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:
Maintaining the protections included in the 2020 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters.
Ensuring that copay assistance counts for medically appropriate medications, even when generic alternatives are available.
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:
Immediate enforcement of the 2020 NBPP rule, requiring insurers to count copay assistance towards patient cost-sharing in most cases.
Swift action to close the essential health benefits loophole for all plans, including large group and self-funded plans.
Increased oversight and regulation of PBM practices, particularly regarding copay accumulator and maximizer programs.
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.
Dire Consequences of the Change Healthcare Cyberattack
On February 21, 2024, the healthcare sector faced a seismic disruption when Change Healthcare, a cornerstone in the healthcare data exchange ecosystem, fell victim to a sophisticated cyberattack. Orchestrated by the notorious ransomware group known as ALPHV/Blackcat, this attack not only compromised the integrity of Change Healthcare's systems but also sent shockwaves across the entire healthcare landscape, affecting providers, insurers, and patients alike. Change Healthcare, now part of Optum under the umbrella of UnitedHealth Group thanks to a controversial $13 billon dollar acquisition, plays a central role in processing medical claims, verifying insurance eligibility, and facilitating electronic prescriptions for as many as half of all claims processed in the U.S. The immediate fallout from this cyberattack has spotlighted the fragility of our interconnected healthcare infrastructure and raised urgent questions about cybersecurity, patient care continuity, and the broader implications of healthcare consolidation.
As of March 6, 2024, the situation surrounding the Change Healthcare cyberattack remains critical. UnitedHealth Group has made strides in implementing workarounds and temporary solutions to restore some level of functionality to pharmacy, claims, and payment systems. While progress in providing temporary solutions is a positive development, the absence of a definitive timetable for fully restoring all affected services continues to pose significant challenges for providers, independent pharmacies, and patients alike. The financial strain on these entities persists, compounded by UnitedHealth Group's continued collection of patient premiums amidst the outage. With UnitedHealth Group's net worth standing at $433,790,000,000, the contrast between the corporation's financial standing and the ongoing struggles within the healthcare sector is stark, underscoring the urgent need for a comprehensive resolution to this unprecedented crisis.
Direct Impact on Patient Access and Care
The cyberattack on Change Healthcare has not only disrupted the healthcare data exchange ecosystem but has also led to significant patient distress and financial uncertainty. This crisis has been further compounded by the emergence of potential litigation from patients left to grapple with whether insurance will cover their treatments or medications. Patients, regardless of their plan type, are finding themselves at a heightened risk of incurring unexpected bills, exacerbating the already dire situation.
Take, for instance, the experience of Mara Furlich. Battling escalating Covid-19 symptoms and unable to get her claim processed due to the cyberattack, Furlich was forced to pay $1,600 out of pocket for Paxlovid. Similarly, one of the Community Access National Network’s (CANN) very own board members was confronted with a balance bill of over $2,000 from CVS Specialty Pharmacy for HIV medication when their Patient Assistance Program benefits were unable to be processed, illustrating the financial and access barriers erected by the cyberattack. This scenario, emblematic of the difficulties in processing Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), underscores the significant disruptions to medication access, especially critical for managing chronic conditions.
Jen Laws, President & CEO of CANN, articulates the broader ramifications for people living with HIV (PLWH). "We've been in contact with our partners, including funders, to raise the concern around maintaining continuous access to care for PLWH, regardless of their payor," Jen states. "The reality is patients need to be aware their pharmacies, providers, and labs may be struggling to communicate and deliver timely service because of the sheer breadth of Change's reach."
This incident, alongside the litigation threats reported by Axios, underscores the acute disruptions to medication access and the financial jeopardy faced by patients. Kathy Oubre, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center in Louisiana, shares similar concerns, noting the center has had to dispense drugs at risk due to the benefits verification process being down, leaving providers and patients "flying blind."
These developments signal a critical juncture in the healthcare sector's response to the cyberattack, highlighting the urgent need for systemic solutions to restore patient access to care and address the financial uncertainties exacerbated by this crisis.
