NASTAD Releases 2026 ADAP Monitoring Report: Warning Signs Ahead

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Health Policy Lead Consultant, ADAP Advocacy

The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) has released its annual National Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) Part B ADAP Monitoring Report. Highlights from the report indicate that, while the program is achieving the goal of helping ADAP recipients suppress their HIV, the failure of governments to adequately fund state programs and those programs’ increasing reliance on drug rebates imperils the lives of those recipients (NASTAD, 2026a).

Photo Source: NASTAD

The 2026 ADAP Monitoring Report includes findings from Fiscal Year 2024 (FY2024) and Calendar Year 2024 (CY2024) and relies on state and territorial ADAPs to respond to NASTAD’s inquiries about their programs to ensure that the information provided therein is as accurate as possible. That said, 2 U.S. states (Mississippi and West Virginia) and 7 territories (American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the U.S.).S. Virgin Islands) failed to respond to these inquiries.

What’s Working Well

Viral Suppression

87% of ADAP recipients in FY/CY2024 achieved viral suppression. This is a considerable improvement over the 74% suppression rate in FY/CY2024 and much better than the national suppression rate of 67%.

HIV suppression rates in the United States have consistently lagged behind those of economically comparable nations (Figure 1). Compared to similar nations, the U.S. HIV viral suppression rate tends to fluctuate between 57% and 67%, while other nations range from 72% (Canada) to 92% (United Kingdom). Persons Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) who are enrolled in ADAP have achieved viral suppression rates that allow the U.S. to “compete” with other nations.

The primary difference between the U.S. and other nations is that those nations provide universal healthcare coverage, allowing patients to rest assured that their HIV medications will be covered. Comparatively, PLWHA in the United States must contend with significant barriers to accessing HIV care and treatment due to our nation’s reliance on a for-profit healthcare system that prioritizes profits over health outcomes. The ADAP program has allowed patients similar surety that they will have access to the medications they need to live healthy, productive lives

Figure 1 - HIV Viral Suppression Rate in the U.S. Lowest Among Comparable High-Income Countries

Photo Source: KFF

Whom ADAP Served in FY/CY2024

In CY2024, ADAPs served 257,644 individual clients across 49 reporting jurisdictions, acting as the primary access point for nearly one-quarter (23%) of the 1.13 million people aged 13 years or older living with diagnosed HIV in the United States at the end of 2023.

This represents a 7.5% increase over CY2019 levels, and NASTAD notes that this increase underscores patients’ growing reliance on the program despite the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In FY/CY2024, 40% of all ADAP program clients earned 100% or less of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and 65% earned 200% or less.

Additionally, nearly half of all ADAP clients (43%) are People of Color (POC), with 38% Black, slightly lower than the 40% who were Black in CY2019. 36% of ADAP clients identify as Hispanic/Latine, a significant increase from 28% in CY2019.

Finally, the majority of ADAP clients (55%) were aged 45 or older, with the proportion of clients aged 65 or older increasing from 9% in CY2019 to 14% in CY2024.

NASTAD notes that the continued “greying” of ADAP enrollees will necessitate “…robust coordination between ADAPs and Medicare to ensure seamless coverage for the aging caseload.”

How ADAP Clients Are Served

Because the AIDS Drug Assistance Program is federally funded but state-administered, each state is allowed to determine how it serves ADAP clients. The traditional ADAP program provides full-pay medication coverage for clients, on which 47% rely.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), however, the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) has allowed state ADAPs to use funds to purchase commercial health insurance coverage for ADAP clients and to reimburse those with employer-sponsored insurance coverage. 41% of clients across the United States rely on the ADAP program for said coverage.

Additionally, 12% of clients rely on a combination of full-pay and insurance support to address critical coverage gaps between drug formularies.

Trouble on the Horizon

In addition to the positive impacts ADAPs have had on clients, significant issues loom over state and territorial programs that threaten their solvency and continued effectiveness.

