of Section II. Why is that carve-in small? The chart below shows the math.

Chart 2. Who’s actually locked in
A small slice of ESI’s book is hard-wired to the new rules
Cigna’s own fully-insured plans cannot opt out of Section II. Self-insured employer plans, the bulk of ESI’s 123.6M pharmacy customers, can.
Locked into Section II (Cigna fully-insured) Opt-out under Section XI (everyone else)
~3M (~2.4%) Cigna fully-insured commercial book, locked ~120M+ covered lives. Section XI opt-out applies Express Scripts pharmacy customers, year-end 2025: 123.6M Why the locked slice is small: Cigna Healthcare commercial enrollment is ~19M; about 18% is fully-insured. ESI’s PBM book is broader (Centene, Prime, other plan sponsors). None are locked in.
Estimate. Cigna’s 10-K does not directly disclose Cigna fully-insured commercial members as a percentage of ESI’s total pharmacy customer count. Tribune calculation: 18% of ~19M Cigna Healthcare commercial = ~3.4M, or ~2.4% of ESI’s 123.6M pharmacy customer base.
Sources: Cigna Group, 2024 Form 10-K (funding solutions disclosure); Cigna Group Q4 2025 earnings (Feb. 2026); Tribune calculation.

About three million people locked in. About 120 million who can opt out. The commercial gravity is firmly on the side of opting out. Any plan sponsor that does the cost comparison will likely find the new Standard Offering more expensive than the legacy model, because it strips out the rebate guarantees and spread pricing that historically made PBM contracts feel cheap up front. That’s why the FTC built in $50 million of mandatory marketing spend over five years. The agency knew this would happen and wanted ESI on the hook for actively selling the new model rather than burying it in an appendix.

The FTC didn’t blow up the model. It made the existing model the opt-out option.

Where the $7 billion comes from

The headline savings figure is overwhelmingly an insulin story, and once you understand the gross-to-net dynamics in insulin specifically, the rest of the order’s logic falls into place.

Chart 3. Where the savings live
Insulin’s gross-to-net bubble, and how it deflated
List prices climbed for a decade while net prices flatlined or fell. Manufacturer-led list-price cuts in 2023 closed much of the gap before the FTC ever signed.
List price (WAC) index Net price index (after rebates and discounts)
200 160 120 80 40 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18 ’19 ’20 ’21 ’22 ’23 ’24 Index, 2012 = 100 2023 list-price cuts: Lilly −70%, Sanofi −78%, Novo −65 to −75% FTC decree signed Feb 2026. Gap already narrow. List price (WAC) Net price (after rebates)
Indexed series. Approximate trajectory derived from published research on the four major insulins (Lantus, Levemir, Humalog, NovoLog) plus subsequent post-2023 manufacturer list-price reductions and 2024 average-price-per-unit data. Use as illustrative trend.
Sources: Mulcahy et al., JAMA Health Forum (2023); American Action Forum, “Insulin Cost and Pricing Trends”; HHS ASPE; GoodRx (2024); manufacturer press releases (Mar. 2023).

About 7.3 million U.S. adults use insulin. Of those, 52% are on Medicare, 33% are commercially insured, 12% on Medicaid, and 2% uninsured. The commercial slice (roughly 2.4 million people) is the only group ESI’s commercial book directly touches. Among those, about 30% are on plans ESI administers. That works out to roughly 720,000 patients whose insulin economics actually change because of this decree.

The savings mechanism is Section II, plus Section IV’s Patient Assurance Program default-on. Before the decree, a high-deductible-plan member could pay full list price for insulin until they hit their deductible, sometimes hundreds of dollars per fill. After Implementation Date in January 2027, they pay either the net price (list minus rebates) or the PAP cap, whichever is lower, from dollar one. KFF data shows 27% of covered workers were in HDHPs in 2024, climbing to 33% in 2025. That’s a lot of insulin patients about to feel a difference at the counter.

One footnote worth flagging. Manufacturers slashed insulin list prices voluntarily in March 2023 (Lilly cut Humalog 70%, Sanofi cut Lantus 78%, Novo cut its insulins between 65% and 75%), and average insulin price-per-unit has already fallen from $0.33 in 2019 to $0.19 by mid-2024. Some of the FTC’s projected $7 billion was already in flight before the agency ever sat down at the table.

The hidden lever: cooperation

Now back to that “boilerplate” provision. Section XVI requires ESI to produce up to five employees for deposition and three to testify at trial in any FTC litigation arising from the same allegations against any other party, at ESI’s own expense. Translation: ESI’s emails, contracts, and employees are now available as evidence against Caremark and OptumRx.

CVS filed its joint motion to withdraw from adjudication on March 23, 2026, six and a half weeks after ESI signed. That timing isn’t coincidental. The cooperation clause didn’t just settle one case; it pressured the other two to fold. And the rollout schedule that follows from this domino sequence is staggered enough that nothing actually changes for patients tomorrow.

Chart 4. What kicks in when
A staggered rollout, not a switch flip
The headlines came in February 2026. The structural changes phase in over more than two years, and the order runs for a decade after that.
ESI signs Feb 4, 2026 Caremark moves to settle Mar 23, 2026 Implementation Date Jan 1, 2027 Sections I, II, IV, VI, IX live Rebate and pharmacy provisions Jan 1, 2028 Sections V, VII, VIII live Ascent reshore deadline Jul 1, 2028 Section X. Switzerland to U.S. Monitor term ends Jan 1, 2030 Decree expires Jan 1, 2037 2026 2027 2028 2030 2037
“Implementation Date” is defined as the earlier of (i) ESI’s certification of completion or (ii) Jan 1, 2027. Term runs 10 years from Implementation Date.
Source: FTC, Decision and Order, Docket No. 9437 (Feb. 4, 2026), Sections M, V, VIII, X, XII, XVII.

What to watch

Three things will tell us whether this decree actually changes how patients pay for prescriptions, or just changes the legalese around how PBMs operate.

First, watch the Caremark consent order. It is expected to publish later this year, after the public-comment period closes. Check whether it has the same Section XI architecture. If yes, the loophole is industry-wide. If the FTC tightened it for Caremark, that’s a bigger story than the original ESI settlement. The order-versus-order comparison table is a piece this newsletter intends to write.

Second, the statutory fix for TrumpRx. Section III of the ESI decree, which requires ESI to provide TrumpRx access in its Standard Offering, is dormant until Congress or CMS exempts direct-to-consumer purchases from Medicaid Best Price (Section 1927) and 340B price calculations. Without that fix, manufacturers can’t offer deep DTC discounts without crashing their Medicaid revenue. As of this writing, no bill is moving. The decree is treating TrumpRx as if it’s real. It isn’t real yet.

Third, the 2027 and 2028 plan-sponsor surveys from the big benefits consultants (Aon, Mercer, Willis Towers Watson). Those will reveal whether self-funded employers are actually adopting the Standard Offering or quietly opting out under Section XI. If the adoption rate stays in the single digits, the FTC’s $7 billion savings number will need a serious revision.

The bottom line The FTC’s order is the most aggressive PBM action ever taken. It’s also less than the headlines suggest. The middle ground, somewhere between “blew up the model” and “performative theater,” is where the real story lives. We’ll see how that ground plays out one Section XI election at a time.
• • •
Issue No. 1 of The Olsen Tribune. Written from a close reading of FTC Docket No. 9437 (the consent decree itself), supplemented by Cigna’s 2024 Form 10-K, the FTC’s 2024 PBM Staff Report, Drug Channels reporting, and KFF / HHS ASPE data on insulin utilization. Charts are illustrative; underlying data is sourced inline. Not investment advice.