David Marin Talks to POLITICO About ‘New Forcefulness’ at PCMA

April 2, 2026

Outlines a Commitment to Storytelling, Patient Impact, and Partnerships

The Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) industry has too long been defined by others, and PCMA is recommitted to telling its own story, new President and CEO Dave Marin told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. The organization is pursuing a new strategy to recapture its own narrative, refocus on how policies impact patients, and attract new partners to advance shared priorities. Following the passage of PBM reform earlier this year, Marin talked about how this is an inflection point for the industry and an opportunity for policymakers to turn their focus to the real obstacles to prescription drug affordability and access. Highlights of Marin’s interview are below, and the full story can be found here.

POLITICO: There’s been a lot of change for PBMs this year, with Congress passing multiple reforms in the CAA. You’re new to this role. What’s your vision moving forward for both PCMA and the industry at large?

David Marin: As an industry, for too long, far too many others have told our story, despite the many facts that should be more widely understood. There’s no disputing the notion that PBMs bring value. They definitely negotiate lower prices for employers and patients. They definitely provide and promote safety for patients. They definitely help encourage drug adherence, which saves lives. But unfortunately, that line has been derailed by others who have an interest in derailing it.

What we’re bringing to PCMA now is sort of a new forcefulness, a new long-term commitment to storytelling that requires some discipline and some purpose. We’re not going to be afraid to run toward fights anymore, because that’s no way to run a railroad.

You said in congressional testimony last month that you feel the PBM industry “failed” to convey to Congress the value of PBMs. What specifically are you doing to address that failure?

We were reacting rather than being proactive and explaining our value. We also permitted others to characterize our commitment to transparency in an inaccurate way.

Fortunately, I think we’re now at a point, given some self-initiated reforms in our industry, and also given the reforms that were recently signed into law, transparency should be an answered question at this point. The transparency that is now required of our companies is second to none. It applies drug by drug, claim by claim, pharmacy by pharmacy. It’s robust.

You lobbied heavily against the reforms Congress passed. Now that PBMs will be forced to implement them, what will the impact be on the industry?

Some of these things were happening in bits and pieces already, especially when we look at the transparency that some employers and others were demanding already, especially when we look at rebate pass-through.

But obviously this is a massive reform package that was just signed into law. It’s the law. Our member companies are fully ready to comply and be a partner to the government as implementation unfolds. The point that we want to make clear, though, is that these reforms should be given some time to ripen and be implemented, and not overlaid with duplicative and even more burdensome mandates.

What do you mean by that?

The rule that’s pending before the Department of Labor, many of the provisions in that rule are duplicative with what Congress just passed. Some of the differences are in the implementation timeline. If what policymakers really care about is promoting and protecting competition in the PBM marketplace, that kind of overly burdensome duplication is a bad, bad idea.

It’s the smaller players who are going to have to spend the $1, $2, $3 million that they don’t have to hire a dozen new regulatory compliance personnel to comply with duplicative governmental requirements. If you’re a policymaker in either party who cares about regulatory efficiency and regulatory harmonization and regulatory streamlining, then you should see the DOL rule as unnecessary.