Rising Costs

The most pressing concerns faced by state ADAPs is that healthcare costs have risen exponentially and are likely to continue rising as a result of both Congressional inaction to increase federal funding for RWHAP and the deliberate refusal of Congressional Republicans to extend the enhance premium tax credits implemented by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) and extended by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

These tax credits were implemented to lower ACA Marketplace premiums for all patients, and Congress’s refusal to extend them resulted in a 21.7% increase in Marketplace premiums for benchmark second-lowest-cost Silver plans and 6%- 7% increases in employer-sponsored insurance premiums (Holahan, O’Brien, & Kennedy, 2025).

These premium increases highlight what many advocates have argued since the passage of the ACA: The ACA was never likely to control insurance costs because no limits were placed on annual premium price increases.

The primary failure of the American healthcare system is its convoluted, fragmented nature, full of special-interest-driven loopholes. The current “market” theory relies not on patients who need care, but rather on what insurers and government payors are willing to pay.

For-profit entities do not, in fact, care whether or not patients can afford the care they need; that’s not their purpose. Their purpose is to generate profits for their companies and their shareholders.

This results in a system where patients have to forego care and potentially die in the richest nation on the planet.

For ADAPs, these increased premiums pose significant threats to annual budgets, which increasingly rely on medication rebates to fill their coffers.

For nearly a decade, federal funding for ADAP has remained largely flat despite rising costs. In fact, federal funding has not accounted for more than 50% of annual ADAP funding since 2008 (Figure 2). Meanwhile, rebates now account for more than 50% of annual ADAP budgets.

Figure 2 - Total ADAP Budget, By Source, FY1996–FY2024

Photo Source: NASTAD

This places ADAPs at significant risk of being unable to continue providing the level of care and services they offer due to a revenue mechanism subject to “…intense market and regulatory volatility.”

What does this phrase mean?

Essentially, rebates rely on two things: high drug list prices and low 340B purchase prices. Under the rebate model, programs purchase medications at full list price and are reimbursed by pharmaceutical manufacturers for the difference between list price and 340B purchase price.

But what happens when price controls, such as those implemented under the Medicare Drug Negotiation Program created by the IRA, are introduced?

The purpose of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiations is to essentially limit what pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge the federal Medicare program for their medications. This means that a drug with an annual Wholesale Acquisition Cost of $36,000 may be forced to sell its medication to Medicare for $16,000 per year, which significantly reduces the total rebate amount that ADAP pharmacies may receive.

This doesn’t just apply to medications that treat HIV, but to every medication eligible for 340B rebates.

The reality is that, if patients get their way, government price controls are all but assured.

73% of patients surveyed in 2023 said that there was not enough government regulation when it comes to limiting the price of prescription drugs, with 67% or more of respondents agreeing with that sentiment across party affiliation (82% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans; Sparks et al., 2024).

This finding wasn’t a one-time fluke; patients have long been in favor of significant increases in government regulations as they relate to controlling prescription drug prices, with 88% of patients being in favor of limiting annual drug price increases to no more than the rate of inflation, 88% of patients being in favor of the government negotiation drug prices for the Medicare program, 78% being in favor of importing drugs from Canada, 72% being in favor of increasing taxes on pharmaceutical companies that refuse to negotiate prices with the federal government, 63% being in favor of increases taxes on companies who drug prices are too high, and 57% being in favor of ending tax breaks given to drug companies for advertising spending.

What this could mean for state ADAPs is that, with increased patient fury at the healthcare industry and systems, in general, elected officials are more likely to begin listening to patients than to industries. Should significant price controls be implemented, the rebate model could collapse, leaving ADAPs facing the loss of 50% or more of their annual operating budgets.

How Are ADAPs Responding

Faced with the various funding hurdles, state and territorial ADAPs are beginning to implement “cost containment” measures (translation: cuts) that will result in significant negative outcomes for the patients who rely upon ADAP for their HIV medications.

