Loading this committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this committee’s profile from its FEC filings.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
PACs › PAC (qualified) › 2025–2026
PAC (qualified)Lobbyist/registrant PACCorporationWashington, District of ColumbiaActive
Connected organization: CVS Health
Political fund of CVS Health
Political Action Committee for CVS Health (Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile)
FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026 · FEC bulk filing data · committee C00384818 · files monthly
9 priorities from the site of CVS Health, the organization this committee is the political fund of, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
We’re committed to addressing some of the most pressing public health challenges, including health equity, mental health and women’s health so we can continue to improve health.
Ways we're improving public health
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy.html
We support affordable healthcare and use digital capabilities and responsible AI to uncover efficiencies and deliver best-in-class service and care for the people we serve.
Ways we're improving access to coverage
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy.html
We encourage market innovations that promote diverse national care delivery and put people in control of their own health care .
Ways we're improving access to care
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy.html
On drug prices, our advocacy remains focused on what really is the cause of high drug costs: list prices.
Ways we're lowering prescription prices
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy.html
CVS Health® supports policies that expand access to quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans, including protecting people with preexisting conditions, building upon existing coverage programs, expanding Medicaid and much more.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/access-to-coverage.html
Enacted into law in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is one of the biggest changes in health care since passage of the Affordable Care Act and the creation of the Medicare Part D benefit.
Significant Medicare drug pricing reforms in the IRA include ability for Medicare to negotiate prices of certain drugs, and a $2,000 out-of-pocket spending cap for prescriptions in Medicare.
We’re dedicated to enacting the provisions of the IRA and advocating for improvements to better enable our healthcare services across the nation.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/access-to-coverage.html
The ACA has brought affordable coverage to millions of Americans and is an essential way to provide access for the uninsured and underinsured to high-quality comprehensive coverage.
Strengthening the ACA can be done by enhancing Federal reinsurance, expanding cost-sharing subsidies, funding navigator programs, providing states with incentives to expand Medicaid and maintaining protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/access-to-coverage.html
For the first time in the history of Medicare, more than half of eligible beneficiaries access their Medicare benefits through the MA program, including a diverse, low-income and chronically ill population.
MA has been integral to fulfilling the Medicare guarantee, offering choices, affordability, and meeting the holistic health needs of seniors and those with disabilities.
94% of beneficiaries are satisfied with their MA coverage in part because of its focus on coordinating care, providing innovative benefits and financial protections that are not available in Fee-for-Service Medicare.1 Policymakers should take steps to ensure year-over-year stability in the MA program so it can continue being a high-value option meeting the needs of Medicare beneficiaries.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/access-to-coverage.html
The employer-based system is the foundation of health insurance in our country, providing quality health care coverage to over 153 million Americans.2 It is essential to preserve employer health coverage since it offers choice, provides competition and can easily adapt to market changes.
Moving forward, it will be critical to ensure that individuals are not deterred from seeking basic care that can prevent or reduce much more serious and costly health conditions in the future.
1 Morning Consult for Better Medicare Alliance.
Survey results: Annual seniors on Medicare survey (PDF).
2Katherine Keisler-Starkey and Lisa N. Bunch.
Health insurance coverage in the United States: 2019.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/access-to-coverage.html
The price of prescription drugs remains too high and out of reach for far too many in the United States.
Lowering drug prices is a prerequisite to controlling health care costs, which in turn determines affordability, enhances access to care and improves outcomes.
Competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace lowers drug costs and can be improved by increasing the number of approved drugs available to patients and removing barriers to market entry for new medications.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/drug-costs.html
Necessary reforms include ending pharmaceutical manufacturer gaming of the drug patent system through practices like evergreening and product hopping, and reducing biologic exclusivity from 12 to 7 years to encourage manufacturers to bring more biosimilars to market.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/drug-costs.html
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) employ various tools and strategies to provide their clients with options to help promote cost-effective choices, and the ability to use these tools and strategies should be preserved and expanded.
Lean more about pharmacy benefit management
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/drug-costs.html
Among other things, we support changing the design of Medicare Part B fee-for-service cost sharing to encourage beneficiaries to choose more cost-effective drug products and changing provider reimbursement to provide physician incentives to prescribe and administer lower-cost drug products.
We’re proud to have launched Cordavis to bring high quality products to market with the goal of reducing drug spend and ensuring access to affordable medicines.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/drug-costs.html
From addressing gaps in mental health services and promoting women’s health to advancing how consumers engage with and access healthcare, CVS Health® will continue working with policymakers to help address the country’s most pressing public health challenges.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/public-health.html
Behavioral health conditions are frequently co-morbid with physical conditions, and both should be addressed to improve health and well-being and reduce costs to the health care system.