The Role and Response of UnitedHealth Group
UnitedHealth Group found itself at the heart of this crisis. The conglomerate's response has been a blend of damage control and strategic measures aimed at mitigating the fallout. UnitedHealth Group's acknowledgment of the cyberattack was swift, with public assurances of their commitment to rectify the situation and restore full services. Part of their response has been the launch of a temporary financial assistance program, as outlined on UnitedHealth Group's website. This program, offering interest-free loans to affected healthcare providers, has been promoted as a means to ease the financial burden wrought by the cyberattack, facilitating the recovery of disrupted cash flows and delayed payments.
Yet, this initiative has not been universally welcomed. Criticism from the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other healthcare stakeholders has been vocal, with many decrying the financial assistance terms as burdensome, highlighting the disconnect between UnitedHealth's proposed solutions and the actual needs of the healthcare providers struggling in the cyberattack's aftermath.
The plight of Dr. Christine Meyer's primary care practice in Exton, PA, as reported by The New York Times, exemplifies the dire straits many healthcare providers find themselves in due to the cyberattack on Change Healthcare. Dr. Meyer's account of resorting to mailing "hundreds and hundreds" of pages of Medicare claims highlights the drastic measures providers are forced to take to navigate the bureaucratic maze in the absence of functional digital systems. The stark reality of having to consider cuts to essential services, like vaccine supplies, to conserve cash underscores the severity of the situation. Through Optum’s temporary funding assistance program, Dr. Meyer said she received a loan of $4,000, compared with the roughly half-million dollars she typically submits through Change. “That is less than 1 percent of my monthly claims and, adding insult to injury, the notice came with this big red font that said, you have to pay all of this back when this is resolved,” Dr. Meyer said. “It is all a joke.”
Moreover, UnitedHealth Group's continued collection of patient premiums amidst this turmoil has sparked further controversy, raising ethical questions about corporate responsibility versus profitability during a healthcare crisis. UnitedHealth Group's role in this crisis and its response to the cyberattack highlight the complex interplay between healthcare infrastructure, corporate governance, and patient care. As the healthcare sector navigates the aftermath of the cyberattack, the actions taken by UnitedHealth Group will likely continue to be a focal point for analysis and discussion, underscoring the need for robust, patient-centered solutions in the face of unprecedented challenges.
ADAPs and PAPs: Navigating the Cyberattack Crisis
The cyberattack has exposed the vulnerabilities of essential healthcare support systems, notably AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) and Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs). These programs, a critical safety net for providing vulnerable populations with access to necessary medications, have faced significant challenges in maintaining their operations amidst the cyberattack's disruptions.
In response, NASTAD issued guidance to ADAP administrators in an email, indicating that, due to delays in prescription fills caused by the outage, programs might need to temporarily cover medication costs directly, later seeking reimbursement from pharmacies. This measure, while ensuring that ADAP remains the 'payer of last resort,' highlights the operational and financial complexities these programs are navigating to keep access to care uninterrupted.
The repercussions of the cyberattack go beyond operational disruptions, threatening the very fabric of the healthcare safety net. The interim 'full pay' solution underscores the delicate balance between ensuring immediate access to medications and the long-term sustainability of these programs.
Amidst this crisis, the collective action of healthcare stakeholders is imperative. The NASTAD memo not only outlines immediate actions for ADAP administrators but also calls for widespread support to uphold these critical programs, encouraging ready communication to case managers and patients regarding the situation, status updates, and navigating alternative access to care as needed. As the sector continues to address the fallout from the cyberattack, the adaptability and resilience of ADAPs and PAPs are paramount in ensuring continuous care for those who depend on them most.
Reassessing Healthcare's "Too Big to Fail" Doctrine
This unprecedented disruption of critical services has exposed serious vulnerabilities associated with the healthcare sector's consolidation, particularly following UnitedHealth Group's acquisition of Change Healthcare. This event has reignited the debate over the "too big to fail" concept within healthcare, a concern that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously filed suit over due to potential risks of market dominance and a centralized point of failure.
