Biden’s Inaction Leaves Copay Assistance in Limbo

Inflated prescription drug costs in the United States continue to place a significant burden on people living with chronic conditions. Copay assistance programs, designed to help people afford their medications, have become essential. Yet recent policy decisions and industry practices have put these programs at risk, potentially jeopardizing access to necessary treatments.

The Biden Administration's recently proposed 2026 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (NBPP) rule omits crucial regulations that patient advocates have long been demanding. This inaction allows insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to continue profiting from billions of dollars of drug manufacturer copay assistance intended for patients.

The State of Copay Assistance

Copay assistance programs, primarily offered by pharmaceutical manufacturers, provide financial support to help cover out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications. As health insurance plans increasingly shift costs to patients through higher deductibles and copayments, these programs have become crucial.

According to the latest data from The IQVIA Institute, manufacturer copay assistance offset patient costs by $23 billion in 2023, a $5 billion increase from the previous year. This figure represents 25% of what retail prescription costs would have been without such assistance. Over the past five years, copay assistance has totaled $84 billion, highlighting its importance in maintaining access to medications.

Despite the significance of copay assistance, copay accumulator and maximizer programs accounted for $4.8 billion of copay assistance in 2023—more than double the amount in 2019. Implemented primarily by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers, these programs prevent assistance from counting towards patients' deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. This practice effectively nullifies the intended benefit of copay assistance, leaving people to face unexpected and often unaffordable costs later in the year.

Recent scrutiny of PBMs has brought attention to these practices. As discussed in our recent article on PBMs, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against the largest PBMs for alleged anticompetitive practices that inflate drug costs and limit access to medications. These developments underscore concerns about how PBM practices, including the implementation of copay accumulator programs, impact medication affordability and access.

The impact on access is serious. IQVIA reports that in 2023, patients abandoned 98 million new therapy prescriptions at pharmacies, with abandonment rates rising as out-of-pocket costs increase. This trend highlights the critical role copay assistance plays in helping people not only initiate but also maintain their prescribed treatments.

Public opinion strongly supports action on this issue. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 80% of adults believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable, with broad support for various policy proposals to lower drug costs. This sentiment reflects the public's recognition of the financial challenges faced in accessing necessary medications.

The Legal and Regulatory Landscape

The regulatory environment surrounding copay assistance programs has been in flux, with significant developments in recent years. On September 29, 2023, a federal court struck down a rule that allowed insurers to decide whether copay assistance would count towards patients' out-of-pocket maximums. This ruling reinstated the 2020 NBPP rule, which required insurers to count copay assistance towards patient cost-sharing, except for brand-name drugs with available generic equivalents.

Despite this, the federal government declared that it would not enforce the court's decision or the 2020 NBPP rule until new regulations are issued. This inaction has left patients facing continued uncertainty about the status of their copay assistance.

On January 16, 2024, the Biden Administration dropped its appeal of the court decision. While this action confirms that the 2020 NBPP rule will generally apply until new rules are issued, the lack of enforcement leaves plans and insurers in a gray area regarding their copay accumulator programs.

At the state level, there has been a growing movement to address copay accumulator programs. As of 2024, 21 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted laws addressing the use of these programs by insurers or PBMs. These laws generally require any payments made by or on behalf of the patient to be applied to their annual out-of-pocket cost-sharing requirement. While these state actions provide important protections, they do not cover all insurance plans, particularly those regulated at the federal level.

The 2026 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters Proposal

The proposed 2026 NBPP rule, released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), has drawn criticism from patient advocacy groups for significant omissions related to copay assistance and essential health benefits (EHB).

Notably absent from the proposed rule are regulations clarifying whether copay assistance will count toward patient cost-sharing. This omission perpetuates uncertainty created by previous conflicting rules and court decisions, allowing insurers and PBMs to continue implementing copay accumulator programs that can leave people with unexpected and unaffordable out-of-pocket costs.

The proposal also fails to include a provision to ensure that all drugs covered by large group and self-funded plans are considered essential health benefits, despite previous indications that such a provision would be forthcoming. This failure to close the EHB loophole allows employers, in collaboration with PBMs and third-party vendors, to designate certain covered drugs as "non-essential," circumventing Affordable Care Act (ACA) cost-sharing limits designed to protect people from excessive expenses.

By exploiting this loophole, plan sponsors can collect copay assistance provided by manufacturers without applying it to beneficiaries' cost-sharing requirements. This practice effectively doubles the financial burden on patients: first, by accepting the copay assistance, and second, by requiring them to pay their full out-of-pocket costs as if no assistance had been provided.

Recent research by the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute has revealed that over 150 employers and insurers are taking advantage of the EHB loophole. This list includes:

• Major companies such as Chevron, Citibank, Home Depot, Target, and United Airlines

• Universities including Harvard, Yale, and New York University

• Unions like the New York Teamsters and the Screen Actors Guild

• States such as Connecticut and Delaware

• Insurers, including several Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans

Patient advocacy groups have reacted strongly to these omissions. Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, stated, "Every day these rules are delayed is another day that insurers and PBMs are pocketing billions of dollars meant for patients who are struggling to afford their drugs." This sentiment reflects the frustration of many who have long advocated for stronger protections.

The widespread exploitation of the EHB loophole underscores the urgent need for federal action to protect patients from these practices. The failure to address these critical issues in the 2026 NBPP proposed rule highlights a significant setback in efforts to improve medication affordability and access for people living with chronic conditions.

The Impact on Patients: Data and Experiences

The real-world impact of copay accumulator programs and the EHB loophole is reflected in both data and personal experiences. IQVIA reports that patient out-of-pocket costs reached $91 billion in 2023, an increase of $5 billion from the previous year. This rise in costs comes despite the $23 billion in copay assistance provided by manufacturers, highlighting the growing financial burden on patients.

Prescription abandonment is particularly concerning. Patients abandoned 98 million new therapy prescriptions at pharmacies in 2023, with abandonment rates increasing as out-of-pocket costs rise. More than half of new prescriptions for novel medicines go unfilled, and only 31% of patients remained on therapy for a year. These statistics highlight the direct link between cost and medication adherence.

People across the country are facing these challenges. For example, a mother whose daughter lives with cystic fibrosis shared her experience with a copay accumulator program. In early 2019, her family's out-of-pocket cost for her daughter's medication suddenly jumped from $30 to $3,500 per month when their insurance plan stopped applying copay assistance to their deductible. This unexpected change forced the family to put the cost on credit cards, creating significant financial strain and unnecessary medical debt.

Similarly, a person living with psoriasis faced steep increases in medication costs when their insurance company stopped counting copay assistance towards their deductible. The copay rose from $35 to $1,250 monthly, leaving them with only $26 from their disability payment after covering the copay.

These stories are not isolated incidents. People living with conditions such as HIV, hepatitis, multiple sclerosis, and hemophilia are facing similar challenges. The impact extends beyond financial stress, affecting medication adherence and, ultimately, health outcomes. For many, the choice becomes one between essential medications and other basic needs such as food and shelter—a decision no one should have to make.

Policy Recommendations and Advocacy Efforts

Patient advocacy groups are intensifying efforts for policy changes at both the federal and state levels. The All Copays Count Coalition, comprising over 80 organizations representing people living with serious and chronic illnesses, has been at the forefront of these efforts. In a letter to federal officials, the coalition urged for a revision of the cost-sharing rule to include clear protections ensuring that copayments made by or on behalf of a patient are counted towards their annual cost-sharing contributions. Specific recommendations include:

1. Maintaining the protections included in the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.

2. Ensuring that copay assistance counts for medically appropriate medications, even when generic alternatives are available.

3. Limiting Health Savings Account-High Deductible Health Plan (HSA-HDHP) carve-outs to situations where using copay assistance would result in HSA ineligibility.

At the state level, advocacy efforts have led to the passage of laws restricting copay accumulator programs in 20 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico as of summer 2023. However, these state-level protections do not cover all insurance plans, particularly those regulated at the federal level, highlighting the need for comprehensive federal action.

Advocates are calling for:

1. Immediate enforcement of the 2020 NBPP rule, requiring insurers to count copay assistance towards patient cost-sharing in most cases.

2. Swift action to close the essential health benefits loophole for all plans, including large group and self-funded plans.

3. Increased oversight and regulation of PBM practices, particularly regarding copay accumulator and maximizer programs.

4. Passage of comprehensive federal legislation to protect those relying on copay assistance.

As Carl Schmid emphasized, "While they have gone on record that they will issue these rules, the clock is ticking and there isn't much time left." This reflects the growing frustration among patient advocates with the administration's delays in addressing these issues.

Policymakers must act swiftly to close the essential health benefits loophole and ensure that all copay assistance counts towards patients' out-of-pocket costs. Stakeholders across the healthcare ecosystem—from insurers and PBMs to pharmaceutical companies and patient advocacy groups—must collaborate to develop solutions that prioritize access and affordability. The health and well-being of millions depend on these critical policy changes.

Are Cancer Risks Higher for People Living with HIV/AIDS

For many years, scientists have been exploring the relationship between HIV/AIDS and various cancers. This complex connection stems from how the virus weakens the immune system, leaving folks more vulnerable. While there has been evidence of higher prevalence of certain cancers amongst people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), the actual mechanisms have thus far remained unclear.

Recently, a team from Hospital 12 de Octubre (H12O) and the National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) in Madrid, Spain found that Hepatitis B and C viral infections can cause multiple myeloma and its pathological precursors, monoclonal gammopathies. Additionally, they found that early detection of viral hepatitis and the use of antiretrovirals resulted in better health outcomes in general – taking care of the hepatitis and the monoclonal gammopathies/multiple myeloma at the same time.

This groundbreaking discovery comes shortly after the data was made available from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which links United States’ HIV surveillance and cancer registry data from 2000 to 2019. Haas et al. examined this data and created a population-based linkage study which garnered the largest cohort to date for estimating anal cancer among PLWHA in the United States, with a cohort of 3,444 anal cancers diagnosed in patients with HIV. Of these 3,444 cases, 2,678 occurred in patients with a prior AIDS diagnosis.

Additionally, several cancers have been identified as AIDS-defining illnesses. The presence of these conditions indicates that the patient has reached the advanced stage of HIV infection known as AIDS. These include invasive cervical cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and some iterations of lymphoma (e.g. diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt or Burkitt-like lymphoma). A 2021 meta-analysis of twenty-four studies found that women with HIV are six times more likely to have cervical cancer than their counterparts without HIV. This is likely due to the inability to clear human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, which can cause cervical cell changes if left untreated in some cases. According to Lymphoma Action, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is around fifteen times more common in PLWHA, while PLWHA are around 30 times more likely to develop Burkitt lymphoma.

As is often the case when living with HIV/AIDS and co-occurring conditions, early detection, open and frequent communication with healthcare providers, and HIV/AIDS treatment regimen adherence can make a significant difference in the duration and intensity of these conditions, so patients should be encouraged to be vigilant self-advocates when it comes to their health and wellness, and, when needed, identify resources among caregivers and community who might be able to assist in care advocacy.

Eddie Hamilton (left), Bill Arnold (right)

CANN would like to recognize the fierce advocacy of our colleague, friend, and former board member, Edward “Eddie” Hamilton (pictured). Eddie served on CANN’s Board of Directors from 2014 to 2022 and was the Founder and Executive Director of the ADAP Educational Initiative, which assisted clients enrolled under the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). In 2012, Eddie was honored as the ADAP Champion of the Year by ADAP Advocacy for fighting the Ohio Department of Health’s attempts to implement medical eligibility criteria to qualify for ADAP services. Eddie passed away on July 12, 2022, having had cancer twice. CANN continues to honor Eddie’s legacy as well as that of the late Bill Arnold (pictured right), who served as CANN’s founding President & CEO, by championing patient-centric action toward health equity and access.

Profit Over Patients: Challenging the Understaffing Crisis in Healthcare

On December 31, 2023 former U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson suffered and died in a completely preventable yet entirely foreseeable tragedy. Rep. Johnson, a dedicated nurse and a fervent advocate for equitable healthcare, succumbed to an infection contracted in a rehabilitation facility, a direct consequence of medical neglect. This incident is a glaring example of the systemic issues plaguing our healthcare institutions, where intentional understaffing and profit-driven motives often come at the expense of patient care and staff well-being. Her experience tragically highlights the broader systemic issues in healthcare, including rampant understaffing and the consequences of healthcare system consolidation.

The Tragic Circumstances of Rep. Johnson's Passing

According to a Texas Tribune report, Rep. Johnson died a “terrible, painful death” from an infection caused by negligence at her Dallas recovery facility following back surgery. The infection was a result of being left to lie in her own feces and urine for roughly an hour while she repeatedly called for help that didn’t come. The facility reportedly told family that all staff were unavailable as she called for help due to being in a training. Her son, Kirk Johnson, minced no words as he stated, "She was screaming out in pain, asking for help. If she had gotten the proper care, she would be here today.”

The family notified Baylor Scott & White Health System and Baylor Scott & White Institute for Rehabilitation of their intention to sue on the grounds of medical negligence. The lawsuit, if not settled, will highlight the deadly consequences of inadequate patient care in healthcare facilities. This legal battle is complicated by Texas law, which limits medical malpractice lawsuit awards to $250,000. Such legislative decisions, influenced by powerful hospital lobbies, not only restrict legal recourse for patients but also reflect deeper systemic issues in healthcare governance where institutional profits often overshadow patient rights.

