Travis Manint - Advocate and Consultant Travis Manint - Advocate and Consultant

Closing the EHB Loophole: Louisiana Leads, But National Action is Needed

"Jason," a Utah AIDS Foundation client, confronted a brutal truth in the wake of his HIV diagnosis: a healthcare system more interested in profits than patients. Faced with a staggering $3,200 co-pay for his HIV medication—well beyond his financial reach—Jason's plight was exacerbated by his insurance company's implementation of a co-pay accumulator policy. This policy effectively nullified the assistance he once relied on, leaving him stranded without his medication for months. "I felt scared and discouraged when I was told I have a $3,200 co-pay to pick up my HIV meds. I don’t even make that much money each month," Jason shared, his voice a stark indictment of a system failing its most vulnerable. His story, spotlighted by The Utah All Copays Count Coalition, underscores a pervasive issue: patients across the nation are cornered into impossible choices between health and financial ruin, casualties of an insurance industry's practices that blatantly prioritize margins over meaningful care.

Understanding the Problem

Jason's heartbreaking story sheds light on interconnected issues fueling the healthcare affordability crisis: co-pay accumulators and the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) loophole. These tactics have a devastating effect on patient well-being, so let's break them down:

Co-pay Accumulators: A Profit-Driven Scheme at the Expense of Patients

These programs allow insurers to take the value of manufacturer-provided coupons or patient assistance and apply it towards an annual deductible, but not towards a patient's out-of-pocket maximum. This means even with generous assistance, patients can face thousands of dollars in additional costs, forcing them to ration medication or abandon treatment altogether. The numbers reveal the widespread impact:

  • The AIDS Institute reports that co-pay accumulator adjustment programs (CAAPs) are present in a shocking 66% of individual Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans nationwide, with some states showing 75-100% of available plans utilizing these tactics.

Co-pay Maximizers: A Further Threat to Affordability

Insurers are increasingly employing an even more severe tactic known as 'co-pay maximizers'. These programs set a patient's co-pay to the full amount of available assistance, even if it's intended to cover an entire year's medication cost. Unlike accumulators, which prevent assistance from counting towards the out-of-pocket maximum, maximizers essentially 'use up' all available assistance in a single payment. This leaves patients facing the full, often unaffordable, cost of medication for the rest of the year. The combined use of maximizers and accumulators is becoming increasingly common, leaving patients with limited options and magnifying the financial burden of life-saving treatments. A staggering 72% of commercially insured beneficiaries in the United States were enrolled in plans with co-pay maximizers as of 2023, according to a Drug Channels analysis.

This highlights the alarming prevalence of these practices and the immense pressure they place on patients struggling to manage chronic conditions.

The Essential Health Benefits (EHB) Loophole: Insurers Exploit Gaps in Coverage

Under the ACA, states have flexibility in selecting the 'essential' healthcare services that insurers must cover. Some insurers manipulate this system by classifying necessary medications (especially for chronic conditions) as 'non-essential'. This lets them continue using co-pay accumulators and maximizers on these medications, further undermining patient affordability.

  • Centers for Medicate & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) data reveals that in many states, critical treatments for chronic disease management are not guaranteed coverage under 'essential' benefits. This means patients could be subject to accumulators and maximizers indefinitely, locked in a cycle of escalating costs even when reaching their out-of-pocket maximums.

The takeaway is clear: these practices prioritize the shareholder profits of insurance companies over the health and well-being of patients, especially those battling chronic and complex conditions.

Federal Action – Progress and Pitfalls

The CMS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2025 signals a notable yet incomplete step towards remedying the healthcare affordability crisis. It attempts to close the Essential Health Benefits loophole starting in 2027 by mandating routine, non-pediatric dental coverage as an essential benefit. While seemingly tangential, this amendment serves as a precursor to addressing broader coverage issues, demonstrating the potential to mitigate part of the financial burdens that patients like Jason face. However, it underscores a significant gap in the rule's scope—its silence on co-pay accumulators and maximizers.

Limitations of the CMS Rule Change

The rule change’s failure to directly address co-pay accumulators and maximizers leaves a significant gap in patient protection. These payor-driven barriers systematically undermine patient affordability and access, especially for those managing chronic conditions. The absence of direct action against these schemes allows insurers to deploy cost-containment strategies that, while ostensibly designed to control expenditures, place the financial burden squarely on patients.