The FTC's apprehensions about the merger highlighted fears of creating an overly centralized healthcare data exchange ecosystem, susceptible to significant disruptions from single points of failure. These theoretical concerns have been realized in the wake of the cyberattack, illustrating the tangible systemic risks of such consolidation. The incident underscores the precarious balance between efficiency gains through consolidation and the increased risk of widespread service disruptions. It should also seriously call into question prioritizing corporate profits and shareholder value over patient care and access.
The U.S. Department of Justice's recent launch of an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, adds a new layer to the ongoing debate. This investigation, focusing on UnitedHealth's expansive reach across the healthcare sector and its potential effects on competition and consumer choice, signals a critical moment in the U.S. government's efforts to address monopolistic consolidation practices within the healthcare industry.
Furthermore, the disproportionate impact on smaller entities, such as independent pharmacies and patient assistance programs, underlines the broader implications of healthcare consolidation. These challenges highlight the need for a healthcare infrastructure that values diversity and decentralization, fostering resilience against such cyber threats.
In light of the antitrust investigation and the fallout from the cyberattack, there's a pressing need for a comprehensive reassessment of healthcare consolidation trends. Strategic regulatory oversight, significant investments in cybersecurity, and comprehensive contingency planning are essential to mitigate the "too big to fail" risks. The healthcare system's integrity, resilience, and commitment to patient care in an increasingly digital age demand a vigilant approach to ensuring that consolidation does not compromise the sector's ability to serve the public effectively.
Call for Policy Intervention and Sector-wide Reforms
The cyberattack on Change Healthcare has catalyzed a unified call for urgent policy interventions and comprehensive sector-wide reforms from leading healthcare organizations, including the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). These calls to action emphasize the critical need to fortify cybersecurity defenses, guarantee equitable patient access to care, and critically evaluate the prevailing trends of healthcare consolidation that have left the sector vulnerable.
The AHA has been at the forefront, advocating for robust support to help healthcare providers weather the storm caused by the cyberattack. Their public statement underscores the profound operational and financial challenges healthcare providers are facing, urging for greater flexibility from payers and governmental intervention to alleviate the crisis's immediate impacts.
Echoing this sentiment, the MGMA has highlighted the dire circumstances medical groups are navigating, as detailed in their communication to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. The association's plea for comprehensive support from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reflects the broader necessity for guidance, financial aid, and regulatory leniency to ensure the sustainability of medical practices during these turbulent times.
Both organizations also spotlight the broader issue of healthcare consolidation, critiquing the increased centralization of healthcare services as a significant factor exacerbating the cyberattack's impact. This consolidation not only poses heightened cybersecurity risks but also threatens the diversity and resilience of the healthcare ecosystem. In response, there's a pressing demand for policy reforms that address both the immediate cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the long-term implications of healthcare consolidation, aiming to cultivate a more robust, diverse, and equitable healthcare system.
Urgent Calls to Action:
UnitedHealth Group must significantly expand its financial assistance program to offer real relief to the affected healthcare providers, pharmacies, and patients, ensuring the aid is substantial and derived from its vast resources, not at the expense of American taxpayers.
Regulatory bodies, including the FTC, must critically assess healthcare consolidation's impact, implementing measures to mitigate the risks of such centralization and prevent future vulnerabilities.
A united front of healthcare providers, associations, and advocacy groups is essential to demand accountability and transparency from UnitedHealth Group and similar entities, ensuring commitments to cybersecurity and continuity of care are upheld.
Legislators and policymakers are called upon to enact stringent cybersecurity regulations for the healthcare sector, emphasizing the need for comprehensive security protocols, consistent audits, and effective contingency planning.
A broader dialogue on healthcare consolidation's future is necessary, advocating for a healthcare model that prioritizes patient welfare, system resilience, and equitable access above corporate profitability.
In the wake of the Change Healthcare cyberattack, the path forward requires not just immediate remedial actions but also a deep, systemic reevaluation of the healthcare sector's structure and policies. It's time for decisive action and meaningful reform to ensure a secure, resilient healthcare system that serves the needs of all patients, safeguarding against future crises and fostering a healthcare environment where patient care is paramount.