The limitation on medical malpractice awards in Texas exemplifies a troubling trend in healthcare legislation. These laws, as detailed in a Miller & Zois report, often protect healthcare institutions at the expense of patient health and safety while significantly limiting patients' ability to seek fair compensation for medical negligence.

This legislative backdrop, coupled with intentional understaffing in healthcare facilities, creates a perilous situation where patient rights are limited and institutions are insulated from liability when their cost cutting measures cost lives. Maximizing profit and administrative and shareholder value by understaffing care facilities heightens the risk of medical errors, burns out staff, and creates unsafe working conditions. Yet, when these cost-cutting measures lead to harm, patients find their legal recourse severely restricted by malpractice caps while hospital staff burns out and are exposed to greater occupational hazards. The only ones not on the losing end are the hospitals and their executives.

Staffing Shortages or Healthcare Profiteering?

Across the country, as healthcare corporations report burgeoning profits, the reality within their healthcare facilities tells a story of compromised care and strained resources. Let’s take Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), the largest hospital system in the country, as an example. As reported in The Guardian, a study by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) highlights the disparities, revealing that staffing ratios at HCA Hospitals in 2020 were alarmingly 30% lower than national averages. Despite $7 billion in profits and $8 billion allocated to stock buybacks and paying out nearly $5 billion in dividends to shareholders, the investment in patient care, particularly in terms of staffing, remains inadequate.

The prevailing narrative of a nursing shortage in the United States is rigorously challenged by facts and voices from within the healthcare sector. National Nurses United (NNU) asserts that the core issue is not a lack of nurses but rather the widespread unwillingness of nurses to work under unsafe conditions. This perspective contradicts the healthcare industry's narrative and points to systemic issues in workforce management and underinvestment in medical staffing by hospital executives.

The intentional understaffing by healthcare facilities, as seen in cases like HCA Hospitals, is often driven by financial motivations. By keeping staffing levels low, these facilities aim to maximize profits, often at the expense of both patient care and staff well-being. This approach has led to a situation where the healthcare workforce is being pushed to its limits, leading to high turnover rates and a growing reluctance among nurses to work in such conditions.

The narrative of worker shortages is further complicated by the trend of healthcare system consolidation, which significantly reshapes healthcare markets, often at the expense of patient care and staff well-being. In May of 2023 The RAND Corporation gave testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health which underscored that consolidation frequently leads to higher healthcare costs without corresponding improvements in quality. Characterized by mergers and acquisitions across markets, this trend typically results in reduced competition, higher prices, and a focus on revenue generation over patient-centric values. Moreover, when private equity is involved, as highlighted by The British Medical Journal (BMJ), it often exacerbates patient harm.

The Human Cost of Cost-Cutting

Impact on Healthcare Workers: Nurses and other healthcare staff, the backbone of patient care, are stretched to their limits. A study by the University of Pennsylvania highlights the high levels of nurse burnout, a direct consequence of inadequate staffing. The study surveyed over 70,000 nurses and found that the chronic stress caused by high nurse-to-patient ratios significantly impacts their mental and physical health. The turnover rate in nursing, as reported by STAT News, is a testament to the unsustainable working conditions, with many nurses leaving the profession or seeking less demanding roles.

Patient Safety and Care Quality: The impact of understaffing on patients is equally alarming. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), inadequate staffing in nursing homes is linked to increased incidents of falls, bedsores, and a general decline in the quality of care. This neglect is not limited to nursing homes; hospitals across the nation face similar challenges. As in the case of Rep. Johnson, patients often experience delayed care, unmet basic needs, and an increased risk of medical errors due to the high workload on understaffed healthcare workers.

The understaffing crisis extends beyond individual facilities. As National Nurses United points out, the issue is systemic and has become an industry standard practice. These ethically dubious practices have far-reaching consequences, eroding the sustainability of the healthcare system and diminishing public trust in its ability to provide competent and compassionate care.

Upholding Ethical Standards in Healthcare

The ethical implications of understaffing and system consolidation are profound. It's not merely a matter of operational efficiency; at its core, it's about honoring a fundamental commitment to patient care and worker dignity. The primary ethical concern in healthcare should be the obligation to provide safe, effective, and compassionate patient care, an obligation that is often directly undermined by profit-driven decisions.

The direct consequences of understaffing and consolidation, such as compromised patient safety, increased medical errors, and a decline in the quality of care, represent a breach of the ethical duty healthcare providers owe to their patients. When financial priorities overshadow patient needs, the very essence of healthcare's moral foundation is shaken. This shift not only impacts patient outcomes but also erodes public trust in healthcare systems.

The alarming levels of burnout, stress, and turnover among healthcare workers, particularly nurses, reflect a work environment that neglects their physical, emotional, and professional well-being. This neglect raises serious ethical concerns about the healthcare industry's commitment to its workforce. When staff well-being is compromised for operational efficiency or financial gain, the entire healthcare system suffers, leading to a demoralized workforce and diminished patient care.

The healthcare industry faces a critical ethical dilemma: balancing financial responsibilities with the imperative of humanistic care. While healthcare facilities have fiscal duties to their stakeholders, these must never be allowed to eclipse their ethical obligation to prioritize high-quality patient care and foster a safe and supportive work environment. The pursuit of profit must be balanced with the moral imperative to care for both patients and healthcare workers humanely. This balance is essential not only for the integrity of healthcare providers but also for the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system as a whole.

Addressing these ethical challenges is not just a moral imperative but a crucial step towards systemic reform for a more humane and effective healthcare system and, frankly, reducing costs to patients by way sufficient retention of nursing talent - reduced turn over means reduced labor costs which then translates to reduced insurance billing and less medical debt.

Concrete Steps Towards Reform

The reality of understaffing and the challenges posed by healthcare system consolidation in our healthcare system demand immediate and decisive action. We must engage in targeted advocacy and policy reform. Here are specific actions that individuals and organizations can undertake to drive meaningful change:

1. Contact Legislators: Advocate for federal and state legislation that mandates safe staffing ratios in healthcare facilities, addresses the challenges of healthcare consolidation and transparency, and holds hospitals accountable for malpractice. This includes challenging laws that limit malpractice awards, as these can protect healthcare institutions at the expense of patient rights.

2. Support Nursing Unions: Participate in advocacy campaigns of unions like National Nurses United, supporting their efforts for better working conditions and fair staffing levels. These unions play a crucial role in voicing the concerns of healthcare workers and advocating for their rights.

3. Engage with Healthcare Boards: Advocate for ethical staffing practices and policies that prioritize patient care over profit in healthcare organization board meetings. It's essential to influence decision-makers at the highest level to bring about systemic changes.

4. Advocate Against Unchecked Consolidation: Support policies that scrutinize healthcare mergers and acquisitions, as highlighted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), to ensure they prioritize patient care and staff welfare. This includes backing state and federal initiatives to enhance oversight on healthcare mergers and acquisitions.

We must shift the focus from profit margins to the pillars of empathy, compassion, and quality care. It's time to honor the legacy of advocates like Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and ensure that our healthcare system upholds its fundamental commitment to patient care and worker dignity. Implementing these actions can lead to a more empathetic, compassionate healthcare environment, where patient care and staff welfare are prioritized, paving the way for a sustainable and trustworthy healthcare system.

Upper-Payment Limits; Drug "Affordability" Boards Risk Medication Access

The opinion piece, authored by Jen Laws, CANN’s President & CEO, originally published in the September 2, 2023, print edition of the Denver Post. CANN will be hosting a free “PDAB 101” webinar for patients, advocates, and all public health stakeholders on November 1, 2023. Pre-registration is required. Register by clicking here.

To successfully combat the HIV epidemic and defeat other chronic conditions, patients must have uninterrupted access to the most effective medicines recommended by their doctors. As efforts to ensure patients can access their medicines are being defined in the public sphere, many state legislatures continue to advance policies and proposals focused on addressing patient affordability challenges.

However, many such actions fail to address high out-of-pocket costs and instead focus on lowering costs for other stakeholders within the health care system, like lowering costs and increasing profits for health insurers neglecting the patients they were intended to protect.

In Colorado and several other states across the country, lawmakers have empowered Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) to address the rising costs that patients pay for prescription medicines. PDABs have the authority to select and review drug list prices and can recommend policies for drugs deemed "unaffordable." These list prices aren't something patients generally pay, rather we pay co-pays or are able to manage costs with patient assistance programs.

Despite this, one such policy being considered by the Colorado PDAB and similar boards in other states is an upper-payment limit (UPL). A UPL is a payment limit or ceiling that applies to all purchases and payments for certain high-cost drugs and does not necessarily translate into a "cost limit" for patients.

When UPLs are set, reimbursement rates are lowered for hospitals or clinics giving them less incentive to purchase specific drugs even though it may be the most effective medication to help a patient manage a chronic condition. When reimbursement rates are lowered through a UPL, it can also lead to barriers to biopharmaceutical companies investing in and supplying new innovative medicines to health facilities, making it difficult for doctors to prescribe treatments they think are best suited for their patients. While well intentioned, patients often bear the brunt of the challenges with such policies.

The impacts of the UPL process are only compounded when we consider the potential impact on the 340B Drug Pricing Program, a federal safety-net program that helps health facilities serve low-income and uninsured patients by offering them discounted drugs. Under the program, qualified clinics and other covered entities buy treatments at a discount to help treat vulnerable patients and get to keep the difference between the reimbursement rate and the discounted price leveraging those dollars to provide needy patients with medications and care they might not otherwise be able to afford.

Under a UPL, health facilities such as hospitals or clinics will receive lower reimbursements for prescribed treatments and therefore generate fewer dollars to support patients and the care we need to live and thrive. If the PDAB sets restrictive UPLs for drugs for chronic conditions like HIV, health facilities and the health professionals tasked with providing care will be faced with the decision to potentially stop prescribing these medicines and face having to cut support services that patients have come to rely on.

At a recent meeting of Colorado PDAB stakeholders, following the board's unanimous approval of the list of drugs eligible for an affordability review process, I voiced concerns about the approach to determining the value of lifesaving treatments for patients living with or at risk for HIV, hepatitis C (HCV), and other complex conditions. My concerns have only grown since, most recently, the state PDAB selected five drugs to undergo a formal affordability review including a treatment for HIV.

Many patients and other stakeholders have raised alarm to other drugs that are now subject to review to treat complex conditions such as psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and cystic fibrosis. The implications of the Colorado drug "affordability" board's recent actions on patient access are grave and set a dangerous precedent. Ten states including Colorado have already established PDABs, and many others are following suit.

Those support services and continuity of care are critical to empower communities and improve the quality of life for people living with and managing conditions like HIV and hepatitis C. Despite the PDAB being "sold" to the public as a measure to improve patient experiences and access to care, the current model fails to prioritize patients at all.

Colorado is home to more than 13,000 people living with HIV and has been at the forefront of combating the disease. This year, state lawmakers advanced model legislation that protects patients' access to HIV prevention medication. However, the recent actions from the drug "affordability" board and short-sighted policies like the UPL process or mandatory generic switching could derail progress toward ending the HIV epidemic.

Price controls are, and will continue to be, a short-term, short-sighted "fix" with long-term consequences for patients living with chronic conditions. Policy efforts to address affordability must prioritize patient access and the ability for doctors to prescribe effective treatments. Colorado's PDAB, as it currently stands, falls short of that.

Unveiling Disparities: OIG Report on HIV Care in Medicaid

A recent report by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) unveiled a startling revelation: one in four Medicaid enrollees with HIV may not have received critical services in 2021. At a time when healthcare systems worldwide were grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, these findings highlight the compounded struggles faced by People Living with HIV (PLWH) in accessing essential care.

Beyond safeguarding the health of PLWH, viral suppression plays a pivotal role in curbing HIV transmission, a critical metric in the public health effort to end HIV. In alignment with HHS guidelines, achieving consistent viral suppression necessitates three foundational elements: routine medical consultations, ongoing viral load assessments, and unwavering commitment to ART regimens.

Unveiling the Care Gaps

The OIG's analysis reveals pressing challenges within our system:

• Out of the 265,493 Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with HIV, a startling 27% were missing evidence of receiving at least one of the pivotal services last year.

• 10% were missing evidence of medical visits, and 11% were missing evidence of an ART prescription, raising concerns around disease progression and higher incidence of AIDS diagnosis, increased risk of transmitting the virus, and developing antiviral resistance.

• The most pronounced gap? Viral load tests. A staggering 23% of enrollees lacked evidence of even a single viral load test in 2021. This absence not only impedes clinicians from making informed decisions but also hampers our collective ability to monitor and respond to the evolving nature of the HIV epidemic.

• Perhaps most concerning is the fact that more than 11,000 of these enrollees didn't have evidence of availing any of the three critical services. This is not just a statistic; it's a reflection of real individuals, facing amplified health risks due to system inadequacies.

Jen Laws, CANN's President and CEO, poignantly remarked, "Medicaid represents the greatest public program coverage of PLWH. It also represents the greatest public program coverage of people at risk of acquiring HIV. Medicaid compliance and efficacy is critical to Ending the HIV Epidemic and this report has identified gaps where states have failed to meet their obligations to Medicaid beneficiaries and where CMS has failed to ensure compliance. We must do better if we are going to reach our public health goals."