This oversight perpetuates financial hardship and deepens healthcare disparities. Accumulator and maximizer practices disproportionately affect marginalized populations, highlighting the limitations of regulatory changes that fail to comprehensively address the complex dynamics of healthcare affordability and access.

Without targeted measures to dismantle these financial mechanisms, efforts to expand coverage and close loopholes may achieve only superficial improvements. A significant portion of the population, particularly those managing chronic diseases, will continue to face insurmountable financial barriers to accessing essential treatments. This situation underscores the need for a more holistic approach to healthcare reform—one that confronts the financial mechanisms impairing patient care and seeks to eliminate systemic practices that prioritize profit over patient well-being.

Court Challenges: A Victory Shadowed by Continued Uncertainty

The battle against co-pay accumulators achieved a notable legal milestone when a federal court ruled these practices violated the Affordable Care Act's mandates. Despite this victory, the landscape remains fraught with ambiguity, largely due to the federal government's tepid response. The government’s retraction of its appeal in 2022, while upholding the court's decision, did not establish a nationwide prohibition on co-pay accumulators, leaving insurers in a legal gray area.

The HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute has spotlighted the risk posed by the federal government's refusal to enforce the court's ruling against co-pay accumulators, shifting focus instead to addressing insurers' classification of certain drugs as “non-essential health benefits.” While the final 2025 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters rule curbs the classification of covered drugs beyond state benchmarks as non-essential, the government's inaction on co-pay accumulators marks a troubling disconnect between legal victories and their practical implementation.

This gap between legal wins and real-world application emphasizes the need for interventions at the state level. Louisiana's SB 210 emerges as a key measure, proposing tangible solutions to bridge the gap left by federal inaction and protect patients from the financial burdens imposed by insurers' exploitative tactics.

State Solutions: Louisiana as a Model

Louisiana's Legislative Response with SB 210

In an assertive move to safeguard healthcare affordability and accessibility, Senator Bob Owen's SB 210 targets the mechanisms of co-pay accumulators and the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) loophole. The legislation mandates comprehensive coverage under EHBs and holistic accumulator protections, ensuring all cost-sharing payments contribute towards the ACA's out-of-pocket maximums.

This legislative approach not only challenges the status quo but also highlights Louisiana's proactive stance in addressing healthcare disparities. By mandating that insurers recognize all federally designated EHB services and medications as essential, SB 210 directly confronts insurers' manipulative practices, ensuring patients receive the comprehensive coverage promised under the ACA.

Addressing the ‘Endless Deductible’

In a letter to the Louisiana State Senate Insurance Committee, CANN President and CEO Jen Laws warns that without robust protections like SB 210, insurers can impose what patients call "the endless deductible." This term illustrates the loophole that allows insurers to employ exploitative accounting practices, negating the ACA's intent to cap patient spending on healthcare. SB 210's provisions aim to close this loophole, ensuring patients are not burdened with exorbitant costs for essential treatments, thus preserving the ACA's core promise of affordable care.

In his letter, Laws reveals that Louisiana's health plan benchmarks do not guarantee coverage for essential cancer treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy, underlining the significance of SB 210. By ensuring that expenditures for such critical treatments are counted towards patients' out-of-pocket maximums, the bill offers a lifeline to those facing the daunting financial implications of treating life-threatening conditions. This measure is pivotal in bridging the gap left by the current healthcare system's shortcomings, providing patients with much-needed financial relief and access to life-saving treatments.

A Blueprint for National Reform

Louisiana's initiative serves as a compelling model for tackling the challenges posed by ambiguous EHB classifications, federal inaction, and exploitative co-pay practices. SB 210's success could inspire a wave of legislative efforts across the United States, advocating for a healthcare system that prioritizes patient well-being over payor profits. This approach highlights the potential for state-level innovations to influence national healthcare policy, paving the way for reforms that ensure healthcare accessibility and affordability for all, especially those living with chronic and life-threatening conditions.