Payer-Denied PrEP Fails Black Women and Marginalized Communities
In the battle against HIV, Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) stands out as a transformative defense, significantly lowering infection risks for those most vulnerable. However, this critical protection remains alarmingly out of reach for many, especially Black women, due to insurance payers' denial of coverage. This systemic neglect transcends a mere healthcare gap; it's a stark reflection of the health disparities that exist in the United States’ healthcare construct.
Recent findings from IDWeek 2023, led by Li Tao, MD, PhD, confirm: obstacles to PrEP, particularly insurance denials, are directly linked to rising HIV diagnoses. The research, spanning January 2019 to February 2023, exposes a distressing reality where people with rejected PrEP claims encountered a 95% higher likelihood of new HIV diagnoses compared to recipients of the medication.
Moreover, delays in PrEP dispensing due to these denials correlated with approximately a 20% increased HIV contraction risk, emphasizing the urgency of immediate PrEP access. This isn't just a postponement; it's a life-threatening denial disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. The study highlights the necessity of prompt PrEP access to prevent new HIV infections, especially for those with rejected or abandoned claims.
Further analysis showed the lowest HIV diagnoses among cisgender men with dispensed claims, contrasting with the highest rates among transgender women and men with abandoned claims. Individuals with sexually transmitted infections in the rejected or abandoned groups also faced elevated HIV diagnosis rates.
These insights "emphasize the dire need to eliminate PrEP access barriers to halt HIV transmission," the researchers concluded.
Empowering People: The Psychological Benefits of PrEP
PrEP's impact extends beyond physical health, offering significant psychological relief. A recent study in Pharmacy Times illustrated that PrEP usage enhances the confidence of people in having safer sex, reducing HIV transmission anxiety. This security is crucial, especially for communities burdened by the constant dread of HIV. It represents not just a medical breakthrough but an empowerment tool, allowing people to regain control over their sexual health without looming HIV fears.
The study, conducted over 96 weeks, encompassed participants from various backgrounds, including men who have sex with men, transgender women, and cisgender women. It found that those on PrEP experienced less anxiety and more comfort during sexual activities, confident in their reduced HIV risk. This mental health benefit was consistent across all groups, highlighting PrEP's universal advantage beyond its physical protective effect.
"PrEP is more than a medical solution; it's a source of hope and assurance for those at elevated risk of HIV," the researchers noted. They suggested that this confidence might encourage adherence to the medication, strengthening prevention efforts.
However, when such empowering medical solutions are restricted, it doesn't just withhold a health service; it robs people of the mental peace that accompanies protection. This added psychological strain compounds the systemic injustices that marginalized communities endure, deepening disparities.
Global Perspectives on HIV Prevention
While the U.S. struggles with healthcare inequities, other countries are advancing in the HIV fight. For example, Australia has made significant strides by implementing a comprehensive HIV prevention approach. A pioneering study in The Lancet HIV demonstrated that integrating HIV treatment-as-prevention (TasP) with PrEP significantly reduced new HIV cases among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM).
This extensive research in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia's most populous states, indicated a substantial rise in the population prevalence of viral suppression, accompanied by a corresponding decline in HIV incidence. The findings advocate for continuous investment in holistic HIV prevention strategies, suggesting that even slight enhancements in treatment and prevention access and adherence can drastically reduce new HIV cases.
However, Australia's success highlights a stark contrast in healthcare access and strategy in the U.S., especially impacting Black women and marginalized communities. The effectiveness of Australia's model stems from its inclusivity, guaranteeing extensive coverage and straightforward access to diagnostic and treatment services. This strategy encompasses not just broad PrEP availability but also a robust focus on TasP, ensuring a high treatment rate among those diagnosed with HIV, thereby lowering their viral load and transmission risk.
In contrast, the U.S. healthcare system's piecemeal strategy, characterized by payer denial for PrEP and other preventive measures, hampers these all-encompassing prevention methods. A Health Affairs study unveiled severe disparities in PrEP access and costs. In 2018, populations such as gay, bisexual, and same gender loving men (GBM), heterosexual women and men, and people who inject drugs encountered the most significant financial barriers. Insurance plays a crucial role in healthcare access, yet it's grossly inadequate regarding PrEP coverage. According to a 2022 study, numerous people encountered administrative barriers, including outright PrEP claim denials. These systemic shortcomings resulted in uncovered costs totaling an astonishing $102.4 million annually, a financial burden that individuals had to shoulder in 2018 alone.