The report underscores stark disparities in care access between Medicaid-only and dual-eligible enrollees (those with both Medicaid and Medicare). Specifically, Medicaid-only enrollees were three times more likely to lack evidence of any of the three critical services compared to dual-eligible enrollees, with 6% of Medicaid-only enrollees missing out, as opposed to just 2% of the dual-eligible group. Such disparities might stem from various factors, including Medicare's higher fee-for-service rates and the observed long-standing adherence patterns among older adults who have had HIV for prolonged periods.

State-wide Disparities: A Complex Landscape

The disparities in HIV care access across states offer both a grim reality check and a clarion call for systemic reform. Drawing from the OIG report, certain states, notably Arizona, Arkansas, the District of Columbia, and Utah, have alarmingly high proportions of Medicaid-only enrollees without evidence of at least one of the three critical services. For instance, Utah stands out with a staggering 87% of such enrollees missing out on essential care. These aren't just numbers; they represent real individuals grappling with a system that's failing them.

Conversely, some states demonstrate better compliance and efficacy in delivering HIV care, which suggests potential models or strategies that could be emulated across the board. However, the stark variability across states points to the undeniable influence of state-specific policies, the quality of local HIV care infrastructures, and broader challenges associated with healthcare access.

State agencies clearly have much work ahead. These disparities not only indicate potential inefficiencies or gaps in policy implementation but also suggest a pressing need for introspection and reform at the state level. Coupled with challenges in the broader Medicaid system, there's a compelling case for a comprehensive overhaul.

The onus is on both state agencies and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to rise to the occasion. The disparities, as evidenced in the report, necessitate a deep dive to understand the underlying causes. Is it a matter of policy misalignment, funding constraints, administrative challenges, or a combination thereof?

For instance, the significant variation in care access among dual-eligible enrollees, ranging from 9% to 53% across states, speaks volumes about the discrepancies in policy implementation and oversight. It's vital to pinpoint these issues, develop tailored interventions, and ensure that every Medicaid enrollee, irrespective of their state, receives the essential services they need.

The Pandemic's Shadow

The COVID-19 pandemic exerted immense pressure on healthcare systems, with profound implications for HIV care. The OIG report highlights the challenges faced by Medicaid enrollees with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant finding from the report is the notable deficiency in viral load tests among these enrollees. This underscores the need for healthcare systems to effectively manage and prioritize essential services, even amidst broader healthcare crises. The report serves as a reminder of the importance of consistent and uninterrupted care for conditions like HIV, even when healthcare systems face external pressures.

Steering Towards a Brighter Future

Addressing the glaring disparities laid out in the OIG report goes beyond mere policy recalibration; it challenges our collective resolve to uphold equitable healthcare. In the shadow of the pandemic's aftermath, it's imperative that essential services for PLWH are not just nominally available but are genuinely accessible.

The OIG report's findings don't merely spotlight discrepancies; they highlight systemic lapses. States have fallen short in fulfilling their obligations to Medicaid beneficiaries, and the CMS has not adequately ensured compliance.

To translate this call to action into meaningful change, it's essential to:

1. Strengthen state-level accountability frameworks to ensure Medicaid obligations are met comprehensively, particularly among states utilizing Managed Care Organizations – ensuring those contracted for-profit insurance companies are meeting their contractual obligations to states. The tools for accountability already exist within these contracts, they merely must be used.

2. Bolster CMS oversight mechanisms, driving proactive interventions that hold states to account and rectify compliance lapses.

3. Engage in continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including healthcare providers and beneficiaries, to identify and remedy bottlenecks in care access.

The findings from the OIG report serve as a stark reminder of the work ahead. As Jen Laws aptly states, "We must do better." HIV advocates should consider assessing our engagement with their state Medicaid programs and look for opportunities to act, akin to our engagement Ryan White programs. With concerted efforts, policy reforms, and collective commitment, we can bridge the gaps and ensure comprehensive care for all PLWH.

Prescription Drug Advisory Boards: Who is Impacted and How to get Involved

The prescription drug advisory board (PDAB) train keeps chugging along. Presently, there are nine (9) states that had, have or are in the process of enacting PDAB legislation: Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Maine. Ohio, it would seem, has abandoned their PDAB efforts. Their geographical variance reflects the diversity of their structures. Some of the boards have five members, and some have seven. While all are appointed by the governor, they differ regarding which departments they are associated with. For example,  Colorado’s is associated with the Division of Insurance, and Oregon’s is associated with the Department of Consumer and Business Services.

The assortment of structure does not stop at department association. The number of drugs to be selected annually for review also varies, such as Colorado with five and Oregon with nine. Even the number of advisory council members lacks consistency. The New Jersey DPAB advisory council has twenty-seven (27) members, while Colorado’s has fifteen (15). Inconsistency in structure means inconsistency in operations. Thus, the help or harm patients ultimately receive will vary drastically from state to state. The most important differences are the powers bestowed upon the various DPABs. In addition to shaping many policy recommendations, five (5) currently have the ability to enact binding upper payment limit (UPL) settings: Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland, and Minnesota.

An upper payment limit sets a maximum for all purchases and payments for expensive drugs. By setting UPLs for high-cost medications, improved ability to finance treatment equals greater access to high-cost medicines. A UPL sets a ceiling on what a payor may reimburse for a drug, including public health plans, like Medicaid.

Patients, advocates, caregivers, and providers are concerned about PDABs because the outcomes of theory versus practice can have dire consequences. Theoretically, PDABs should reduce what patients spend out of pocket for medications and lower government prescription drug expenditures. However, the varied ways different PDABs are set to operate could jeopardize goals. Focusing on lowering reimbursement rates could affect the funds used as a lifeline by organizations benefiting from the 340B pricing program even while not meaningfully reducing patient out-of-pocket costs. If reimbursement limits are set too low, those entities will have drastic reductions in the funding they use for services for the vulnerable populations they serve. UPLs could ultimately increase patients' financial burden if payers increase cost-sharing and change formulary tiers to offset profit loss from pricing changes or institute utilization management practices like step-therapy or prior authorization. Increasing patient administrative burden necessarily decreases access to medication. When patients are made to spend more time arguing for the medication they and their provider have determined to be the best suited for them, rather than simply being able to access the medication, the more likely patients are to have to miss work to fight for the medication they need or make multiple pharmacy trips – or suffer the health and financial consequences of having to “fail” a different medication first. PDAB changes could affect provider reimbursement, which could be lowered with pervasive pricing changes. Decreased provider reimbursement could result in additional costs being passed onto patients or, in the situation of 340B, safety-net providers, reduce available funding for support services patients have come to rely upon.

The divergent factors that different PDABs use for decision-making are of concern as well. It is not enough to just look at the list price of drugs and the number of people using them. For example, some worthwhile criteria for consideration of affordability challenges codified in Oregon’s PDAB legislation are: “Whether the prescription drug has led to health inequities in communities of color… The impact on patient access to the drug considering standard prescription drug benefit designs in health insurance plans offered…The relative financial impacts to health, medical or social services costs as can be quantified and compared to the costs of existing therapeutic alternatives…”. But few of these PDABs consider payer-related issues like limited in-network pharmacies, discriminatory reimbursement, patient steering mechanisms, or frequency of utilization management as hindrances to patients getting our medications.

Effectively seeking and considering input from patients, caregivers, and frontline healthcare providers is also of concern. The legislation of various DPABs specifies the conflicts of interest that board members cannot have and must disclose. Some even have appointed alternates to allow board members to recuse themselves from making decisions on drugs with which they have financial and ethical conflicts. However, most of the advisory boards are providers, government, and otherwise industry-related. The board members are even required to have advanced degrees and experience in health economics, administration, and more. The majority of the discourse is not weighted towards the patient and our advocates. Few, if any, specific active outreach measures when it comes to seeking patient input. For example, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program requires patient and community engagement outlets in planning activities. But no PDAB legislation, to our knowledge, requires PDABs to engage with these established patient-oriented consortia. We know well in HIV that expecting already burdened patients often struggle to meet limit engagement opportunities from government boards – we know the very best practices are going to patients, rather than expecting patients to come to these boards. Beyond these limited engagement opportunities and failure to reach out to spaces where patients are already engaged, some states have exceptionally short periods in which to gather these inputs.

However, depending on the individual state’s DPAB structure, there is an opportunity for patients, caregivers, and organizations to give input through public comment periods and particular meetings aimed at stakeholder engagement. For states considering PDAB legislation, like Michigan, patients can and should engage in the legislative process. One place to keep abreast of different state’s PDAB activities is the Community Access National Network’s PDAB microsite. The microsite has an interactive map where you can access various states’ PDAB sites as they are created. States with fully formed PDABs have sites that display their scheduled meetings, previous decisions made, agendas for future sessions, and, most notably, details of the process for the public to provide input. Most of the meetings are open to the public, with the public invited to provide oral public comment or to submit written comments. Attending meetings and speaking directly to the boards is a way to have board members and others hear directly from those who will be affected by their decisions. Written public comment is also essential, especially from community patient advocacy organizations. Some DPABS also provide access to virtual meetings where stakeholders can provide feedback and input.

Medicare has six protected drug classes: anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antineoplastics, antipsychotics, antiretrovirals, and immunosuppressants. This means that Medicare Part D formularies must include them but that protection exists because we know how important these medications are. Antiretrovirals and oncology medications are a part of that list because adversely affecting the mechanisms of access to those drug classes is life-threatening to those who need them. It is imperative that continued scrutiny be placed upon DPABs to ensure that their benefits are patient-focused, like reducing administrative burden and barriers to care, rather than a mask that ultimately benefits payers by increasing their profits.  

Prescription Drug Advisory Boards: What They Are and Why They Matter to Patients

It’s no secret that the high cost of healthcare is a significant concern for most Americans. The total national health expenditure in 2021 increased by 2.7% from the previous year to 4.3 trillion dollars which was 18.3% of the gross domestic product. The federal government held the majority of the spending burden at 34%, with individual households a close second at 27%. A cornerstone component of medical treatment is the access to prescription drugs. In 2019 in the U.S., the government and private insurers spent twice as much on prescription drugs as in other comparatively wealthy countries. Despite catchy phrases that poll well, and “simple” solutions by politicians that promise to fix the problem—such as Prescription Drug Advisory Boards (also known as Drug Pricing Advisory Boards)—it is mindful to remember one thing: if it sounds good to be true, then it probably isn’t true.

CANN PDAB infographic: What are they and why do they matter? (https://tiicann.org/dpab-project.html)

While list prices of prescription drugs continue to increase, medication costs do not represent the largest share of healthcare costs or the largest growth in healthcare costs in the United States. The cost burden on patients is so untenable for many that some have to decide between paying for medications, food, or mortgages. However, due to a number of incentives and the role of loosely regulated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), there is little direct relationship between drug list prices and patient cost burdens. This fact is only just now being appreciated by lawmakers but is not currently reflected in our healthcare funding schemes. As such, the discourse surrounding lowering cost is a consistently turbulent sea navigated by diverse public and private parties, with the language around drug pricing assuming efforts to curb costs relate to patient costs and access – but not explicitly saying so (and for good reason). Some proposals are government related, such as federal drug pricing proposals. Recent developments are state-level focused closer to home. One such development is the Prescription Drug Advisory Boards, or PDABs.  

PDABs are part of state divisions of insurance. Drug pricing efforts, in the general sense, could be a good thing. PDABs are being marketed to the public as a better means to make drugs more affordable for patients. However, the details of the implementation of developing PDABs are wherein lies significant challenges. Overall, the boards focus specifically on the prices of the drugs. However, the focus on pricing is mainly related to what governments, insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmacies are paying for the medications. This purview and the monitored metrics associated with PDABs do not necessarily translate into the actual costs patients pay at the pharmacy counter.

Because these designs are singularly focused on the “cost” to payors, current proposals and initiatives benefit both public and private payors at the expense of the patient access and the provider-patient relationship. It is unacceptable for any planned PDAB activity to disrupt the patient-provider relationship. Community Access National Network (CANN) has consistently opposed any policy initiative that might increase administrative barriers and patient burdens. Two examples are step-therapy and prior authorization. Activities such as these are considered what is known as utilization management. Utilization management helps lower prescription drug spending for public and private payors but creates additional costs for patients financially and logistically, affecting their continuity of care, amounting to a cost burden shift, not a meaningful increase of access to affordable, high-quality care and treatment for patients.

Additionally, the narrow specific focus on the list prices of drugs overlooks essential issues. Lowering the list price for medications can, for example, harm organizations that depend on revenues from the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The 340B program allows safety net clinics and organizations to purchase prescription drugs from manufacturers at a discounted price while being reimbursed by insurance carriers at a non-discounted cost. The surplus enables these entities to provide many services that the low-income populations they serve depend on. This is especially vital to low-income people living with HIV that do not have the means to afford all of their healthcare needs.

It is imperative that PDABs receive input directly from patients and caregivers as well. PDABs are aggregating a large amount of data. However, more of that data needs to include considerations of the patient experience. For example, drug rebate reductions can impact care and support services, such as transportation assistance or mental health services at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Moreover, there needs to be an examination of the actual pass-through savings to patients. Most importantly, PDABs need to explore how pricing decisions affect patient access. A lower drug list price is not beneficial to patients if it creates or increases administrative burdens or increases costs for patients in other ways outside of paying for the cost of medication.