Call to Action

The legislative changes proposed in Louisiana represent a critical juncture in the fight for healthcare affordability and access. To realize the full potential of these reforms, a concerted effort is needed from key stakeholders across the healthcare ecosystem:

For U.S. Policymakers:

Legislators at both state and federal levels must embrace proactive strategies to close the EHB loophole and regulate co-pay accumulator and maximizer use. Crafting and enacting policies that guarantee comprehensive coverage of essential health benefits and ensure all forms of patient assistance contribute towards out-of-pocket maximums are essential steps toward protecting patients from undue financial strain. Supporting state-level initiatives like Louisiana's SB 210 can serve as a foundation for broader national reforms, underscoring the importance of legislative action in safeguarding patient interests.

Healthcare Providers:

Medical professionals and healthcare institutions play a crucial role in advocating for their patients' rights and navigating the evolving insurance landscape. By staying informed about the implications of insurance policies on treatment access and affordability, healthcare providers can better support their patients in accessing the care they need. Engaging in policy discussions and supporting legislative efforts to address the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulator issue are necessary contributions to the broader push for healthcare reform.

Community Advocates and Patients:

The voices of patient advocacy groups and people affected by the healthcare system's complexities are instrumental in driving change. By raising awareness about the challenges posed by the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulators, mobilizing communities to demand reform, and sharing personal stories, advocates can influence policy decisions and encourage insurers to prioritize patient needs. Engaging in public discussions and advocating for policies that protect patients from harmful insurance practices are critical steps in building a more equitable healthcare system.

Actionable Next Steps:

  • Reach out to state and federal representatives to express support for policies that ensure comprehensive coverage of essential health benefits and address the challenges posed by co-pay accumulators.

  • Educate oneself and others about the impact of the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulators on healthcare affordability and access, leveraging resources and information provided by reputable patient advocacy organizations.

By uniting in the pursuit of meaningful healthcare reform, stakeholders across the spectrum can contribute to a future where healthcare accessibility and affordability are realities for all, especially for those facing chronic and life-threatening conditions. The journey toward closing the EHB loophole and eliminating unfair insurance practices demands collective action and unwavering commitment to patient well-being. Let's join forces to advocate for a healthcare system that truly serves the needs of its patients, ensuring equitable access to essential treatments and protections against financial hardship.

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

Health Inequity: Barriers Caused by Abusive Payer Practices

On February 2, 2023, ProPublica, the publication with a mission to “expose abuses of power” and particularly known for their extraordinary thoroughness of investigation, published a piece exposing United Healthcare’s practices denying medically necessary care for one patient, Christopher McNaughton, who is diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The barriers caused by abusive payer practices is nothing new to patients living with chronic health conditions, including HIV and viral hepatitis.

McNaughton’s disease state is particularly challenging and his treatment was costing United Healthcare about $2 million per year. McNaughton, after receiving repeated coverage denials of live-improving and life-saving medication from United Healthcare, many appeals, conflicting results from “third-party” medical reviewers, and an insistence from United Healthcare that McNaughton’s care was not “medically necessary”, McNaughton’s family sued. What that lawsuit uncovered was a trove of data, recordings, emails, reports, and more that showed distain for McNaughton’s family seeking the care he needs, a cover up of a review which properly identified the medical necessity for McNaughton’s treatment in alignment with his provider’s recommendations, and even more grossly abusive legal tricks to disrupt and complicate the lawsuit process.

McNaughton receives his insurance coverage through Penn State University, where he goes to school and his parents work. Amid all of the turmoil of navigating denials, McNaughton and his family had reached out to the sponsor of his health cover only to find an extraordinary lack of help. The curious detail there is the university’s “health insurance coordinator” turns out to be a full-time employee of United Healthcare, despite no disclosure of that fact on Penn State’s webpages and the coordinator being assigned both a Penn State email address and phone number. Arguably, as the sponsor of the plan, Penn State has a role to play here, too, much like large employers and even the government in public payer programs.