These uncovered costs represent tangible hurdles, keeping potentially life-saving medication inaccessible for many at-risk individuals. The systemic obstacles that Black women face, as outlined in a KFF Health News report, emphasize the grave repercussions of this neglect. Economic challenges, healthcare exclusion, and biased marketing strategies limit PrEP access, leaving this community exposed and overlooked.
The current state demands an immediate reassessment of the U.S. HIV prevention strategy. It's not solely about PrEP accessibility; it's about a comprehensive approach that encompasses effective treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). This strategy involves not just advocating for PrEP insurance coverage but also pushing for extensive healthcare reforms that guarantee all-encompassing coverage, including TasP methods.
Australia's success story provides clear evidence: with the proper dedication and strategic approach, we can substantially lower new HIV transmissions and work towards eradicating the HIV epidemic. However, this achievement requires a collective resolve to seek a healthcare system that serves everyone, not just a privileged minority.
It's time to hold payers and policymakers responsible, to shame them for their role in a system that continues racial and socioeconomic health disparities. Their inaction costs more than money; it costs lives. The U.S. must learn from global success stories and adopt an inclusive, comprehensive HIV prevention strategy that recognizes and caters to the unique needs of all communities, including Black women and other marginalized groups.
The Plight of Black Women
The situation becomes even more tragic when we consider Black women's struggles, especially those identifying as cisgender. Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of the HIV epidemic, Black women face numerous systemic barriers, from healthcare alienation and biased marketing to economic hardships, all limiting their PrEP access, as detailed in a KFF Health News report.
One personal story, that of Alexis Perkins as featured in a PBS NewsHour article, illustrates these challenges. Perkins, a 25-year-old nurse, encountered difficulties in obtaining PrEP despite her proactive health efforts. During her visit to her OB-GYN’s office, Perkins sought a prescription for PrEP but encountered several obstacles. The medical assistant who initially greeted her was not only unfamiliar with PrEP but was uncomfortable discussing it. Furthermore, her provider, though aware of PrEP, did not feel confident prescribing it due to a lack of sufficient knowledge about the medication. Her experience reflects a broader systemic problem where healthcare providers often lack PrEP knowledge or are reluctant to prescribe it, failing to meet Black women's health requirements. "It's not something that's being marketed to us," Perkins expressed in the article, indicating the absence of information directed at Black women.
These systemic barriers extend beyond mere neglect; they inflict direct harm. The research points out exclusionary marketing tactics, where PrEP promotional efforts frequently miss Black women, resulting in misunderstandings and unawareness about PrEP's relevance to their lives. This issue is aggravated by the gender disparity in FDA-approved PrEP medications' accessibility, with some treatments tested solely on male participants, restricting their use for women.
While manufacturers have begun addressing these disparities in marketing materials and clinical trial design for emerging therapies, stigma, radical judicial activism, and lack of strengthened or continued investment in public health all threaten our ability to meet our goals in Ending the HIV Epidemic.
Economic barriers, more common among Black communities, exacerbate these challenges, making consistent PrEP usage difficult. The necessity for regular medical appointments and HIV testing, along with high initiation costs and logistical hurdles, presents significant obstacles. As the PBS article elaborates, these economic and logistical barriers, particularly for those in poverty, are daunting and often insurmountable, barring Black women from the healthcare they deserve.
Addressing this healthcare inequality demands a comprehensive strategy. Economic and social empowerment, community-focused health campaigns, and policy and research initiatives are essential. Improving access to quality employment, healthcare, and stable housing can empower Black women to make informed health decisions. Customized health messaging and community dialogues, as well as policy and research efforts like those by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Gilead Sciences, are vital steps toward closing these gaps.