Most policymakers do not always have robust experience in understanding the nuances of dealing with public health programs, clinics, and populations. This is especially true regarding the marginalized community of people living with or at risk for acquiring HIV, those affected by Hepatitis C, or people who use drugs. PDABS must be held accountable for acquiring anecdotal qualitative and quantitative data regarding patient experience, accessibility, and affordability while developing recommendations related to drug pricing. As it stands, of the states that have implemented a PDAB, none have statutorily mandated metrics monitoring patient experience and access.

Patients, caregivers, and advocates with direct experience and greater understanding of the policy landscape around healthcare access play a vital role in helping to shape legislation and informing proper implementation of programs to meet the goals those programs were “sold” on. If monitored metrics do not consider or reflect patient experiences, then the program is simply not about increasing access for patients.

PDABs, fortunately, do have numerous opportunities for patients, caregivers, advocates, and providers to become involved and to elevate patient priorities over that of other stakeholders. Getting involved and staying involved with a state’s PDAB work is critically necessary to ensure any final work or regulation is patient-focused.

CANN will be present and offering feedback at various PDAB meetings in affected states. The next meeting CANN will be attending is virtual for the state of Colorado, on July 13th at 10am Mountain time. You can register here and participate in ensuring any action taken reflects patient needs.

An Expression of Support for Basic Human Decency

Earlier this week, ADAP Advocacy Association and Community Access National Network (CANN) issued a joint statement announcing an embargo of each respective organization’s patient advocacy and education activities within the state of Florida. Both organizations also cited a need to protect advocates and patients from outside of the state from the very real dangers associated with traveling to the state, while also emphasizing that both organizations will continue to support local advocates in the state as they work to create positive public policy changes for Floridians living with HIV. The decision to adjoin both the ADAP Advocacy Association and the Community Access National Network to the previously issued formal travel advisory by the NAACP wasn’t taken lightly because maintaining strong ties to the community is important in generating effective advocacy. The move wasn’t a political statement either, but rather an expression of support for basic human decency.

The announcement comes after the state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law a series of bills targeted toward harming Black, Brown, LGBTQ+, and immigrant people. The transgender community was probably singled out more viciously than any of the marginalized communities throughout this hate-inspired Florida Legislative Session. Make no mistake about it why this effort to enflame a “culture war” is an issue of organizational values and something quite personal to both of us. The non-trans guy here taking issue with the fact that the trans guy here now cannot take “a leak” without fear of being charged with a felony has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic human rights.

The fact is we both previously lived in the state for many years – it’s where we started our HIV policy work, even before we knew one another. It is where we met over a decade ago. Upon reflection, we still can regularly be found discussing mutual friends from Florida, those still living and those who have passed on, in different phases of their lives. 

From recalling Bishop S.F. Makalani-MaHee's testimony to the Florida Legislature in 2016, against a bathroom bill (which failed that year), to his death on Transgender Day of Remembrance in 2017, part of this internal discussion was a reflection on the deep history he had with advocates serving both the Transgender and HIV communities of the state. What we’re witnessing right now in Florida is challenging for us, personally and professionally, but state-sponsored discrimination, hate, and stigma drew a line that cannot be ignored.

In 2017, Human Rights Watch published an important report, Living At Risk: Transgender Women, HIV, and Human Rights in South Florida and the very same year ADAP Advocacy Association published it’s issue paper, Transgender Health: Improving Access to Care Among Transgender Men & Women Living with HIV/AIDS Under the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. Both of us worked on the ADAP project, and it was important for a transgender advocate (Jen) with lived experience to lead in writing model policies meant to serve Transgender People Living with HIV. The decision to issue a travel advisory in Florida for people living with HIV is rooted in disparities and areas of improvement emphasized in those two reports.

Much of our hearts belong to Florida for the dedication and innovation the people of this state can and do offer, despite every unnecessary public policy challenge they face. People like Mick Sullivan and Donna Sabatino (formerly with Tibotec Therapeutics), Connie Reese and her amazing work with Simply Amazing You Are (SAYA) in Miami-Dade County, Riley Johnson promoting trans equality in accessing medical care via RAD Remedy, Michael Ruppal’s leadership with The AIDS Institute, and the late Tiffany Marrero, who served to voice the experiences of vertical transmission patients and Black Women and only recently left us. Heck, Trelvis Randolph and Maria Mejia both reside in South Florida, and they serve on CANN’s board of directors. These folks not only are colleagues, but they are friends and expressing concern over traveling to a place once call “home” saddens us.

But some things are larger than us. Recognizing the inherent roots of racism, which has prompted the NAACP to issue a travel advisory, our joint statement read, in part:

The state of Florida's moves to harm Transgender people, Black and Brown communities, and immigrant families undermines the exceptional work the state's Health Department has done in the last several years and only serves to further existing health disparities affecting these communities, particularly as it relates to HIV. For example, according to Florida's own data, while Black and Hispanic/Latino communities make up about 15.6% and 26.7% of the state's population, respectively, these same communities represent 37.7% and 39.6% of HIV diagnoses. Put another way, in Florida, while white people experience a rate of HIV diagnoses of 8.5 per 100,000 people, that rate among Black communities is 51.8 and for Hispanic/Latino communities it's 31.7.

Similarly, Florida has, in years past, made extraordinary strides in ensuring transgender people can access HIV related care, specifically by integrating best practices and guidance from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) on integrating gender affirming care into HIV care provision. Indeed, as a result of these moves, transgender women represent some of the greatest successes in linkage to care, retention in care, and viral load suppression of any demographic in the state. Recently signed bills prohibiting state contracted clinics from providing gender affirming care will have a dramatic affect in reversing these long sought after wins. 

Make no mistake, we are frustrated with an apparent lack of involvement from the federal agency charged with implementing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. Because Ryan White program dollars are passed through the state and then contracted with counties, local areas, or directly with a provider, and because other health initiatives of the state are also part of how providers in Florida acquire funding to provide public health services, they may be prohibited from providing gender affirming care at all - regardless of where those dollars originate (state or Federal).

It is incumbent upon HRSA to provide guidance beyond ‘allowable’ uses and inform that state it has contractual, fiduciary responsibilities associated with its grant and subrecipient contracts to ensure these dollars serve these communities. HRSA must move beyond the language of ‘allowable’ uses to ‘expected integration of best practices.’

In many situations, we have been willing and able to confront harsh environments. Indeed, we recognize the need to be present in the spaces where political forces wish to silence us. However, Florida has crossed a line in becoming hostile to the very existence of Black and Brown and Immigrant and Transgender people, those same communities most affected by HIV. The people who enacted these hateful laws were motivated by hateful politics; our response is motivated by concern for the people we’re charged with representing in our community…many of whom feel silenced. This is a line which we cannot cross and still consider ourselves as living the values we espouse.

We came to the difficult decision that neither the ADAP Advocacy Association or Community Access National Network will host any advocacy or educational event in the state of Florida. We will continue to support local advocates and people living with HIV residing in the state, including scholarship support for intrastate travel by local advocates. We will continue to offer analysis on the state's activities. But we will not ask advocates from outside of the state to risk their mental health or physical safety to travel to the state.

Special Interests Favor S.4395, but Patients Oppose It...Here's Why

This blog post is a collaborative piece, co-written by Brandon M. Macsata, CEO of ADAP Advocacy Association, and Jen Laws, CEO of Community Access National Network.

The very first words of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 read, “An Act to amend title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the program for providing life-saving care for those with HIV/AIDS.” These words reflect the true legislative intent of the Act, which is to provide life-saving care and treatment for people with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). For over thirty years, these words have represented a contract between our government and PLWHA, reflecting a commitment to patients. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP), as the payor of last resort, has literally served as the only lifeline for hundreds of thousands of patients in some of the most marginalized communities. That is why the ADAP Advocacy Association and the Community Access National Network (CANN) have led a national advocacy campaign to thwart any effort to undermine the legislative intent.

A proposed bill, S.4395 (otherwise known as the "Ryan White PrEP Availability Act"), would, for the first time in the 32-year history of this life-saving contract, open the Act to divert programmatic funding from PLWHA to people who are not living with HIV. The legislation is not only ill-conceived, it is potentially very dangerous. The special interests behind this legislation, as well as their inside-the-beltway lobbying tactics, do not reflect the general sense of the much broader HIV patient advocacy community. 

In fact, nearly 100 national, state, and local organizations joined the ADAP Advocacy Association and Community Access National Network in submitting a sign-on letter to Congress expressing the HIV patient advocacy community's collective concerns over the legislation. The sign-on letter was sent to Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP), Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce (E&C), and the Co-Chairs of the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus. Several of these offices applauded our efforts upon acknowledging receipt of the letter.

David Pable, who has been deeply embedded in South Carolina's patient advocacy community, expressed strong sentiments against the legislation. Pable said, "For almost 20 years, Ryan White has been a lifeline for me, and it was truly the safety net that saved my life. Ryan White-funded medical care, case management, and mental healthcare services have transform my life and the lives of countless others to survive and thrive." Pable's views are shared by nearly all PLWHA who learn about the potential danger lurking behind S.4395.

Over the years, Pable had the opportunity to be involved in many planning meetings for prevention services, including the need for an adequate PrEP program with dedicated funding. According to Pable, never in any of those meetings was it discussed as a good idea to funnel funding from the Ryan White Program to pay for PrEP. "Treatment, care and prevention make up three sides of the triangle," he said. "Together they each hold up the other, but take one piece away to support the other and eventually it will all fall apart." 

S.4395 would authorize the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) to divert already limited resources away from providing care and treatment for PLWHA. The legislation reads, in part, "Any eligible area, State, or public or private nonprofit entity that receives a grant under part A, B, C, or D may use program income received from such a grant to provide to individuals who are at risk of acquiring HIV... drugs and biological products for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)... medical, laboratory, and counseling services related to such drugs and biological products...and referrals and linkages to appropriate services for the prevention of HIV."

The legislation is extremely ill-advised for numerous reasons. Amending the Ryan White Program (Pub.L. 101-381) would:

• Open-up the law, (which is currently unauthorized) and thus subject it to potentially harmful changes in a hyper-partisan political environment.

• Change the purpose of the law, in that the purpose of the Ryan White Program is serving people living with HIV/AIDS.

• Create yet another access barrier for the approximately 400,000 PLWHA who are not in care.

• Further isolate PLWHA who are already disproportionally impacted by homelessness, hunger, substance use disorder, and undiagnosed and/or untreated mental health conditions.

• Impede Ending the HIV Epidemic's efforts to both increase enrollment and expand services for low-income PLWHA, especially since discretionary funding is already limited.

Unfortunately, special interests continue to push false narratives in their efforts to shove the harmful legislation through the Congress. Probably one of the most egregious claims, “The bill’s intent and text doesn’t take money from people living with HIV.” This is false! 

Indeed, legislative language reads, “To allow grantees under the HIV Health Care Services Program to allocate a portion of such funding for services to individuals at risk of acquiring HIV.” While subsection “B” of the legislation entitles the program as “voluntary” and to not allow federal grant dollars for the use of funding PrEP or PrEP services, it would allow federal grant dollars to be used for referrals – explicitly providing funding for people not living with HIV.

Photo Source: oncnursingnews.com

More concerning, special interests supporting the legislation conflate programmatic revenue as not grant dollars, as a somehow meaningful distinction. There is no difference in this distinction because each funded RWHAP recipient and subrecipient is required under current law to use their programmatic revenue to support providing services included in the grant – for people living with HIV. The design of these programs are significantly dependent on revenues generated from the 340B Drug Discount Program (340B) in order to meet the goals outlined in each of the grants. 

And that gets to the heart of the issue here. 340B's intent was “to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” The program, amid much criticism, allows federal grants funding public health programs count on 340B revenues in order to show they can operate a sustainable program.

Let's be clear: S.4395 would divert RWHAP programmatic revenues – including 340B dollars – away from providing services and supports to PLWHA who are living at or below 400% of the federal poverty level (the income threshold for qualifying as eligible for receiving RWHAP funded services). It is important to remember that more than 50% of the patients receiving care from the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program are living at or below 100% of the federal poverty level. More than 250,000 patients, or approximately one quarter of all the estimated people living with HIV in the United States are earning less than $13,000 per year. 

Kathie Hiers, President & CEO of AIDS Alabama argued, "The HIV community needs to get its act together around funding for PrEP.  We have been told by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy that our messaging is not cohesive. At AIDS Alabama, we understand that stable PrEP programs are absolutely necessary if we ever hope to end HIV as an epidemic. However, raiding the Ryan White Program to fund prevention is not the answer, particularly as the needs of an aging HIV-positive population continue to grow."

As it stands, gaps in care still remain for too many marginalized communities. It isn't uncommon for patients to fall out of care because they have to prioritize work, or child care, or buying food, or finding affordable housing, or finding transportation. Funding to meet the needs for these patients is already stretched way too thin and the current inflationary pressures have only made things harder for far too many PLWHA. There are tens of thousands of people living with HIV who have no roof over their heads when they try to find a safe spot to sleep tonight.

Photo Source: debralmorrison.com

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the solution to funding HIV prevention efforts in the United States. A better option to meet the needs of people who would benefit from PrEP, and that is additional HIV prevention funding. This approach would allow patient choice in medicines and support for ancillary services, provider education and outreach. Additionally, HIV prevention funding could be directed to communities that are most in need of prevention medicines and services, thereby providing more equitable access. This approach would also use and could strengthen the existing HIV prevention infrastructure.

