PDAB Chicanery: How Drug Affordability Boards Are Undermining Public Engagement

Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) across the country are playing a dangerous game with public engagement—one where they keep changing the rules and moving the goalposts. From inadequate notice periods to last-minute document releases, these boards are creating barriers that echo troubling federal trends, effectively sidelining the very people who have the most at stake: patients.

These state-level games mirror concerning federal developments, most notably the rescinding of the Richardson Waiver by U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This action removed a 50-year precedent requiring public input on HHS rules—effectively telling patients and advocates their opinions aren't welcome at the policy table.

As these transparency rollbacks continue, people who rely on medications face increasing uncertainty about their access to life-sustaining treatments—while boards claim to represent their interests through processes that actively exclude them.

Maryland PDAB: How to Follow the Letter of the Law While Breaking Its Spirit

Maryland's Prescription Drug Affordability Board offers a master class in technical compliance that functionally blocks meaningful public participation. Their recent meeting preparation tactics exemplify how these boards can check procedural boxes while effectively sidelining patient voices.

On March 18, 2025, the Maryland PDAB posted a revised agenda for their upcoming March 24 meeting. This might seem unremarkable until you realize the public comment deadline was March 19—giving stakeholders exactly one day to review, analyze, and formulate responses to complex pharmaceutical policy documents. The revised agenda wasn't a minor update either. It contained material differences from the previous version, including a comprehensive cost review dossier for Farxiga, a medication critical for many people with diabetes and heart failure.

As CANN's letter to the board noted, "Posting the updated agenda with associated meeting materials the day before the deadline for comment is not a good faith effort in garnering public trust, nor does it display value in public input." The Maryland PDAB's approach creates a veneer of public engagement while practically guaranteeing that meaningful input will be minimal.

This pattern suggests the board views public comment as a procedural hurdle rather than a valuable source of insight. By technically fulfilling their obligation to post materials before the comment deadline (even if by mere hours), they've found a convenient loophole that undermines the very transparency standards that public notice requirements are designed to uphold.

The Maryland case isn't an anomaly. It's a symptom of a growing tendency to treat public engagement as an inconvenient formality rather than a crucial component of sound healthcare policy development.

The Federal Parallel: HHS and the Richardson Waiver

The state-level PDAB maneuvers don't exist in a vacuum. They mirror a troubling federal precedent set by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who recently rescinded the Richardson Waiver—a decision that effectively slams the door on patient advocacy at the federal level.

The Richardson Waiver has a 50-year history. Established in 1971, it required HHS to subject matters relating to "public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts" to the American Procedures Act's notice and comment rulemaking guidelines. This waiver was created specifically to ensure public voices would be heard on matters that directly affect their health and well-being.

Now, that protection is gone. The new HHS rule claims the waiver "impose[s] costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department's flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates." This bureaucratic language translates to a simple message: we don't care what you think.

God forbid they remember who they work for.

And the impact is far-reaching. While Medicare remains protected under separate provisions of the Medicare Act, critical programs like Medicaid, SAMHSA, and the Administration for Children and Families now operate without mandated public comment periods. Legal experts note this could allow for swift implementation of controversial measures like Medicaid work requirements without going through normal rulemaking processes.

The timing is particularly ironic given the Office of Management and Budget's recent guidance letter emphasizing the importance of "broadening public participation and community engagement" and making it "easier for the American people to share their knowledge, needs, ideas, and lived experiences to improve how government works for and with them."

This federal retreat from transparency sets a dangerous tone that state-level boards appear eager to follow.

Other State PDAB Examples: Oregon and Colorado's Concerning Patterns

Maryland isn't alone in its questionable approach to public engagement. Oregon's PDAB recently decided to include Odefsey—an antiretroviral medication for people living with HIV—on its list for cost control exploration, contradicting previous discussions to protect these medications. While they claim they might reconsider based on affordability research, this flip-flop creates unnecessary anxiety for people who depend on these treatments.

Colorado's PDAB situation is particularly egregious. Since 2023, CANN has repeatedly requested that the board consult with the state health department about rebate impacts on public health infrastructure and patient affordability—concerns echoed by the former SDAP director and PDAB members themselves.

Yet Colorado PDAB staff have consistently avoided conducting a proper fiscal impact analysis, bluntly stating "We won't be doing that" when asked directly. This refusal persisted even as formal rulemaking began, which triggers statutory requirements for analyses under Colorado's Administrative Procedure Act.

The board has repeatedly postponed its first rulemaking hearing, effectively delaying compliance with transparency requirements. Meanwhile, the Joint Budget Committee has begun questioning the PDAB's financial accountability, receiving only partial responses about consultant costs and litigation expenses.