Alexis Perkins' story is not unique; it reflects the experiences of many individuals navigating a healthcare system that consistently fails them. As we face these harsh truths, we must acknowledge that this crisis goes beyond medicine; it's a moral issue. The barriers preventing access to PrEP for the most at-risk communities are not mere oversights; they are expressions of a societal hierarchy that deems certain lives less worthy.
This is more than a health disparity; it's a measure of our societal values. Will we maintain a system that actively undermines the health and futures of its most vulnerable? Or do we possess the collective bravery to demand change?
Change is achievable; it's been proven. Nations like Australia have adopted inclusive, forward-thinking, and compassionate public health policies, dramatically reducing HIV transmission and new diagnoses. Their methods show that with sufficient commitment, we can revolutionize healthcare delivery.
Reflecting on the stories of people like Alexis Perkins, let's contemplate our role in this narrative. Will we be passive observers in a system that discriminates and excludes, or will we become advocates, championing a future where healthcare is a right, not a privilege determined by socioeconomic status? The decision is ours, and it's one we must make now. Because with every moment we delay, every moment we choose inaction, we become silent co-conspirators in a system that tallies casualties instead of champions. In a country that boasts freedom and justice for all, how long will we allow these injustices to determine who gets to live, prosper, and contribute to our society?
Alcohol Use Does Not Harm DAA Efficacy, Yet Payer Barriers Persist
In healthcare, the interplay between perceptions and policies can sometimes adversely affect the very individuals they intend to benefit. One such area of contention is the perceived impact of alcohol use on the effectiveness of treatments for hepatitis C Virus (HCV). A recent study, published in JAMA Network Open and spotlighted by MedPage Today, led by Christopher T. Rentsch, PhD, and co-authored by Emily J. Cartwright, MD, explored this relationship. Their findings were clear: alcohol use and alcohol use disorder (AUD) did not diminish the odds of achieving a sustained virologic response with Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) therapy for chronic HCV infection.
Yet, despite such evidence, certain clinicians still hesitate or even refuse to administer HCV therapy to patients who consume alcohol. Furthermore, some payers mandate alcohol abstinence as a precondition for reimbursing DAA therapy for HCV. This stance becomes even more alarming in light of the Center for Disease Control & Prevention's (CDC) recent data, which shows a staggering 129% surge in reported cases of acute hepatitis C since 2014. It's imperative that we prioritize evidence over misconceptions, especially when lives are at stake.
The NIH's Perspective
A study supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) echoes these findings, revealing that individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) are less likely to receive antiviral treatments for hepatitis C. Despite current guidelines recommending such treatment irrespective of alcohol use, the study, led by scientists at Yale University, found that those with AUD, even if they were currently abstinent, were less likely to receive curative DAA treatment for hepatitis C within one or three years of diagnosis compared to those without AUD. This treatment gap, attributed to stigma around substance use and concerns about treatment adherence, underscores the need to address these disparities, especially among those with AUD.
The Case for Change
The implications of these studies are clear: policies need revision. Evidence-based policies in healthcare are paramount. Denying HCV patients access to DAA therapy based on their alcohol consumption habits is not only unwarranted but also counterproductive. As the study's authors have highlighted, such restrictions could pose unnecessary barriers for patients and hinder efforts to eliminate HCV.
Both state-specific policies and national guidelines, like those from The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), need to evolve in light of these findings. Healthcare providers, policymakers, and advocacy groups have a pivotal role in driving this change, ensuring that all HCV patients, irrespective of their alcohol consumption habits, have access to the best possible care.
Charting a Path Forward
The revelations from these studies underscore more than just the need for policy adjustments; they challenge our collective commitment to championing evidence-based healthcare. In an era where misinformation can easily cloud judgment, it's crucial that treatments for HCV are not just theoretically available but are genuinely accessible to all, regardless of their alcohol consumption habits.
The findings from both the NIH and JAMA studies don't merely point out gaps; they expose deep-rooted systemic issues. Current policies have not adequately addressed the needs of HCV patients, and there's a pressing need for more inclusive guidelines.
