STAT⁠42%

FTC settles lawsuit with CVS Caremark over charges it manipulated insulin prices, impeded access ⁠81%

By Ed Silverman⁠61%

7/14/2026, 8:55:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.4% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 490 faulty-reasoning hits from 175 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,023 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.00% of the article peer group.

The Federal Trade Commission settled a lawsuit against CVS Caremark, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in the U.S., over allegations that the company artificially inflated the price of insulin and impeded access to the lifesaving diabetes treatment. 
As part of the deal, which the agency maintained will save Americans up to $8.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs over 10 years, CVS Caremark, which is owned by CVS Health, must make several changes to its dealings with employers, health plans, and pharmacies. 
The FTC also estimated the deal will unlock up to $4.5 billion in further savings for patients through pharmacy counter rebates. 
In its complaint, the FTC alleged that CVS Caremark — as well as Cigna’s Express Scripts and UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx — created a “perverse” system of rebates that favored insulin, which was then sold at higher list prices in order to “line their pockets” at the expense of patients who were forced to pay more for the medication. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.1%Ed Silverman: 5.3%STAT: 3.2%Confirmation Bias33.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Ed Silverman: 3.3%STAT: 3.8%Availability Heuristic12.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 33.1%Ed Silverman: 22.5%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect33.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.4%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 24.6%Ed Silverman: 6.3%STAT: 3.4%Optimism Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 55.4%Ed Silverman: 12.0%STAT: 8.3%Negativity Bias55.4%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 6.8%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 4.8%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 33.1%Ed Silverman: 6.7%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion33.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.2%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.1%Ed Silverman: 1.9%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.3%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 33.1%Ed Silverman: 4.2%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote33.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 3.3%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.3%Ed Silverman: 14.5%STAT: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice22.3%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 2.7%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.9%STAT: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

175 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker33%attributed speech117writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Trade Commission • 58 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Federal Trade Commission: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.3 ptsWriter: 33.3%Federal Trade Commission: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.