One local health department official (who asked to remain anonymous) in Florida said the people behind the legislation did not understand the nuances between funding for HIV prevention and HIV treatment. We couldn't agree more!

The HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute's Carl Schmid summarized, "It's not an issue of not wanting clinics that receive Ryan White Program funding to be engaged in PrEP, we think they are the perfect places for PrEP to be delivered. It is an issue of taking funding generated from caring and treating for people living with HIV away from the intended purpose of the Ryan White Program – to provide for people living with HIV. With so many people with HIV living longer, who are not in care or have fallen out of care, you would think that these Ryan White grantees would devote that money to people who are living with HIV, as it was intended."

With more than a decade of science to back the position that effectively treating PLWHA, ensuring viral suppression both empowers positive health outcomes for PLWHA and prevents new transmissions. One of the most startling and, frankly, concerning shifts in the public policy conversation regarding Ending the [domestic] HIV Epidemic is a move away from focusing on the needs of PLWHA in favor of PrEP. The policy issues at hand, including the necessary funding, should not be proposed as an “either/or” situation, but an “and” situation. The same things that make a person vulnerable to contracting HIV are the same things that are killing people already living with HIV. 

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2020 Surveillance data found 70% of white PLWHA were virally suppressed, only 60% of their Black/African American peers were virally suppressed. Additionally, while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported a general homelessness rate across the country as about 0.2% of the population, the CDC’s 2019 data found that PLWHA among communities of color were experiencing homelessness at a rate of 11%. It cannot be understated how the power RWHAP dollars hold to address these disparities specifically affecting patients. Failing to do so not only betrays the contract at the center of the legislative intent, it perpetuates injustices levied against our peers, our family, and our community. Raiding precious dollars from this program is nothing short of consenting to the unjust neglect of our communities.

Said Murray Penner, U.S. Executive Director for Prevention Access Campaign: "The Ryan White Program is crucial for people living with HIV, providing treatment and supportive services to keep people healthy and undetectable so they will not sexually transmit HIV. With over 400,000 people living with HIV in the U.S. who are not virally suppressed, there is significant unmet need for additional services. S.4395 would move money out of the Ryan White Program, potentially leaving people without the crucial treatment and services that keep them healthy and prevent new transmissions. Ensuring that the Ryan White Program is fully funded is critical for us to improve the quality of life for people living with HIV and thus improve our country's viral suppression rate and help us end the HIV epidemic."

A cornerstone of the HIV patient advocacy community's success over the last 40 years has been its desire to come together for a common purpose, which has centered around the notion of do no harm! S.4395 and the special interests and inside-the-beltway lobbyists pushing it have failed to meet that test. Raiding Ryan White programmatic funding for PrEP would negatively impact patients. Trying to authorize or amend an already underfunded program, when there is still so much unmet need in its originally intended population, undermines the goals of the program. If we try to be everything to everyone, we will end up failing on all fronts. The powers that be in Congress have assured us that this legislation "ain't going anywhere" this year!

European Commission Approves Once Every 6 Month Supplemental HIV-Treatment

Last week, the European Commission (EC) approved use of Gilead Sciences’ investigational medication, lenacapavir (branded as Sunlenca), for use in treatment for people whose HIV is highly treatment resistant. Lenacapvir has been closely watched by advocates because of great anticipation regarding injectable and otherwise long-acting agents (LAAs) and because of its exceptionally long half-life in the body, providing efficacy for about 6 months from just one subcutaneous injection, providing a potential for the longest acting agent to hit the market thus far.

Lenacapavir also stands out as a first-in-class product because it works in a way that no other antiretroviral medication works. Offering a novel mechanism of action, binding the shell (capsid) surrounding viral genetic material that highjacks our own cells in HIV reproduction, capsid inhibitors will work against HIV in multiple areas of the virus’ life cycle. And because this is a tool we’ve never used before, it’s ideal for meeting the treatment needs of people living with highly resistance HIV – the virus doesn’t recognize the medication and has not yet found a way around it. Because HIV is highly adaptable, that lack of resistance may be short-lived once broad reach of the product is made available but excitement remains for a novel product, especially for people who have developed such resistance that options of effective care have diminished to near zero.

Gilead Sciences is awaiting a decision from the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its recently resubmitted “New Drug Application” (NDA), after the agency declined to accept the NDA due to issues with the glass vials used for the injectable form of the medication. The vial issue has since been fixed and research resumed for use of lenacapavir as a supplement to “background” treatment, first-line treatment, and as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). At the end of July, the FDA provided Gilead with a December 27, 2022 prescription drug user fee date. This is one of the final steps in an initial new drug approval. (Briefly, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act funds a massive portion of the FDA and those medications which pose potential benefit to public health may receive an expedited fee date; HIV advocates historically championed the act as a massive “win” in the early 90’s when introducing this funding scheme sped up their processes to make oncology and HIV medications more readily accessible.)

Patients who may hear about “once every 6-month treatment) should be kindly reminded lenacapavir will serve only as a supplement to other therapies – administering the medication is required to be done by a provider and patients will still need to remain adherent to their existing treatment regimen. HIV medications for treatment need between 2 and 3 different combinations of medications and PrEP only needs 1. As such, there may be a disparity in lenacapavir as PrEP and Sunlenca as treatment in terms of uptake because, while lenacapavir won’t require maintenance of other medications, Sunlenca as treatment will require patients to continue to take the oral medications that are “optimized” with Sunlenca acting almost like a “soft reset” for patients.

Operationalizing will remain an issue, especially for state ADAP Program’s that have not fully implemented access to cabotegravir, in terms of injectable medication management and for arguments that frame investing in successful patient care as something that requires a “cost consideration”. Patient advocates should be well-prepared to defend a desire to see this product come to their patients as those patients so desire it.

2022: New Beginnings, New Changes

The Community Access National Network (CANN) ushers in a new beginning with the 2022 New Year, evidenced not only by the changing of the guard with our new President & CEO, but also with some important programmatic changes with our organization. We felt it important to share these changes with you.

Our weekly blog, previously branded as the HEAL Blog (Hepatitis Education, Advocacy & Leadership), is being repurposed to serve our broader mission “to define, promote, and improve access to healthcare services and supports for people living with HIV/AIDS and/or viral hepatitis through advocacy, education, and networking.” As such it is now the CANN Blog, and its areas of interest will focus on HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, substance use disorder, harm reduction, patient assistance programs (PAPs), Medicare, Medicaid, and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on public health. In keeping with the desire to monitor broader public health-related issues and appropriately engage stakeholders, our CANN Blog will be disseminated to a larger audience. Therefore, some of you may notice one more email in your inbox each Monday morning since we’re employing our general listserv to share the blog posts. It is our hope that you’ll deem the added email of value and thus maintain yourself on our listserv.

Additionally, our acclaimed HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch will also be shared with our general listserv. But don’t worry, it only means one additional email each quarter! The HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch offers a patient-centric informational portal serving three primary groups - patients, healthcare providers, and AIDS Service Organizations. The quarterly Watches are published in January, April, July, and October.

In 2022, our Groups will also be more active. Since 1996, our National ADAP Working Group (NAWG) has served as the cornerstone of CANN’s advocacy work on public policy. Whereas NAWG will continue to engage our HIV/AIDS stakeholders with monthly news updates, we will also convene periodic stakeholder meetings to discuss important issues facing the HIV community. Likewise, our Hepatitis Education, Advocacy & Leadership (HEAL) Group has served as an interactive national platform for the last decade on relevant issues facing people living with viral hepatitis. Periodic stakeholder meetings to discuss important issues facing the Hepatitis community will now complement the HEAL monthly newsletter. If you would like to join either the NAWG or HEAL listserv, then please do so using this link.

CANN will also launch its 340B Action Center this year. It is designed to provide patients with content-drive educational resources about the 340B Drug Discount Program and why the program matters to you. The importance of the 340B Program cannot be under-stated, and CANN remains committed to taking a balanced “money follows the patient” approach on the issues facing the program and advocating for needed reforms.

Finally, like most advocacy organizations, CANN is constantly evaluating whether it is safe (or not) to host in-person stakeholder meetings. Covid-19 has changed the advocacy landscape. Over the last two years our two signature meetings (Community Roundtable and Annual National Monitoring Report on HIV/HCV Co-Infection) have been hosted virtually, rather than in-person. CANN is taking a “wait and see” approach on how best to proceed in 2022 with these events. We will keep you apprised of our decision.

As we close the door on 2021 and open it for 2022, CANN looks forward to working with all of its community partners, industry partners, and you!

2021: A Year in Reflection

The end of 2021 is upon us and that makes this a timely opportunity to reflect on the work by the Community Access National Network (CANN). During an exceedingly busy news cycle, we have published fifty blogs (including this one) on a variety of topics ranging from the latest on policy and regulatory issues, as well as some personal perspectives. Our HIV-HCV Coinfection Watch and our Annual Monitoring Report tracked Hepatitis C (HCV) therapies covered under the State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, as well as patient access via patient assistance programs, and other relevant news items affecting our patient community. We also conducted a community roundtable seeking to highlight the impacts of Covid-19 on public health programs aimed at addressing HIV, HCV, and substance use disorder (SUD).

Notably, CANN published the following six-part series designed to educate patients on various aspects of the 340B Drug Discount Program:

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Program Matters to You

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Transparency Matters to You

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Accountability Matters to You

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Decline in Charity Care Matters to You

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Middlemen Matters to You

·        A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Program Reform Matters to You

With Congress engaged in high-conflict communication, to abuse a euphemism, navigating public policy developments and pertinent issues to patients can be challenging. CANN remains committed to being an essential source of two-way communication, information, and education wherein patients write the narrative driving policy reforms and priorities. In this, we are ever grateful to the patients and caretakers who have engaged with us at every turn. Your stories matter and you are not alone in your experiences.

The diverse partnerships behind this work are critical to our success and as we end the year, we want to offer our gratitude to these essential partnerships, ranging from other patient advocacy organizations, public health associations, and industry partners.

The issues affecting our public health space of patient advocacy have not relented this year. Covid-19 has only emphasized the need to ensure these programs are effective and efficient while also highlighting the existing weaknesses and strengths of these programs. To be clear, the structural and pervasive drivers of health disparities have been named; racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and all other biases which reflect a moral justification for out ethical failings must be addressed in tandem with policy changes and adequate public health program funding in order for us to succeed in these fights for patient lives. Health equity cannot be meaningfully segregated from the policy mechanisms in which these disparities have survived in the face of another pandemic – when our collective awareness of these inequities and leverage to progress on these issues should have been their strongest and yet were not.

It’s with these things in mind, we want to leave you with the enduring sentiment that next year offers us yet another opportunity to approaches these challenges with fresh eyes and fresh ideas. We are indeed stronger together and we sincerely look forward to working with you all to move closer in realizing a world of greater access to care, fewer and smaller health disparities, and, ultimately, a more fair and loving environment in which to live our lives and raise our families.

Author’s note: I often end certain professional meetings with telling my colleagues “Love ya’ll”. It’s a sentiment I mean to depths of my soul. I am fortunate to work with some of the most amazing people in the world – folks who share an unbridled commitment to improving the lives of those around them. It’s from this same space I wish to offer each of you reading this a moment to breathe and the same open heartedness. I want to leave you all with a short story that has shaped me in more ways than I can count, The Perfect Heart, and an encouragement to tell someone you love them as soon as you can. May this next year be gentler with us all and find us giving away more pieces of our hearts.  

Jen’s Half Cents: Stepping into the Shadow of a Giant

I’ve often tried to distinguish between the sense of grief and shock that follows the death of a hero. Emotions are complex…layered especially when it comes to grief and the amount of work that’s involved in mourning and appropriate appreciation for a person’s life. When a young person dies unexpectedly, the sense of shock layered onto grief is exorbitant. That shock is expected to be less so when a person of advanced age moves on from this plane. This sentiment is not to disregard the tragedy of loss but to distinguish between “heavy” and “sharp” pains.

When William “Bill” Arnold passed on September 29th, I didn’t expect to feel the deep sense of shock that struck my heart. Tragedy, yes, because losing the presence of this titan is indeed a tragic loss for the community of advocates his work and passion shaped. But the shock was unexpected. There’s this thing that happens when admiration is a core part of one’s perception of a person – regardless of age, the relationship seems to defy necessary acknowledgments of nature even if, as was the case with Bill, the subject of said admiration challenged the admirer to not forget. In writing my second “Half Cents” this year, Bill appreciated the emphasis on needing to shore up the advocacy pipeline. After all, the blog was based in part on the very first discussion he and I shared. He cautioned, however, “there’s an obvious target here”, referring to himself. A stark reminder of his age. I think…I should have taken more note of the comment and in retrospect I regret not seeking more of an opportunity to discuss how he felt about the piece and what it meant for him, personally.

Writing this blog is a particular challenge in that few words can express the deeply complex set of feelings I’ve had to navigate since Bill’s death. The last in-person conversation Bill and I had was outside of a restaurant, after a fireside chat hosted by CANN’s sister organization, ADAP Advocacy Association in early December of 2019. As Bill and I were among the few smokers in the crowd, I enjoyed spending time with him outside, even in the bitter cold New Jersey had to offer that evening. We didn’t talk about recent politics or the upcoming election or even particular policy issues the event focused on earlier in the day, as was more common of our “smoker’s chats”. Instead, we talked about his childhood and the quite remarkable, yet humble life Bill lead. I like to remind advocates we should “bleed a little” in our work because the lives we seek to impact and the stories that drive this work are the emotional blood bonds of effective advocacy. It is unjust to expect patients to share the intimate aspects of their lives and health and to not return the favor. And in those moments, what Bill chose to share with me felt less like bleeding a bit of himself and more like welcoming me into his home. I don’t know how to reconcile that quite yet.