To transform this call to action into tangible progress, we must:
Reassess and Revise Existing Policies: Ensure that guidelines, especially those from influential bodies like AASLD, are updated in line with the latest scientific evidence, removing any unwarranted barriers related to alcohol consumption. As demonstrated by the efficacy of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation’s (CHLPI) work in assessing and breaking down barriers to curative DAAs in Medicaid programs, further work must be done to break these payer-based barriers to care in private and employer sponsored plans.
Strengthen Advocacy and Awareness: Engage with healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients to spread awareness about the non-impact of alcohol on DAA therapy's efficacy, countering prevailing misconceptions.
Promote Continuous Research and Dialogue: Encourage further studies and maintain an open dialogue with all stakeholders to continuously refine our understanding and approach to HCV treatment.
The conclusions drawn from these studies underscore the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us. As the research emphatically states, alcohol consumption should not be a barrier to HCV treatment. Such restrictions are discriminatory in nature and threaten efforts in the fight to eliminate HCV. With evidence-based policy decisions and unwavering dedication, we can eliminate the barriers and ensure access to curative HCV treatment.
National Monitoring Report Highlights Disruptions and Opportunities
In September, Community Access National network (CANN) and Health HIV, Health HCV, and the National Coalition for LGBT Health partnered for the 7th Annual National Monitoring report on HIV/HCV Co-Infection as a “pre-Sync” session, warming up public health advocates and professionals for SYNChronicity 2022, which will be held virtually December 6-8. Presented by Marissa Tonelli, Director of Health Systems Capacity Building for Health HIV, and yours truly. Attendees represented a variety of stakeholders including funders, patients, advocates, providers, and public health professionals. The National Monitoring Report was generously supported by ADAP Advocacy Association, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnsons, Merck & Co, and ViiV Healthcare.
The annual report presented information highlighting coverage of hepatitis C (HCV) curative direct acting agents (DAAs) in public health programs, including AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP), Medicaid, and Veterans Affairs as public payers. Additional information was presented on areas of intersectional focus, including harm reduction policy and programs across different states and at the national level.
Particular note was made on disparities of HCV diagnoses along racial identity, age, and geography, emphasizing where public health programs and advocates have room to improve in outreach, education, screening, linkage to care, and coverage. Highlighting data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on HCV diagnoses in 2020 and data presented earlier this year from the CDC on HCV screening and linkage to care based on payer type, both presenters discussed a failure of providers to screen for HCV. The failure of providers, particularly hospitals, to effectively enact opt-out screening has impact of furthering health outcome disparities and not taking opportunities to stop chains of transmission. While some of these missed opportunities may be attributed to disruptions to care due to the crisis phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of these failures are related to a lack of incentive to screen. Both presenters insinuated an expectation of HCV diagnoses to increase in the coming years as a result of these disruptions and failures.
Barriers to care from providers include failure to adopt the 2019 recommendations for universal screening, utilization management practices from payers which may limit the ability for providers to ensure patients are receiving DAAs (including extraordinary prior authorization requirements), lack of infrastructure to implement HCV programming, and a lack of consensus in the care guidelines. Patient barriers to care include lack of knowledge, social barriers (like homelessness), cost of insurance and restrictions from payers, and substance use-associated comorbid conditions. The commonality of payer roles as barriers to care is worthy of particular attention as advocates engage public health program administrators and seek to leverage public programs for better practices. Advocating for integrating HCV screening as a standard of care and ensuring states adopt HCV screening and linkage to care as part of state level “Essential Health Benefit” benchmarks is one approach which would tie provider reimbursements with screening and linkage to care activities.
While no debate occurred, discussion was had around the issue of “co-located” and telehealth models as a means of extending care and support for affected communities. The model of providing comprehensive care in a single site proves an opportunity for patients to access providers and support services is effective for certain communities. But if this model consolidates access sites, it may also prove to be a barrier for patients not closely located to these “one stop shops”.
Despite these tools and a generally supportive statutory environment, the nature of health care access is not necessarily getting easier for service providers or patients but more complicated. Advocates should be mindful of unintended consequences and how to leverage broader health care reform as they approach solution finding.
An archive of the event is available here.