Similarly, the New York Times covered the issue of payers refusing to cover the cost of high-cost, life-saving care, especially when that care includes newer medications. All the advancements in the world can’t change the course of a person’s life, if they can’t afford those advancements or the cost of those advancements might bankrupt a patient. While some public payer programs help to protect patients from these burdens, with complex regulatory requirements, even those are often farmed out to the same private payer entities responsible for McNaughton’s experiences, or those described by the numerous patients included in New York Times’ piece. For Medicaid, these entities are called managed care organizations (MCOs) and in Medicare they can been under the Medicare Advantage program. For many patients in private plans, formulary restrictions are quite common. This is still also true in Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans, in which a patient and/or their provider has to chase after a series of costly administrative barriers in order to get an exception, which may or may not be denied at the end of the day. Indeed, MCOs and private payers have a history of refusing to add new medications to formularies, arguing “cost-effectiveness”, despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals and study designs showing greater efficacy, curative potential, or meeting a unique need. We won’t argue how placing greater value on “cost-savings” in the short-term in the face of more efficacious medication for patients is both morally and ethically abominable. Ultimately, these types of moves just shift cost-burdens to patients, namely in the expense of their health and even their lives. Similarly, newer medications may be placed on higher tiers, requiring higher co-pays or step-therapy (failing a different medication before having access to a newer one). Program designs with high deductibles and copay schemes (sometimes called co-insurance) are leaving more and more patients behind, as evidenced by work from Dr. Jalpa Doshi, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, which showed rates of medication abandonment increase dramatically as co-pays rise.

Digging into the details of navigation, a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis found Medicare Advantage plans forced patients through the process of securing permission from their payer before getting coverage of care – or as we like to call it, getting care – known as prior authorization. In theory, prior authorizations should align with a patient’s medical necessity as identified by their provider, encourage exploration of less costly treatment courses, and save both the plan and patients some money in the process. In practice, prior authorizations, particularly with regard to medication benefit coverage, is used to delay and deny care very similar to auto insurers looking to get out paying for a claim. KFF’s analysis found that in 2021, Medicare Advantage plans received 35 million prior authorization requests. Medicare Advantage only has 23 million enrollees in the contracts reviewed, thus averaging about 1.5 prior authorization per enrollee. The application of these requests is not uniform. Kaiser Permanente (no affiliation with KFF) had a prior authorization rate of 0.3% per enrollee and Anthem had a rate nearly time times higher at 2.9% per enrollee. To be fair, Kaiser Permanente’s network of providers work at entities Kaiser Permanente owns. The overall denial rate of prior authorizations across Medicare Advantage plans in 2021 was about 5% (or 2 million partial or full denials). Navigating denials, as shown in the ProPublica piece, is more than a little bit challenging when payers are bound and determined to limit their own costs. This is easily displayed in seeing the appeal rate for those 2 million denials of coverage was just 11% (or about 220,000). Of those appeals, a full 82% were overturned (or about 180,400). An Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report found more than 10% of a small sample of denials were “inappropriate” and would have generally been covered by traditional Medicare. It’s safe to say, at least 200,000 patients in Medicare Advantage plans alone have experienced delayed, medically necessary care…just because.

All of this incredibly noteworthy as the Biden Administration works to finalize an audit rule for Medicare Advantage plans which is expected to generate some potential $2 billion dollars returned to the government for overbilling, or claiming patients were sicker than they were. These payers are posed to argue simultaneously that patients don’t need medically necessary care despite being sicker than they actually are. It’s truly a remarkable moment to see predatory practices barrel their ways towards one another in the name of payer profits.

The New York Times piece notably reminds readers, when payers or even government officials argue for “cost savings”, they’re not necessarily talking about cost-savings for patients. The Inflation reduction Act, for example, requires manufacturers to refund the difference of medication’s cost rising higher than inflation to the government, but the government isn’t required to pass those savings make it back to patients. Again, to be fair, it might be particularly challenging for public program administrators to ensure those savings make it back to patients because those administrators are already saving plenty of money into their own pockets through bulk purchasing, already negotiating lower costs, and discount or rebate programs. On the double dipping end of the never-ending double dip, these same payers are fighting back against a series of programs run by medication manufacturers known patient assistance programs. The most common form of patient assistance programs is designed as co-pay assistance, helping patients cover their out-of-pocket costs of a particular medication. Right now, payers are using several dirty tricks to make sure they get the benefit of those billing dollars, rather than patients. The HIV + HepC Institute have joined other advocates in suing the Biden Administration over a rule issued under the previous administration to ensure those assistance programs designed to benefit patients and extend access to care are actually being used that way.