The greatest tragedy of death, however, is the world does not stop for grief. Things still need to be done in order for the world to function, work does not stop piling up, decisions must be made in order to not compound the difficulty of an already difficult time. In that respect, CANN’s general consultant, Brandon M. Macsata was tasked with making a recommendation of succession of Bill’s duties to CANN as President and Chief Executive Officer to the organization. This was not an easy thing. Bill had been a mentor and friend to Brandon for more than 20 years and the enormity of the moment weighed on him. He wanted to fulfill his responsibility to the organization and do justice to the Bill’s legacy, as did CANN’s Board of Directors. In this space, while we may not all always be friends, we are all comrades in a fight for improving access to care and thus the lives of those around us, in particular, the most vulnerable of our shared communities. This decision was both professional and personal, as it should be, in such intimate work.

So, when the Board of Directors, through Brandon, approached me to ask if I would be interested in assuming the role of President and Chief Executive Officer, stepping into Bill’s shadow, I had to take a moment. “These are mighty big shoes to fill”, I’d say before expressing some trepidation, not at my skill or ability, but because of an earnest desire to ensure Bill’s legacy would be appropriately honored - the Board, our patient community, and our partners would be proud of the work that follows. In expressing confidence and navigating the decision-making process, CANN’s board members placed an emphasis on both skill and temperament, a need to focus on policy changes from the patient perspective, and for the next chapter of leadership for the organization to balance these qualities and ideals.

“You and Bill are cast from the same mold”, will forever be one of the greatest compliments I will ever receive. It’s one I hold dear to my heart and the sentiment provides me a laser focus the mission at hand.

The outpouring of support CANN has received, both in offering condolences and in appointing me to the role of President and Chief Executive officer, has been incredible. While changes are certain for CANN’s future, the organization will continue with the same goals it was founded upon and has served for the 25 years; “defining, promoting, and improving access to healthcare services and supports for people living with HIV/AIDS and/or viral hepatitis through advocacy, education, and networking.”

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Program Reform Matters to You

***This is the final report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

The 340B Drug Pricing Program has no doubt added benefit for patients and providers, alike. The measure of this benefit, however, is shrouded by uncertainty over the lack of transparency and accountability, decline in hospital charity care, as well as the explosive middleman growth in contract pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers. Twenty-nine years after the program’s inception, it is now unclear to both regulators and patients, both qualitatively and quantitatively, if the Congressional intent is being met.

With all the noise around whether rebate programs might encourage pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise the cost of their products, there is no conversation on how those rebate dollars are used. The lack of the requisite transparency reporting among non-federal grantee covered entities participating in the 340B program makes it impossible to distinguish between anecdotal claims of abuses versus legitimate use of these rebate dollars to the benefit of patients.

These combined situations place the future of the 340B program at exceptional risk, if only by politicization of the national conversation on medication affordability alone. That national conversation churns now, as Congress debates drug pricing legislation. Aside from notorious stump speeches about the prices other countries pay for their medications, nowhere in these discussions do we talk about payers (insurers) and the middleman dictating the at-the-counter prices of medications realized by patients. The ongoing political debate is absent of the larger impacts on safety-net programs benefitting from 340B revenue and the impact on the poorest patients among us. Without clear guidance, all patients can come to expect is more squabbling among covered entities, drug manufacturers, hospitals, and regulators. It is this type of environment in which an idealistic program finds itself at risk.

Lawmakers have reasonably argued federal regulators have not demonstrated a particular need for additional regulatory powers because the Health Services and Resources Administration (HRSA) has not adequately flexed their current oversight muscle (…much less that such would be exercised efficiently). Therefore, regulatory interpretation should be updated, specifically regarding the patient definition, and possibly with further defining “low-income” for more clarity on who the program should benefit most. To the extent of “cracking open the legislation”, there is a singular area in which lawmakers from both sides and the Biden Administration agree: the issue of transparency in reporting. Earlier this year, the Biden Administration’s discretionary budget included an ask of Congress to specifically fund greater oversight and administration of 340B, explicitly including requirements on reporting of how non-grantee entities use these dollars. In this space, where few agreements can be made found, this is one area where legislators can and should move swiftly. The data generated by transparent reporting on use of these dollars is invaluable in evaluating the efficacy of 340B in benefitting patients or otherwise meeting the intent of the program.

To the extent HRSA may need more room for rulemaking, legislators desperately need extend rulemaking authority to include allowable uses for 340B dollars and clarity on the intent of the program. Federal grantees already have to report use of these dollars while other covered entities aren’t. With executives reaping in millions of dollars, reasonable people can grow concerned these dollars are being used to prop up the profiteering and personal enrichment administrators may be enjoying at the expense of employees providing care and patients themselves. Employees of federal grantees don’t generally get to enjoy much in the way of raises and their pay is not on par with the private sector. Hardware and software systems lag in terms of keeping up with modern technology. Sustaining non-revenue generating or underfunded patient benefit programs is absolutely something many entities enjoy as a use of their 340B dollars. There is no doubt these dollars can be used to patient benefit beyond directly sharing the savings with patients, though sharing the savings is the most direct means patients benefit from 340B. Putting guardrails on allowable uses of these dollars would serve well everyone touched by the program. Frankly, anyone fighting this transparency as a suggested method of shoring up 340B in meeting its intended purpose has something to hide and deserves closer scrutiny.

As an additional area of critical need to consider, for non-grantee covered entity hospitals, records of charity care and minimum realized values in served communities should be determinative for qualification to participate as a covered entity. The current calculation of disproportionate share hospitals as 340B participants or non-340B participants by the Government Accountability Office has shown a steadier and steeper decline of charity care among 340B hospitals than among non-340B hospitals. Additionally, hospitals carry the highest issuance of medical debt in the United States, disproportionately affecting low-income patients. Part of ensuring low-income patients get the most benefit from the discount drug program was and remains the ability to extend no- and low-cost care, writing off costs of providing that care, without punishing patients for having a need. If hospitals are to receive the benefit of this program, that same benefit should be extended to patients.

Lastly, in addressing the sheer size of the 340B discount drug program, the most significant areas of growth with questionable benefit to patients are among contract pharmacies. HRSA’s recognized this potential in commentary with its 2010 final rule only to realize those cautionary concerns and integrate guidance curbing the use and growth of contract pharmacies in the no-shelved 2015 “mega-guidance”. While the mega-guidance has been shelved, the abuse of the program by contract pharmacies has not abated. Among reducing the number of contract pharmacies a covered entity may make agreements with, and other geographic requirements, lawmakers and regulators should consider establishing market appropriate flat fees associated with services and a database of fees charged by pharmacy benefits managers, contract pharmacies, and third-party administrators, similar to the 340B ceiling price database established under the Office of Pharmacy Affairs Information System. A similarly situated claims hub would also allow for greater clarity in audits, assessment of potential duplicate discounts, and (if appropriately structured and compliant with patient privacy laws) detect potential diversion.

340B is a massive program which, arguably, has not yet been realized by much of the patient population. Not doing anything in this case doesn’t mean “keeping things status quo”, rather it means leaving the program open to attack, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and abuse.  We can and should do more to ensure patients are aware of the program, how the program is used by covered entities nearest to them, and how this critical support to federally funded health care programs might be impacted by additional health care policy reform efforts. If ensuring the health and well-being of the country is the priority of all players in this system, then its time patients know it.

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here.

Sources:

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Middlemen Matters to You

***This is the fifth report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

When the 340B Drug Pricing Program was enacted in 1992, there were a few “gaps” between the law’s statutory language and the program’s practical application. Among them was the realization that some covered entities that couldn’t afford to operate their own pharmacy. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) issued guidance to address the gap. After all, what’s the use of a discount drug program if providers can’t realize those discounts simply because they don’t have a pharmacy?

In 1996, after the urging of some covered entities, HRSA issued guidance telling covered entities and manufacturers that covered entities could contract with a single, independent pharmacy to provide pharmacy services necessary to engage the discount program. The idea was simple: create an access pipeline to the program, so it could be accessed by small providers, but not abused. In 2001, HRSA began to allow a few pilot projects, for lack of a better term, wherein covered entities would have more than one contract pharmacy. In theory, it isn’t a bad idea. Different pharmacies have different distributors, and as such supply can sometimes be an issue (i.e., natural disasters).

Additionally, it allows industrious covered entities to open the door for competition on “value added” services from contract pharmacies – such as programmatic record keeping for the purposes of 340B and/or financial reporting for federal grantees. And since the pharmacy was the one handling the purchasing and distribution of the medications to patients, that’s one less labor task for smaller covered entities to fund. In 2010, HRSA would later expand these pilot project allowance for multiple contract pharmacies per covered entity.

Sounds great, right? More patients have access to discounted outpatient medications, right?

Right? Not exactly!

Under the 340B program, patients don’t always get their share of the savings from the rebates and discounts. Arguably, it would appear everyone is directly benefiting one way or another from the program and its lucrative revenue stream, except for patients.

Contract pharmacies all want their piece of this pie, too. For example, take the dispensing fees that a pharmacy charges to fill a prescription medication. Indeed, dispensing fees for 340B contact pharmacies are so wildly non-standard a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2018 found dispensing fees ranging from $0 to almost $2000 per fill on 340B eligible drugs. Those fees come out of 340B revenue, which could be supporting a patient’s ability to pay copays or the cost of a drug and instead.

Can you imagine, if you will, you’re a person living with HIV or Hepatitis C, living at about 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL; 200% in 2021 is approximately $25,760 per year for a single person), but thankfully receiving insurance coverage for your medical care. Yet, co-pays and deductibles drain your finances when you could be getting your medications at no cost if the pharmacy or covered entity was applying 340B dollars to your bill? How many Rx fills would that be?

If the payer wasn’t applying a co-pay accumulator or co-pay maximizer program, the dispensing fee of two fills could mean extending your ability to access care for an entire coverage year – not just for medications, but for all health care. If the intent behind the 340B program is to extend limited federal resources, ensuring those exorbitant dispensing fees weren’t so exorbitant would certainly be one way to do it. Ultimately, 340B is a pie – when there’s more taken out, hacked at along the payment pipeline of getting medications to patients, there’s fewer resources left for patients to benefit from.

What’s more concerning about the explosive growth in the number of contract pharmacies with their hands in the 340B cookie jar, is HRSA knew when the 2010 guidance was issued that diversion and duplicate discount increases, abuses of the program, would most certainly follow. In part, because the program would grow and at such a pace that HRSA couldn’t keep up. In fact, GAO included that warning in a 2011 report, stating “…increased use of the 340B Program by contract pharmacies and hospitals may result in a greater risk of drug diversion, further heightening concerns about HRSA’s reliance on participants’ self-policing to oversee the program.”

The best part? By the “best”, I mean the worst: contract pharmacies, like non-grantee hospital entities, don’t have to show any benefit to patients for any of the dollars. Clearly, it raises questions over the legislative intent of the program and whether it is being met?

Now, contract pharmacies, like hospitals, like to massage and carefully select data to pitch answers to these concerns (there are a great number of “concerns”) by saying “we served X many 340B eligible patients”. They get around having to say if those patients realized any of those savings and benefitted from the program, without defining what they mean by “eligible”, and without defining “patient”. Contract pharmacies and hospitals get away with not having to provide meaningful information because statutory language doesn’t define “low-income” or “eligible” and regulatory guidance has an outdated definition of “patient”. Regardless of the existing language in regulation, a bona fide relationship should exist in order to call a consumer a “patient”, otherwise this is all just pocketing dollars meant for extending medication access to needy people.

All this lack of transparency fees assessed against the program could easily be solved with merely requiring contract pharmacies to establish a “flat”, reasonable dispensing fee and to describe what those fees actually cover. If the contract pharmacy is providing an additional navigation benefit to patients or an in-house location for a federally qualified health center, reasonable people can see fees being slightly elevated to cover additional costs. However, those costs should be outlined like any other contractor would be expected to do in any other contract for service. Most hospitals already have their own in-house pharmacy, they shouldn’t be contracting that service out and thus giving room for inappropriate 340B related rebate claims. And if HRSA just does not have the capacity to meaningfully audit 340B claims and the use of these dollars, they could at the very least make more room for the other mechanism in the statute for audit: manufacturer-originated audits. That’s right. The statutory language of 340B anticipated HRSA wouldn’t be able to keep up if the program was successful or even particularly abused. So, legislators reasoned if manufacturers were taking a cut of their potential profits through discounts and rebates, manufacturers should be able to audit the claims seeking those discounts and rebates to make sure everything was in line. When a retailer offers a discount to veterans, they typically require proof of veteran status. Why would medication discounts be any different?

In the end, if contract pharmacies don’t have anything to hide, then they need to stop hiding so very much. There are enough hands in the 340B cookie jar that patients are being squeezed out and left with crumbs. When legislators ask “is the intent of the program being met?”, these are the questions on their minds. Patients should have them on their minds as well.

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here.