Learn about our approach to mental health care
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/public-health.html
From medical services and products to policy changes and strategic partnerships, we support women's mental and physical well-being.
Our goal is to provide more transparent, equitable and accessible health care.
We advocate for price equity for period products by working toward the repeal of the sales tax on period products nationwide.
Learn about our commitment to women's health
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/public-health.html
At CVS Health, we believe that policymakers should encourage market innovations that allow consumers to access care where, when and how they need it.
A major component of this shift is promoting care in the lowest cost setting with health care professionals appropriately qualified and trained for the level of care needed.
Treating non-urgent and minor ailments in retail clinics rather than hospital emergency rooms makes care more affordable and convenient for patients while ensuring that high-cost settings are available for those who truly need them.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/value-based-care.html
We support efforts that would make telemedicine an integrated component of the health care delivery system.
In that spirit, we support efforts to break down barriers — including financial, technical and coverage barriers that inhibit Americans’ ability to conveniently use telehealth, where and when clinically appropriate.
Our support for virtual care
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/value-based-care.html
We support value-based purchasing arrangements for prescription drugs.
These programs should be given explicit safe harbor protection so they can be expanded to not only the Medicare and Medicaid markets but also the commercial markets.
Value-based purchasing offers the opportunity to both lower costs and improve outcomes.
Explicit protection for health plan sponsors and pharmacies would make it easier to offer medication adherence and patient outcome-based arrangements, which assist health care providers in choosing the most cost-effective medications for their patients and to coordinate and improve access to care, which ultimately results in better health outcomes for patients.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/value-based-care.html
We support meaningful, actionable transparency such as real-time benefit tools and out-of-pocket cost calculator tools that help members choose the most cost-effective care.
Publicly disclosing provider reimbursement rates and other price information under the guise of “transparency” will not help consumers identify their out-of-pocket costs or help inform their health care decisions.
Instead, it will allow competitors insight into proprietary information and simply set a high floor for rates, ultimately increasing costs for consumers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · cvshealth.com/about/public-policy/value-based-care.html
Each part reads different filings, so counts and totals can differ.
Direct PAC contributions and independent expenditures explicitly reported as support, by the party of the candidate they went to.
| Party of the candidate | Candidates | Direct | Independent | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 75 | $217,000 | $0 | $217,000 | 48% |
| Republican | 55 | $210,500 | $0 | $210,500 | 46% |
| Other or unresolved | 10 | $28,000 | $0 | $28,000 | 6.1% |
| Shown support | 140 | $455,500 | $0 | $455,500 | 100% |
Contributions are reported money, not endorsements; a PAC giving to both parties is common.
Every contribution on line 23 of the committee’s own Schedule B, which is the filing its summary totals are built from. That line covers federal candidates, party committees and other political committees alike, so a super PAC funding other super PACs appears here rather than under candidate giving.
| Recipient | Count | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Democratic candidates | 74 | $214.5K · 25% |
| Republican candidates | 53 | $200.5K · 24% |
| Other or unresolved candidates | 13 | $40.5K · 4.8% |
| Democratic party committees | 2 | $13K · 1.5% |
| Republican party committees | 1 | $2.5K · 0.3% |
| Other party committees | 5 | $85.5K · 10% |
| Other PACs and committees | 49 | $288.5K · 34% |
| All recipients | 197 | $845K |
| State | Candidates | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | 11 | $42.5K |
| California | 14 | $36.5K |
| Pennsylvania | 7 | $29K |
| New York | 8 | $23.5K |
| Texas | 8 | $23K |
| Massachusetts | 3 |
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 7,799 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.2M. FEC contributor lists are public records and cannot be used for commercial solicitation.
Total reported receipts $1,562,052
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 7,799 contributions · 100% | $1,194,414 |
By the state each contributor wrote on the filing. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line together, so one committee or organization transfer can account for a whole state. Contributors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized and cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 7,773 contributions · 91% of ranked | $1,083,982 |
| 22 contributions · 9.2% of ranked | $110,000 |
A further $432 came from donors whose answer names no employer (blank), so it is not ranked. Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($292,822) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Total reported disbursements $1,657,083
Every dollar this committee reported spending this cycle, split by the lines it reports against. Open a line to see who was actually paid on it. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Total itemized disbursements $843,259
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
All 347 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|
$1.7M spent from Jan 2025 to Oct 2026. Most in one report: $243K, September 2026.