States are taking on efforts to combat abusive prior authorization practices introducing or having already passed “gold card” programs, in which providers with a history of successfully meeting prior authorization requirements in previous years may be exempt from needing to go through those processes for a certain period of time. The Biden Administration, for their part have also introduced a set of rules to streamline prior authorization processes, in an effort to expedite the experiences patients and providers have in navigating payment for care. And Congress is expected to see what was known as the Safe Step Act reintroduced this year, a bi-partisan and exceedingly popular piece of legislation aimed at curbing fail-first practices.

But patients, advocates, and policymakers should be careful about unintended consequences and keep an eye out for payers to adjust their practices. In gold-card programs, payers could just expand their prior authorization requirements, narrow formularies, and increase their rate of denials in order to disqualify providers who were previously qualified for the programs. We should also get creative in seeking to close some of these loopholes in the Affordable Care Act’s promise to bring a more equitable and easier to navigate health care landscape. Introducing parity between medical benefit profit caps (known as medical loss ratio) and pharmacy benefit profit caps might encourage (read: require) pharmacy benefit managers to share the savings, have discounts follow patients, expand formularies, and otherwise ensure their program dollars are being used to the maximum benefit of patients.

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

Making All Copays Count is a Critical Tool in Patient Access to Care

Making sure patients can access and afford the medications that save lives and maintain a dignified quality of life is the singular goal of Patient Access Network Foundation’s programming and advocacy. The primary way patients interact with PAN Foundation is through programming aimed at funding the care needs of patients via grants or linkage to other funds, including covering the costs of transportation and food, if needed. The other work PAN Foundation does is directly aimed address the why the entity is needed in the first place: advocacy around health care policies directly addressing the high out-of-pocket costs of care and medication. To that end, squarely in the target for PAN Foundation’s 2022 agenda is tackling so-called “copay accumulator” programs enacted by private insurers, particularly pharmacy benefit managers, as a means of double dipping into the flow of funds and denying patients the maximal benefit of patient assistance programs.

The Hepatitis B Foundation defines a copay accumulator (or accumulator adjustment program) as "a strategy used by insurance companies and Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) that stop manufacturer copay assistance coupons from counting towards two things: 1) the deductible and 2) the maximum out-of-pocket spending." In years prior to copay accumulators as a practice, manufacturer copay assistance programs might issue a healthy benefit that would be applied to the out-of-pocket costs or deductibles a patient is required to pay their insurer. This resulted in the patient fanatical responsibility spending down based on the value of the patient assistance program (PAP), rather than the actual dollars spent by patients, extending affordability of accessing care and medications for patients. It was glorious, honestly. Let’s have a “back of the envelope” example:

Deductible: $1500
Out-of-Pocket Cap (In-Network): $3000
Co-pay: $150 per 30-day fill

Patient Assistance Program Benefit: $7500

Previously, a PAP would cover the initial deductible and all of the plan year’s co-pays while counting toward that maximum out-of-pocket cap all counted as something a patient paid into the plan. Now, insurers keep the entirety of the benefit and only count the $150 co-pay toward what a patient has paid into the plan. This process demands patients pay for those costs themselves and the insurer gets to keep all of that $7500 value from the PAP. Ultimately, this tactic increases patient costs.

PAN Foundation executive vice president, Amy Niles, argues “These discriminatory policies reduce access to critical and often life-saving prescription medications.” And she’s right.

Deductibles and co-pays are generally called “cost-sharing”, which is a bit of a misnomer because patients must pay the deductible before an insurer begins paying the benefits the plan offers. This means pre-deductible costs are not “shared” by anyone but patients. With only about 4 in 10 Americans with enough money in the bank to cover an unexpected expense of $1000 or more, one of the tactics insurers are using to minimize patients actually accessing care is by increasing deductibles. PAN Foundation polled adults and seniors on Medicare and found most couldn’t afford even $100 medical emergency. Advocates, myself included, argue insurers are seeking to limit patients even initiating care (or continuing pre-existing care from previous years) by making those initial payments due too expensive to afford in the first. Can’t get your meds if you can’t afford to see the provider prescribing them, right?