Sources:

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

• Fein, J. Adam (2020, May 19). Copay Maximizers Are Displacing Accumulators—But CMS Ignores How Payers Leverage Patient Support. Drug Channels. Retrieved online at https://www.drugchannels.net/2020/05/copay-maximizers-are-displacing.html

• U.S Government Accountability Office (September 2011). DRUG PRICING: Manufacturer Discounts in the 340B Program Offer Benefits, but Federal Oversight Needs Improvement. GAO-11-836. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-836.pdf

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (June 2018). DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: Federal Oversight of Compliance at 340B Contract Pharmacies Needs Improvement. GAO-18-480. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-480.pdf

• Office of the Federal Register (1996, August 23). 61 FR 43549 - Notice Regarding Section 602 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992; Contract Pharmacy Services. GovInfo.gov. Retrieved online at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-1996-08-23/96-21485 

• Office of the Federal Register (2010, April 5). 75 FR 10272 - Notice Regarding 340B Drug Pricing Program-Contract Pharmacy Services. GovInfo.gov. Retrieved online at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2010-03-05/2010-4755

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Decline in Charity Care Matters to You

***This is the fourth report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

A cornerstone argument in favor of the 340B Drug Pricing Program centers on so-called charity care rates of the participating Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH). Those covered entities, specifically DSHs, should be able to leverage their 340B dollars to extend care and out-patient medications to offset losses from uncompensated care. In the ideal, offsetting the costs associated with charity care to provide more care to low-income patients is noble and moral and just, and one society should support. The problem occurs when charity care is wrapped up or conflated with all “uncompensated, unreimbursed care” because a significant portion of uncompensated care is written off as bad debt, and that debt all too often gets reported to patients’ credit reports. Whereas charity care is care provided at no cost or debt to the patient. Moving forward, we must not confuse, conflate, or combine generalized uncompensated care with charity care.

The argument from the American Hospital Association is narrowly focused to present the rosiest picture, touting the totality of charity care provided by 340B DSH covered entities ($64 billion in of 2017, the latest available data as of the AHA’s statement). It ignores 340B participating hospitals have seen a steady decline in both charity care and uncompensated care, according to the Government Accountability Office’s 2018 report. The AHA’s own data reveals the same thing, despite exponential growth of the 340B program, largely attributed to hospitals and contract pharmacies. Unlike Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs, a type of federal grantee entity in the 340B program), which are required provide care “regardless of ability to pay”, hospital systems, in large part, have a much more extensive debt collection program; they are not necessarily beholden to rules regarding debt collection practices. FQHCs, as an example, may be required to seek debt payments from internal billing specialists, but don’t generally have contracts to sell the bad debt to collections companies or report to credit bureaus. Furthermore, they are prohibited from doing so in certain circumstances.

While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibited certain types of hospital-originated debt from being reported to credit bureaus, it doesn’t stop the hospital from selling the debt and then the collection company reporting the debt. Indeed, hospitals are notorious for reporting medical debt and sending bills to collections. If 340B dollars are meant to offset some of these expenses, with program growing about 23% per year, why does the Census Bureau report that about 20% of Americans are under some form of medical debt? Why has that medical debt grown from $81 billion in 2016 to $140 billion in 2019?

The ACA required non-profit hospitals to offer charity care programs, and the vast majority of hospitals across the country are non-profit hospitals. Adding insult to injury, that tax designation and the requirement to offer charity care hasn’t stopped these “non-profit” hospitals from chasing after low-income patients and further impoverishing them. A recent Kaiser Health News “An Arm and a Leg” podcast dove into just one state’s effort to tackle an epidemic of “non-profit” hospitals suing patients as a result of medical debt. The effort found a massive coalition of 60 entities, including a nurses’ union, and startling data supporting the need for Maryland’s now-passed “Medical debt Protection Act.”

Data included notation of almost 150,000 lawsuits against patients over the last 10 years, making almost $60 million from patients who would otherwise automatically qualify for charity care, and hospitals negotiating with for state funds to support charity care taking in $119 million than they actually gave out in charity care. And that’s just in one state. Indeed, according to information behind this report, Johns Hopkins – a 340B hospital – alone raked in $36 million more from this state-funded charity care support than they spent. While Maryland already had certain patient protections from these predatory practices on the books, too few patients knew about those protections and the state awarded these dollars without ever investigating the existing status of bad debt to charity care ratios. All the paper in the world written into the law is meaningless if affected people and corporations are not made to be transparent and held accountable.

Access to care, and freedom to access care, are two different things. Access to care being an open door, and freedom to access care is the freedom to walk through that door without fearing a dire financial consequence. While some special interests may argue the program is critical to hospitals extending access to care, their rhetoric lacks practical application when patients don’t have the freedom to access that care without fear of acquiring life-altering debt. The fear of medical debt keeps people away from seeking care. In fact, one of the most immediate and meaningful ways to tackle the country’s medical debt crisis would be for 340B covered entities to share the savings with patients. A patient’s medical debt reported to their personal credit file can, and does, perpetuate cycles of poverty; it is harming patients’ wealth, health, and overall well-being. If 340B dollars are supposed to be aimed at ensuring access to care, then concerns over medical financial toxicity shouldn’t be discounted.

Hospitals, in large part, though not universally, have seen a significant decrease in uncompensated care due to the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. With more patients qualifying for Medicaid, meaning an ability for providers to be reimbursed where none previously existed, hospitals should be able to shift their uncompensated care burden from bad debt to patient financial assistance and charity care programs.

On the other end of decreases in charity care provided by 340B hospitals, are truly magnificent non-profit hospital chief executive officer compensation.  In a 2019 hearing, CEOs admitted to having salaries in the millions of dollars per year range – that’s before bonuses. They also admitted to holding more money in reserves than they generally need in order to operate safely or not run the risk of running out of funding. Other instances of concern from this hearing include a hospital group using their 340B dollars to acquire a stand-alone oncology center. Typically, when these types of purchases are made, patients experience an increase in costs of care and sometimes experience a reduction in ability to access care due to an increase in patient load without subsequent staffing support or their provider’s office is physically moved as part of the consolidation effort, reducing a patient’s ability to physically get to and from office visits.

In addressing potential reforms that would benefit patient experiences, increase the sense of freedom patients feel to access care, and improve program efficacy, policy and law makers should both distinguish between generalized uncompensated care and charity care in annual financial reporting and 340B related audits and require a threshold of charity care for hospitals seeking to qualify for the 340B program. If hospitals are dissatisfied with their Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates and what that means for boosting their bottom line, they would do well to send their lobbyists after reimbursement dollars rather than disingenuously justifying their pilfer effort to rob 340B of its noble cause. Either way, it’s time these entities see requirements tied to their dollars, including rules around charging off debt against low-income patients.

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here.

Sources:

• American Hospital Association (September 2020). 340B Hospital Community Benefit Analysis. Retrieved online at https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2020-09-10-340b-hospital-community-benefit-analysis.

• American Hospital Association (December 2017). UNCOMPENSATED HOSPITAL CARE COST FACT SHEET. Retrieved online at https://www.aha.org/system/files/2018-01/2017-uncompensated-care-factsheet.pdf.

• Bennett, N., Eggleston, J., Mykyta, L., & Sullivan, B. (2021, April 7). 19% of U.S. Households Could Not Afford to Pay for Medical Care Right Away. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved online at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-had-medical-debt-in-united-states.html.

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

• Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations (2017, October 11). EXAMINING HOW COVERED ENTITIES UTILIZE THE 340B DRUG PRICING PROGRAM. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg27577/html/CHRG-115hhrg27577.htm.

• Kliff, S. & Sanger-Katz, M. (2021, July 20). Americans’ Medical Debts Are Bigger Than Was Known, Totaling $140 Billion. The New York Times. Retrieved online at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/upshot/medical-debt-americans-medicaid.html.

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018, June 18). Drug Discount Program: Characteristics of Hospitals Participating and Not Participating in the 340B Program. GAO-18-521R. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-521r.pdf.

• Weissmann, Dan (2021, October 7). PODCASTS – ‘An Arm and a Leg’: How One State Protects Patients From Hospital Lawsuits. Kaiser Health News. Retrieved online at https://khn.org/news/article/podcast-an-arm-and-a-leg-how-one-state-protects-patients-from-hospital-lawsuits/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=168013149&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_sXa4onkYlNPYAtzOv-Hn4b_y9OgQhBcwhnxYvtugSLuAXK1sYZ1_OWiArpRr29-YxGGpHZCZ9t4IhZVASXKpQZ-lS5A&utm_content=168013149&utm_source=hs_email.

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Accountability Matters to You

***This is the third report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

The word accountable is defined as “being required or expect to justify actions or decisions.” Accountability is often broadly discussed on a variety of levels about governmental and social issues, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program is certainly no exception. The 340B program exists to address the health care needs of a segment of society – social needs. As such, program accountability is of paramount importance since patient health depends on it.

Accountability in use of 340B dollars follows the benchmarks of transparency in reporting: federal grantees are required by contract to demonstrate patient benefit in use of program dollars and non-grantee covered entities are held to no such standard. Without fiscal transparency, non-grantee entities cannot be held accountable for their use of these revenues. The Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) largely selects covered entities for audit based on a selection of “risk” characteristics. While some criticism of manufacturers is warranted in terms of accountability, manufacturers have only one statutory requirement. That requirement is to provide discounts or rebates on qualifying medications to covered entities. HRSA selects manufacturers for audit based on complaints from covered entities. Areas of complaint about manufacturers typically consist of overcharging a covered entity, not making a particular medication available, or not being transparent about the “ceiling price” of a drug.

To be fair, the statutory accountability requirements of 340B program are…limited and…vague. However, according to a 2020 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-20-108), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) severely lacks meaningful oversight, uniform assessment and request standards, and, as with many other reports, finds HRSA’s administration of the program to be largely inadequate.

As an example, GAO identified HRSA audits from 2017 and 2018 reviewed less than 10% of all non-governmental hospitals enrolled in the program. HRSA primarily relies upon hospitals to self-attest their eligibility. Of the selected hospitals participating in the GAO review, 18 submitted documents that would constitute a government contract – any description of a community program – and when HRSA found these instances, allowed the hospitals to avoid getting in trouble by acquiring contracts with retroactive applicability. All of that meaning, these hospitals in question did not experience any reprimand for failing to provide programming to low-income people but they got to enjoy the perks of unaccountable 340B dollars until they got caught. At the rate HRSA reviews these entities, it’s possible for a non-compliant or otherwise non-qualifying entity could go an entire decade soaking up dollars meant for patients in needs.

While HRSA’s annual 340B audits are primarily targeted toward covered entities, drug manufacturers are also audited to ensure they’re not charging covered entities more than they should be for 340B medications, to ensure drug manufacturers are not discriminating against covered entities, and make sure drug manufacturers are making sure their products are made available in compliance with the 340B program. Manufacturers represent about ten percent of annual audits, while covered entities represent about 90 percent and there are about 900 drug manufacturers participating in the program (dramatically less than covered entities). To be fair, GAO concluded HRSA also needed to provide clearer guidance to drug manufacturers regarding what qualifies as an acceptable distribution restriction due to anticipated or actual supply shortages and to provide specific guidance as to what constitutes “discrimination” of covered entity participants.

This issue of defining discrimination is developing and playing out in “real-time”. In May of 2021, HRSA announced notification letters sent to 6 manufacturers regarding their new policies requiring additional reporting from covered entities with contract pharmacies (as opposed to in-house pharmacies). HRSA’s interpretation of statutory language (“…shall…each covered entity…”) as non-discretionary on the part of manufacturers. In essence, if an entity is registered with HRSA for the program, a manufacturer is required by law to offer medications at ceiling price or below to that entity, regardless of any potential for a covered entity to use program dollars outside of the intent of the program. While skepticism of non-grantee use of these dollars may be warranted due to lack of transparency in use of these dollars, diversion, or duplicate discount concerns, given that federal grantees are already required to report use of these dollars to their federal funders, a more narrowly tailored policy directed exclusively at non-grantee covered entities would be more appropriate to address the interest needs of manufacturers, the public, and program stability. However, given HRSA’s interpretation of the statutory language, even such a proposal might run the risk of rubbing regulators wrong. At the time of this writing, at least one of the manufacturers has sued the Department of Health and Human Services to prevent any monetary penalties related to these letters from being imposed. A judge has dismissed the government’s opposition to the suit in June of 2021. And on September 22, 2021 HRSA issued letters to the manufacturers in question, stating the issue had been referred to the Office of the Inspector General.

Lack of transparency means less accountability. Patients are better served when 340B-related dollars remain within the same geographic area they were generated by the covered entities. After all, if serving low-income patients means serving community and getting usable revenue required to be used on low-income patients, those dollars should be put back into the same community in which they were generated, right? But covered entities with large networks and multiple covered entity sites aren’t required to show those revenues are reinvested in the same area they were generated. For instance, monies made off the health and illness of an Atlanta community should not be spent to buy up profit generating imaging machines in a well-to-do suburban area outside of Los Angeles. But, without both transparency and accountability, 340B dollars can easily become a slush fund of revenues for any industrious non-grantee covered entity.

Indeed, many large contract pharmacies offer software programs to covered entities as a measure of their own “transparency” with internal reporting but the real goal is to show the covered entities “here’s how you can make more 340B dollars” – but at a cost of providing the service and without uniform assessment metrics. That means the contract pharmacy can tilt the experience of a patient by applying pressure to the covered entities very subtly through software programs telling the provider, “You can make more money off this patient by prescribing…”. Advocates have very good reason to be suspicious of contract pharmacies associated with (or even owning) pharmacy benefit managers who, then, can very easily provide programming that targets their profits over ensuring rebate dollars make it back to a patient.