The running total of what the committee’s FEC reports say it spent, independent expenditures included, with a point at the end of each report. The line is straight between reports because a report gives one total for its whole period.
Published by the Commission against this committee’s own FEC ID. An audit is a periodic examination that reports findings; an administrative fine is a penalty for filing a specific report late or not at all. They are separate instruments and are not combined into a score here.
Late M6 report, 2015$1.2K assessed
Case 3014 at the FEC ↗Source: the Commission’s audit-case and administrative-fine records, joined on this committee’s FEC ID, imported Oct 26, 2026. Enforcement matters (MURs) are published only against respondent names, with no committee identifier, so they are not shown here rather than being matched by name.
Besides giving through its PAC, CVS Health pays lobbyists to press Congress and federal agencies. Each quarter it, or a firm it hires, files a public report under the Lobbying Disclosure Act saying which topics it worked on, what it spent, and whom it contacted. This is what those reports say.
Each report files its work under official topics. The bar shows how often each topic came up across the reports; open one to read what was filed under it. Naming a bill says the organization lobbied on it, not which side it took.
The organization’s own reports give its total lobbying costs, including any firms it hired; each firm reports what this client paid it.
Reported twice a year by the lobbying filer. $294.9K is political giving that also appears in FEC filings.
Matched by name: these reports are filed for “CVS HEALTH (AND SUBSIDIARIES)”, found by searching “CVS HEALTH”. Lobbying and FEC records share no ID, so an organization that lobbies under another name is missed. Source: LDA.gov, accessed Oct 27, 2026. Senate Office of Public Records cannot vouch for the data or analyses derived from these data after the data have been retrieved from LDA.gov.
Political Action Committee for CVS Health Linked public record: LittleSis organization profile.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the committee’s or its sponsor’s; the record marking is ours.
CVS Health PAC is matched to organization records using the FEC committee identity, structured identifiers, and corroborated organization data.
LittleSis data is shared under CC BY-SA 4.0.
| Rhode Island | 3 | $18.5K |
|---|
| Minnesota | 3 | $17.5K |
|---|
The largest 8 of 42 states.
Bars drawn to $50K, the largest gift total here. 2025–2026 filings.
Candidate contribution rows come from candidate committee Schedule A filings, the same rows the party chart above counts.
Money moving between this committee and other committees, matched on FEC committee ID rather than the name each filing was typed under. Both sides exclude memo entries. The figures here count each committee once, from the itemized transfers read for this section, so they will not match the payment counts under Who this PAC gave to.
Committees that reported giving to this one on their own Schedule A filings, grouped by the giver’s committee ID.
No committee-to-committee receipts were itemized this cycle.
Disbursements this committee itemized to another committee: candidate contributions, party transfers and payments alike, not contributions only.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| PAC (nonqualified) · 2 payments | $50K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 5 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · Connected to YOUNG VICTORY COMMITTEE · 3 payments | $30K |
| Party committee (qualified) · 4 payments | $23K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to ELECT DIVERSE DEMOCRATS PAC · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 3 payments | $10K |
| Hybrid PAC (qualified) · 5 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to WINNING FOR AMERICA FUND · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · Connected to DEFEND DEMOCRACY NOW PAC · 3 payments | $10K |
| PAC (qualified) · 2 payments | $10K |
$845K across 202 recipient committees, or 51% of everything this committee reports spending. The largest 12 are shown. A further $60K was filed as memo entries, which FEC reports separately to avoid counting it twice.
Built from FEC Schedule A and Schedule B filings for the selected cycle. A committee only appears here if the money was itemized under its FEC committee ID.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| 21 contributions · 11% of ranked | $105,000 |
| 140 contributions · 2.7% of ranked | $26,221 |
| 171 contributions · 1.9% of ranked | $18,719 |
| 121 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $13,874 |
| 67 contributions · 1.4% of ranked | $13,152 |
| 98 contributions · 1.3% of ranked | $12,168 |
| 37 contributions · 1.2% of ranked | $11,446 |
| 61 contributions · 1% of ranked | $9,297 |
Ranked from the largest 200 of 201 occupation spellings filed; each share is of the money in those. Itemized receipts grouped by the words contributors filed. The FEC aggregates every Schedule A line here, so committee and organization money sits alongside individuals; this is not an industry classification. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($292,822) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| 2 payments · 3% of all spending | $50,000 |
| 5 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 3 payments · 1.8% of all spending | $30,000 |
| 4 payments · 1.4% of all spending | $23,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 5 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
| 3 payments · 0.6% of all spending | $10,000 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.