This level of insanity is firmly in the realm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to regulate and, indeed, the previous administration issued a rule in 2020 that expressly allowed co-pay accumulators and the Biden administration sided with insurers over patients when it came to this same issue in 2021. Despite calls from advocates, the payment rules for 2023 (announced in 2022) do not address this abusive practice. Some states have introduced and even passed legislation that expressly requires some, but not all, insurers to apply the total value of PAPs to patient costs. However, no national law currently exists to prohibit co-pay accumulators.

All of this is why PAN Foundation and numerous other patient advocacy organizations have come together as members of the All Copays Count Coalition and are urging congress to pass H.R. 5801, the HELP Copays Act, which would require all additional payments, discounts, and other financial assistance be applied to the cost-sharing patients are expected to pay into a health care insurance plan.

If we’re to realize the maximum benefit of manufacturer patient assistance programs, family dollars being spent to help patients, and charitable foundation dollars are being appropriately applied in a fashion that maximizes patient access to care, we have to make all copays count.

PAN Foundation has even made it easy to take action today.

[Disclosure: Amy Niles, Executive Vice President of PAN Foundation is a long-standing board member for Community Access National Network]

Read More
Community Access National Network Community Access National Network

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!

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

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:

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

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:

Read More
Jen Laws, President & CEO Jen Laws, President & CEO

Where Public and Private Payers Fail, Patient Assistance Programs Step In

During Community Access National Network’s Co-Infection Annual Monitoring Report, hosted during this year’s SYNC Conference, in reviewing Hepatitis C (HCV) treatment coverages offered by state Medicaid and State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), I stated “ADAPs play a critical role even in Medicaid expansion states. With the cost of medications for both HIV and HCV, even making just about the Medicaid threshold can create a catastrophic gap in patient financial stability. Given the distinct exposure risks shared for both disease states, ADAP advocates should consider the advantages of their programs to fill this need.” And…

Earlier this year, I wrote a guest blog for ADAP Advocacy Association regarding the funding situation for Georgia’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program in light of shortfalls due to COVID-19. While Georgia has since enjoyed the benefit of astounding state advocates’ work, a hole in the program remains. At the bottom of Georgia’s most recent ADAP formulary a notice reads as follows: “Georgia ADAP Hepatitis C Program is currently on HOLD until future funding is available. Please utilize Patient Assistance Programs (PAP’s) for Hepatitis C medications.” Georgia wasn’t the only state to consider ceasing coverage of HCV medications, Texas did as well, though Texas has since added a single direct acting agent back into their ADAP formulary. In discussing the state’s funding shortfalls earlier this year, state representatives mentioned to providers referral to patient assistance programs in order to meet patients’ needs.

The summation here is publicly funded programs are not always aptly designed to meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Indeed, Harvard’s Center for Health Law and Policy outlines barriers to care instituted by public payers, like ADAPs and Medicaid programs, in an annual report. These barriers largely mirror the barriers to care instituted by private payers, wherein private payers argue these are necessary “cost containment” measures (otherwise referred to as “utilization management”). However, for patients, these “cost containment” measures largely amount to “care containment” measures and, frankly, do little more than push patients out of care through administrative burdens, commonly manifested as lengthy appeals processes or requirements for sobriety.

When public and private payers fail patients by refusing coverage of HCV treatments, they also fail our public health goals, perpetuating preventable illness and death. In the space where payers deny coverage and where people cannot afford coverage due to premiums or deductibles or being too high or where patients simply can’t afford insurance coverage and can’t access public programs, patient assistance programs step in. Patient assistance programs may be run and funded by medication manufacturers or by community-based funding programs and navigation information tools.

CANN’s quarterly Co-Infection Watch monitors HCV specific patient assistance programs for status and limits, in order to make identifying resources easy for patients and advocates reviewing the report.

While these tools are excellent tools of last-resort, they are limited and cannot be used as a substitute to sufficient public funding, regulation or legislation ensuring non-discriminatory plan designs, and adequate patient protections. Public payers have come a long way in abandoning caustic programmatic barriers for patients to jump through in order to access care and medication and private players have much farther to go. Regardless of circumstance, neglecting this critical medical intersection by way of foregoing HCV medication coverage is a public health and public payer program failure. All it does is kick a snowball down a hill. We’re already set to fail meeting our 2030 goals toward HCV elimination. We must do better to ensure this problem, at the very least, doesn’t grow.

Read More