Statutory clarification could greatly benefit the intended purpose of the 340B program – ensuring low-income patients get the care they need by taking a few, simple steps, specifying reporting requirements that mirror existing transparency and accountability found among grantees. Additional oversight is needed in numerous areas, all designed to further benefit patient access to care and medications. Among them, non-grantee entities should be required to report how 340B dollars are being used, by which payer source a claim is generated, how much charity care a non-grantee entity provides, and how much revenue is generated from pharmacy sales (and how much is generated from 340B sales). Patients might not understand the nuances behind the program complexities, but they do understand when they cannot access the care they need and deserve. If the purpose of the 340B program is to expand access to care and medications, then why not go that extra mile?

Congress could go a great deal further to ensure these billions of dollars serve patients, rather than the interests of shareholders in private hospital systems or propping-up senior management compensation packages, or other non-medically-related expenses. Congress could also opt to provide for additional minimum requirements in order to qualify as a covered entity – especially with regard to private hospitals providing a certain percentage of charity care.  

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here.

Sources:

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

• Health Resources Services Administration (September 2021). 340B Drug Pricing Program – Program Integrity. HRSA Correspondence to Stakeholders 2021. U.S. Department of Health & Human Resources. Retrieved online at https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/program-integrity/index.html

• Lagasse, Jeff (June 2021). Judge dismisses HHS Challenge of AstraZeneca's 340B Contract Pharmacies Lawsuit. HealthCare Finance. Retrieved online at https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/judge-dismisses-hhs-challenge-astrazenecas-340b-contract-pharmacies-lawsuit

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (December 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: Increased Oversight Needed to Ensure Nongovernmental Hospitals Meet Eligibility Requirements. GAO-20-108. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-108.pdf

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why Transparency Matters to You

***This is the second report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

All public-private partnerships require transparency to instill confidence in program function, private business operations, and government accountability. Transparency is an essential part of the equation; it brings us more accountability and more effective programs. It helps to identify areas of improvement in operations or enforcement, as well as limiting waste, fraud, and abuse. The 340B Drug Discount Program is no exception because transparency ensures investments into patient access to medications for critically vulnerable populations are reaching patients. Transparency – in every programmatic aspect – serves the public interest and is, frankly, just good government. It builds confidence in the efficacy of the program and good will of the participating entities.

In general, under the 340B program, those entities receiving federal grant funding – known as “federal grantees” – under other programs (i.e., federally qualified health centers, Ryan White HIV/AIDS clinics, hemophilia centers, and others) receive a great deal over oversight on how they use their discounts and rebates from 340B, though that oversight comes as part of their fiscal reporting under those other programs. For non-grantee covered entities, oversight is primarily dependent on audits and self-attestation of compliance and corrections to issues. With non-grantee covered entities lacking dedicated oversight like federal grantees, there’s a lack of transparency in how those entities qualify under the program and how those entities are using 340B-generated revenues to benefit low-income patients.

Regardless of program, dollars meant to serve low-income patients are often scarce. As such, patients lose when the investments needed to support and expand services for vulnerable populations are directed elsewhere (outside of the community those dollars originated from or for-profit building purposes). Patients lose out on funding support that keeps programs stable, ensures access to critical health programs nearest to them, and ultimately threatens to destabilize a program relied upon by the federal government and community stakeholders to keep clinic and hospital doors open.

At the inception of the 340B program, legislation such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did not exist, and only 29 million people nationwide were enrolled in Medicaid. Fast forward to 2018, Medicaid rolls had grown to 72 million people – meaning in all but the hold-out “non-expansion states” nearly any hospital in the country might qualify as a “disproportionate share hospital” – a situation 340B never considered at inception. The development and growth of the program was analyzed in a 2018 report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Energy & Commerce.

According to a Government Accountability Office report (GAO-21-107) about 80% of current covered entities are federal grantees and 20% of covered entities are hospitals. However, many of these entities, especially hospitals operate multiple sites – not all entities are created equal in terms of generating program revenue. Of the approximate 37,500 covered entity sites participating in the program, about 75% of those sites are hospital affiliated with hospitals, not federal grantees. Hospitals are able to qualify specifically because of the low threshold of “disproportionate share” of low-income patients who can now afford to seek care thanks to Medicaid expansion – even if the hospital entity is generally well off enough to not actually need those dollars in order to provide care. In order to better understand how these changes have impacted growth and qualification of the program, “disproportionate share” may not be the best formula to ensure 340B dollars are helping those who need it most. Particularly, given the decreasing share of charity care certain hospital entities have offered over the years, evaluating charity care percentages and qualifying patients by income and payer type (self-pay, Medicaid, private insurance, etc.) may be more accurate in ensuring entities are actually serving low-income communities.

To be clear, “charity care” is a specific type of “uncompensated care” – or when patients receive care but can’t pay their bills. Unlike other types of uncompensated care, whereby providers may send a patient’s bill to a collections company, charity care releases the patient from a portion or all of their financial responsibility. Typically, charity care is limited to those who have to choose between putting food on their table and seeking preventative care like mammograms or having to decide in what life-saving neonatal care a family might need. Given the intersection of race and poverty in this country, charity care is a critical, even if anecdotal measure of how much a hospital is invested in their local community and combating community health disparities like pregnancy-related mortality.

The 340B program’s statutory language is largely silent on how these revenues dollars may be spent and because of that, there’s little to ensure these dollars are actually going to benefit patients instead of hospital networks or pad executive pay. Patient advocates have long crowed about the need for non-grantee covered entities to meet the same transparency requirements federal grantees are required to meet. Indeed, one of the biggest challenges facing the 340B program is better understanding how these dollars are spent. Now, typically, where statute is vague, government agencies tasked with managing programs have the regulatory power to make rules and the man power to enforce them. That’s just not the case with 340B and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has repeatedly stated a lack of surety in its ability to regulate beyond guidance and frequently cited an inability to expand auditing capacity due to lack of funding. So much so that President Biden included $17 million in his budget request to strengthen and expand oversight of the program specifically in terms of auditing how 340B revenues are generated and spent among on-grantee covered entities.

Given the program’s growth, there’s reason and need to further clarify the intent of the program, cemented into unambiguous statutory language to reflect the country’s health care landscape of today and ensure the revenues generated are actually helping patients and not padding executive pockets. In our next blog, we’ll discuss the accountability processes currently in play for covered entities and manufacturers and the glaring holes in that part of the oversight “net”.

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here 2018 report.

Sources:

• Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2020, February 4). Infographic: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Pregnancy-Related Deaths — United States, 2007–2016. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved online at https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/disparities-pregnancy-related-deaths/infographic.html

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

• House Committee on Energy & Commerce (2018). Review of the 340B Drug Pricing Program. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved online at https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/20180110Review_of_the_340B_Drug_Pricing_Program.pdf

• King, Robert (2021, June 1). From 340B to a public option: 4 healthcare items you may have missed in Biden's budget. Fierce Healthcare. Retrieved online at https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/from-340b-to-a-public-option-4-healthcare-items-you-may-have-missed-biden-s-budget

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (December 2020). DRUG PRICING PROGRAM: HHS Uses Multiple Mechanisms to Help Ensure Compliance with 340B Requirements. GAO-21-107. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-107.pdf

A Patient’s Guide to 340B: Why the Program Matters to You

***This is the first report in a six-part series to educate patients about the 340B Drug Pricing Program***

In 1992, Congress struck a deal with pharmaceutical manufacturers to expand access to care and medication for more patients: If pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted to be included in Medicaid’s coverage, they’d have to offer their products to outpatient entities serving low-income patients at a discount. The idea was brilliantly simple; drug manufacturers could have a guaranteed income from participation in the Medicaid program, and “covered entities” could have guaranteed access to discounted medications. Congress set-up a payment system by way of rebates, affording healthcare providers a way to fund much-needed care to patients who could not otherwise afford it.

This payment program is little known but, now it is significantly large. It is the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

“At the inception [of the 340B program], these entities [Hemophilia Treatment Centers (caring for all patients with both bleeding and clotting disorders), Ryan White Clinics and FQHCs were specifically identified] were the prime targets to benefit from the  three major goals of the initial PHS pricing program: first, that pharmaceutical products would be purchased at markedly reduced 340B pricing; secondly, the discounts would be passed on to the payors and finally that a small, reasonable, percentage would go to the entity itself, to sustain Covered Entities to care and expand diagnostic and clinical services.”
– Dr. Diane Nugent, National Commission on 340B (2018)

Initially, covered entities were exceptionally restricted, including but not limited to federally qualified heath centers (FQHCs), Ryan White HIV/AIDS clinics, hemophilia treatment centers, and only one category of hospitals, so-called “disproportionate share hospitals” (DSH). DSH is a hospital entity that provides a “disproportionate” number of low-income patients, evaluated quarterly and calculated through a formula dictated by statute. Of these entities, those receiving federal grant dollars under any number of federally funded programs are called “federal grantees”.

Federal grantees are required by statutory language to certain transparency in how they spend their 340B-related revenue. In trade, participating drug manufacturers are also required to be transparent in their contributions to the program.

In addition, federal grantees are required to be transparent and accountable regarding their 340B-generated dollars by their federal grants, not by the statutory language of the 340B program. That means every dollar a federal grantee generates is held accountable to serving the needs of low-income patients. How these dollars may be used from grantee to grantee may look a little different but they’re still required to fit within the guardrails of the grant and, for many federal grantees, the most direct way of achieving this goal is sharing the savings with patients at the pharmacy counter. By its very nature, 340B’s purpose is to reduce the amount of tax dollars spent on these grants by providing an avenue of program revenue, and thus support existing efforts to provide care for the most vulnerable.

Over the years, covered entities have expanded to include contract pharmacies, family planning centers, children’s hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers, freestanding cancer centers, and sole community hospitals. From 1992 until about 2001, participation in the program by covered entities was fairly static – it didn’t grow or change in any massive quantity. After 2001, covered entities able to access the 340B program began to grow at an exceedingly fast pace, with even more growth among “covered entity sites” and the greatest amount of growth among contracted pharmacies. This was reflected in 340B sales, as well. According to the Drug Channels Institute, 340B purchases grew from about $2.4 billion in 2005 to more than $38 billion in 2020.

In general, 340B-related income looks like an insurer reimbursing the cost of a medication for a patient to a covered entity, a pharmacy filling the medication at the rebated cost with addition of a minor dispensing fee, and the covered entity keeping the excess as savings. Covered entities are allowed spend those excess funds in particular ways which qualify as “expanding access” to medication or care. For entities applying those funds directly to outpatient medications, this is known as “following the patient” or “sharing the savings”. Other uses may include anything that directly impacts access to or quality of care for low-income patients. Notable examples may include technology upgrades to be in-line with patient security and best practices in extending scarce human resources (i.e. how efficient care can be delivered to patients), acquiring new care technology to provide care not previously available (i.e. imaging and x-ray machines), and infrastructure like mobile medical units in order to bring care to patients rather than bringing patients to care or opening new locations in order to be more accessible to their served communities. 340B prohibits covered entities on double dipping on discounts or applying rebate dollars to inpatient medications or to a particular patient that does not qualify as low-income (“diversion”).

That patient getting their share of the savings makes a great deal of sense. Indeed, a Government Accountability Office report (GAO-18-480) of selected covered entities stated of 55 interviewees, 30 reported providing low-income, uninsured patients on 340B dispensed medications and all “30 covered entities providing patients with discounts reported providing discounts on the drug price for some or all 340B drugs dispensed at contract pharmacies. Federal grantees were more likely than hospitals to provide such discounts and to provide them at all contract pharmacies.” Patients realize the savings of the rebate program immediately. Benefits of the program which may be less recognizable to patients for a similar report from 2011 (GAO-11-836) included funding a non-revenue-generating case management program, patient and family education programs similar to guidance pharmacists provide on medication interactions, and transportation to and from care appointments. All of which are critically necessary in terms of creating a safety net of accessible care for vulnerable communities and patients.

For more information on the issues facing the 340B Drug Pricing Program, you can access the Community Access National Network’s 340B Commission final report and reform recommendations here 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Sources:

• Community Access National Network (February 2019). 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: The Issues Spurring Discussion, Stakeholder Stances and Possible Resolutions. 340B Commission Final Report. Retrieved online at https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.tiicann.org/pdf-docs/2019_CANN_340B_Commission_Final-Report-v5_03-07-19.pdf&embedded=true

• Hasan, Shiraz, and Sofi Peterson (2021, April 16). 340B Drug Discount Program Growth Drivers. IQVIA. Retrieved online at https://www.iqvia.com/locations/united-states/blogs/2021/04/340b-drug-discount-program-growth-drivers

• Health Resources & Services Administration (2021). Sec. 340B PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved online at https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/opa/programrequirements/phsactsection340b.pdf

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2011, September). DRUG PRICING: Manufacturer Discounts in the 340B Program Offer Benefits, but Federal Oversight Needs Improvement. GAO-11-836. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-836.pdf

• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018, June). DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM: Federal Oversight of Compliance at 340B Contract Pharmacies Needs Improvement. GAO-18-480. Retrieved online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-480.pdf