Most concerning is the disconnect between PDAB actions and demonstrated patient benefits. A 2024 analysis of Oregon's similar program showed states would need additional funds to maintain programs under an upper payment limit system—with no meaningful patient affordability improvements identified.

Patient Impact: Why This Matters

Behind the procedural games and policy maneuvers are real people whose lives hang in the balance. The Colorado PDAB's actions exemplify how these bureaucratic decisions create genuine fear and uncertainty for people with rare diseases and conditions requiring specialized medications.

Twelve-year-old Avery Kluck lives with Aicardi syndrome and faces life-threatening seizures that have been intensifying. Her doctors recommended Sabril, a powerful anticonvulsant costing up to $10,000 per month—a medication on Colorado's PDAB radar for potential price controls.

"We're to a point now where her seizures are getting more violent, and this is our last resort," explains Heather Kluck, Avery's mother. "And now I'm finding out she may not have access to it." The family faces an impossible choice between starting a medication that might become unavailable or watching their daughter suffer.

This uncertainty isn't theoretical. At least one pharmaceutical company has already threatened to pull drugs from Colorado if price caps are imposed. For medications like Sabril, which are dangerous to discontinue abruptly, such market exits could be catastrophic.

People living with cystic fibrosis also had to mobilize to prevent Colorado's PDAB from declaring Trikafta "unaffordable," with one parent describing the experience as "torturous for our family" and another stating: "It's an experiment, and it's really gross that they're doing it on people who are really sick."

The irony is painful: boards created to increase medication access may end up restricting it for those who need it most.

Conclusion

These boards, created under the guise of helping patients afford medications, are operating in ways that actively silence patient voices. From Maryland's last-minute document dumps to Colorado's refusal to conduct impact analyses and Oregon's policy reversals on critical medications, these boards are erecting barriers that exclude the very people who will bear the consequences of their decisions.

The problems run deeper than procedural failures. The fundamental approach of PDABs—attempting to control drug prices without adequately assessing impacts on patient access—risks creating catastrophic unintended consequences for people who depend on specialized medications. Avery Kluck and others living with rare conditions don't have the luxury of waiting while boards experiment with price controls that might make their life-saving treatments unavailable.

The pattern is clear: from the federal level with RFK Jr.'s dismantling of public comment protections to state PDABs playing administrative games, we're witnessing a coordinated retreat from meaningful public engagement in healthcare policy. This isn't just bad governance—it's dangerous for patients.

States should seriously reconsider whether PDABs serve any legitimate purpose beyond political theater. At minimum, stakeholders across the healthcare spectrum must demand that these boards either implement truly transparent, patient-centered processes or acknowledge they cannot fulfill their stated mission without causing harm to the very people they claim to help.

States Push PDABs Despite Warning Signs, Patient Concerns

The debate over how the U.S. tackles rising healthcare costs is as constant as the sun setting in east. Most Americans feel the financial pressures from the high cost of their healthcare, evidenced by individual households holding 27% of the nation’s $4.3 trillion health-related expenditure burden. Healthcare spending is fragmented and multifaceted, being comprised of expenses such as hospitals, residential and personal care facilities, medical providers, technology, and retail prescription drugs. Despite the complexities of the healthcare market, pharmaceutical expenditures are often the most simple target to attack, often accompanied by solutions that seem way too good to be true. The fact is, access to prescription drugs is a significant part of modern medicine but there is nothing simple about how prescription drugs are brought to market and sold to consumers. In 2022, $633.5 billion was spent in the U.S. on prescription drugs, yet overall prescription drug expenditures by the government, private insurers, and patients were less than $1 out of every $7 spent on healthcare.

In recent history, in an attempt to create a “simple” solution to the costs John and Jane Q. Public pay for prescription drugs, through legislation, several states have created PDABs. PDABs are Prescription Drug Affordability Boards, also called Prescription Drug Advisory Boards. In theory, a board created to lower the cost of drugs for patients sounds like a good thing. However, the manner in which PDABs are currently set to operate is more harmful than good. Patients are not included in the development of the PDABs' decisions when those decisions directly affect their lives.

That is why the Community Access National Network (CANN) entered this policy and advocacy space. The boards have the wrong focus and don’t have patients’ interests as the priority. There is a difference between access and affordability. Jen Laws, C.E.O. of CANN, states, “Ultimately, CANN's focus is 'access' - it's in our name. Cheap gimmicks often pose serious potential to disrupt access for patients because we're the interest group here with the least in the way of resources (time, money, manpower). It's why we do what we do, and it's why we're going to keep doing what we do."

