While most people were winding down for the holidays, the Texas A&M University System was reportedly gearing up for a legal fight. System leaders quietly took steps to join Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against major insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers, according to local coverage, approving outside counsel the week before Christmas. Board of Regents chair Bob Albritton has not offered any further public explanation, and the system has not issued a broader statement. If the move is confirmed, it would add another large public payor to a growing chorus of states and institutions challenging how insulin is priced.
In an October press release, the Office of the Attorney General laid out its complaint, accusing drugmakers and PBMs of conspiring to inflate insulin list prices and steering patients toward higher priced products. The case targets manufacturers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, along with PBMs Express Scripts, CVS Caremark and OptumRx.
Local reporting from EastTexasRadio says A&M system administrators signed off on participating in the case in late December, and notes that Regents chair Robert “Bob” Albritton of Fort Worth declined to elaborate when asked. The brief report describes the approval as coming “the week before Christmas” and does not identify the outside firms or spell out how the system expects to plug into the litigation.
Why the system might join
The A&M System runs health benefits for thousands of employees and offers a Patient Assurance Program that caps out-of-pocket costs for preferred insulin products, according to the system’s own benefits materials. That setup gives the system a direct financial stake in how insulin is priced and rebated.
Large payors and health systems in similar cases have argued that rebate structures and formulary decisions can tilt patients and plans toward more expensive drugs, driving up costs for both employers and taxpayers. One example noted in coverage of the wider litigation wave is Texas Health Resources, which filed its own insulin pricing suit in 2025. By signing onto the attorney general’s case, the A&M System would position itself to participate in any settlement talks or coordinated discovery that could affect what the system and its members ultimately pay.
Where the case stands
Paxton’s lawsuit was filed in October 2024 and is moving alongside a long lineup of related actions brought by hospitals, counties and other payors. Texas Lawbook has tracked the docket and assignments, detailing the state’s filing and subsequent case activity. The attorney general’s office also disclosed in October that it had brought in outside counsel to help pursue the claims.
Legal and political stakes
Legal observers say that when a major public payor joins a high-profile case, it can increase settlement pressure on defendants and raise the odds that separate lawsuits move toward some form of coordinated resolution. At the same time, the involvement of public institutions tends to sharpen questions about contingency fees for outside lawyers and about how taxpayer-backed entities deploy their legal firepower.
A lawyer involved in related insulin suits told reporters that these cases are aimed at clawing back alleged overpayments and nudging changes in industry practices, a theme echoed in broader coverage of the litigation wave. Reporting from Dallas Morning News has highlighted how plaintiffs often mix financial claims with public-interest language about affordability and access.
System officials, according to EastTexasRadio, have so far declined to go beyond acknowledging the reported approval to join the case. For now, the A&M System’s quiet move serves as one more sign of how deeply insulin pricing fights have penetrated the world of public employers and health systems, and how closely watchers will be scrutinizing any eventual settlements to see whether recovered funds translate into lower plan costs or other tangible benefits for members.