The prevalent tool PDABs utilize to lower costs is Upper Price Limits, or UPLs. The myopic focus is the allowable maximum a plan might reimburse a pharmacy or provider for any particular medication. However, this focus is not on lowering the price of what patients pay. A UPL does not determine what drug manufacturers charge for their drugs. It only sets the maximum that insurance plans will reimburse for drugs. That does not directly benefit patients because there is no mandate to pass any “savings” back to patients, for plans to retain medications with lower reimbursements, or for patients to have lower cost-sharing related to these medications. In general, patients pay for medications through co-pays and patient assistance programs. Although UPLs lower drug prices for payors, they increase the price patients potentially pay in terms of access by threatening the financial stability of providers and pharmacies, incentivizing utilization management that prioritize certain medications over others (regardless of an individual patient’s needs), and disrupt the provider-patient relationship by inserting the interests of payors over that of patients.

CANN has created multifaceted resources to educate the public about PDABs, their challenges, and possible solutions. People engage and comprehend in different ways. As such, CANN created varied communications. Long-form blog posts were written to be detailed sources of education and advocacy. A white paper was created as a downloadable handout to empower patients and enable them to engage with local PDABs or legislatures that are considering them in states that do not have them yet. For visual learners, CANN created an animated video that gives an overview of PDABs and their challenges, which is digestible and easily shareable.

With UPLs, the price patients potentially pay by losing access is more damaging than the monetary price tag of a drug a payor considers. UPLs that are set too low can cause drug manufacturers to reduce the production of drugs or place drug purchasing groups in the position of discounting distribution to a particular state altogether if low reimbursement makes them too costly to sell in that state. No purchaser or re-seller can sell to a state at a cost. No pharmacy can distribute a medication that costs them more to provide than they get paid in return. This creates shortages or removal of life-saving medications from the market, resulting in delays in care or patients being forced to utilize medicines that aren’t as efficacious as they and their physicians’ desired prescriptions.

UPLs also damage patient access by adversely affecting the 340B Drug Pricing Program entities that use the revenues from discounts to provide medications and other healthcare services to vulnerable populations without recourse for care. Lower revenues mean fewer services and possibly closures of facilities or program restrictions. AIDS Drugs Assistance Programs are largely dependent on using their 340B savings to extend access to care to poorest people living with HIV. We’re already seeing providers discuss this concern relative to insulin price caps. In a recent 340B Report article, the issue is summed up as follows: “Before 2024, most insulins had list prices of $300-$500 or more and were 340B penny-priced, so 340B providers earned savings of $300-$500 per prescription, Meiman said. However, now that many insulin list prices are $35, the 340B savings could drop to around $8 per prescription, she said. Historically, 340B savings on insulin have accounted for around 10% of community health system 340B revenue, she said.” Colle Meiman, a national policy advisor for the State & Regional Associations of Community Health Centers, also acknowledged this problem is a bit “counterintuitive” to how most policymakers think about drug pricing and reimbursements.

Moreover, lowering the price insurers are allowed to pay for medications is a double-edged sword. While on the surface, it seems like it would save payors money, it potentially only benefits PBMs in the short term and is an additional barrier to patient access. PBMs make their money from the profits they get via drug rebate revenues. Low UPLs will result in drug manufacturers lowering rebate levels and therefore lowering how much PBM’s might make on a particular medication. This means that PBMs could potentially increase the occurrence of benefit designs that restrict drug formularies to steer towards medications that result in more profit, not what is best for patients’ health. This already happens and is a concern many providers are beginning to voice. Additionally, they could enforce more utilization management, which again is a barrier to access but a way to increase their profitability.

CANN is energized to shine the light on PDABs and offer better solutions. Jen Laws explains, "Instead of nonsensical quick fixes, which aren't fixes to anything other than next quarter profits for payors, legislators should be focused on addressing the self-dealing nature of 'vertical integration', shoring up incentives for innovation, and meaningfully fixing benefit design that currently disadvantages patient access." Instead of a PDAB, states should consider a board focused on the patient perspective to evaluate benefit plan designs and offer recommendations to each state legislature about policy actions that will benefit patients as the priority stakeholder group.

In partnership with HealthHIV and The AIDS Institute, CANN will continue this work. It's crucial to stay abreast of the inner workings of policy and to advocate for the public proactively. Digging into the weeds with a patient focus enables advocacy groups to sound the alarm to the public as well as take the patient's perspective to those in power. Those in power are detached from the humanity behind the dollars and cents on their financial ledgers.