These “cost containment” measures include (but are not limited to):

• Decreasing income eligibility requirements so that fewer PLWHA are eligible for benefits
• Delaware eligibility decreased from 500% of the FPL to 350%, effective for all clients as of April 1st, 2026, impacting ~176 patients
• Florida decreased from 400% to 130% of the FPL effective March 1st, 2026, impacting ~16,000 patients
• Kansas decreased from 400% to 250% of the FPL to receive ACA premium assistance, while maintaining the 400% limit for full-pay medication coverage, impacting ~230 patients
• Pennsylvania decreased from 500% to 350% of the FPL effective October 1st, 2026, impacting ~1,592 patients
• Rhode Island decreased from 500% to 400% of the FPL effective March 1st, 2026, impacting ~51 clients
• The following states are considering additional changes to income eligibility:
• Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, & Washington State
• Reducing RWHAP Part B funding for core medical/support services
• Implemented in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, & Wisconsin
• Implementing or reimplementing 6-month recertification requirements
• Implemented in Alaska, Oklahoma, & Rhode Island
• Introducing per-patient expenditure caps
• Implemented in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, & Nevada
• Reducing formulary coverage for both HIV-related and non-HIV-related medications
• Implemented in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, & Pennsylvania
• Decreasing, restricting, or eliminating insurance premium assistance
• Implemented in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, & Wisconsin (NASTAD, 2026b)

HIV advocates and activists are also concerned about the potential reintroduction of state ADAP program waitlists, with Arkansas, Louisiana, & New Jersey reporting that they are considering implementing waitlists (NASTAD, 2026b).

The reality of this landscape is that trouble is brewing for RWHAP and the PLWHA who depend upon its various parts and programs to stay alive. ADAP Advocacy will continue to monitor and report on circumstances as they develop.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association; rather, they provide a neutral platform for the author to promote open, honest discussion of public health-related issues and updates.

References:

[1] Holahan, J., O’Brien, C., & Kennedy, N. (2025, December 18). Understanding the Extraordinary Increase in ACA Premiums in 2026. Washington, DC: Urban Institute: Research: Publication. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/understanding-extraordinary-increase-aca-premiums-2026

[2] KFF. (2025, January 24). HIV Viral Suppression Rate in U.S. Lowest Among Comparable High-Income Countries. Washington, DC: KFF: HIV/AIDS. https://www.kff.org/hiv-aids/hiv-viral-suppression-rate-in-u-s-lowest-among-comparable-high-income-countries/

[3] National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. (2026a). 2026 National Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part B ADAP Monitoring Project Annual Report: Stabilizing the Safety Net: Stewardship and Outcomes in a Volatile Landscape. Washington, DC: National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. https://nastad.org/2026-rwhap-part-b-adap-monitoring-report

[4] National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. (2026b, February 09). NASTAD ADAP Watch - February 2026. Washington, DC: National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. https://nastad.org/resources/nastad-adap-watch-february-2026

[5] Sparks, G., Kirzinger, A., Montero, A., Valdes, I., & Hamel, L. (2024, October 04). Public Opinion on Prescription Drugs and Their Prices. Washington, DC: KFF: Health Costs. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/

340B Covered Entities’ Revenue Witnessed Huge Executive Compensation Increases, Alarming Charity Care Decreases

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor, and Founder & Executive Director of the Appalachian Learning Initiative (APPLI)

Research conducted by ADAP Advocacy, as part of its ongoing 340B Project, and its newly minted Ryan White Grantee 340B Patient Advisory Committee found executive compensation increased significantly at 340B Covered Entities after they became eligible for 340B drug rebates as a source of revenue. In the same period, hospitals receiving 340B rebates almost uniformly saw nearly universal decreases in the percentage of charity care they provided as a percentage of revenues.

Read the ADAP Advocacy press release, here.

Photo Source: CANN

ADAP Advocacy examined total annual revenues for select Covered Entities participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program—including executive compensation (only Chief Executive Officers, or CEOs)—charity care totals, and charity care as a percentage of annual revenues. The analysis identified trends across 340B Covered Entities, breaking them into two groups: hospitals and non-hospital grantees. It compares the year before each organization was deemed 340B eligible, one year after, five years after, ten years after, and the most recent year on file.

Across the non-hospital grantees, executive compensation increased at an average rate of 391.3%. When excluding outliers, that average was 320.2%. Across the hospitals, CEO compensation increased at an average rate of 224.9%, including outliers, and 186.8% when accounting for outliers.

Photo Source: Vistage.com

Of the hospitals examined, just three hospitals—Ascension’s St. Francis, Bon Secours’ St. Francis Xavier Hospital, and Wellstar’s Piedmont Athens Regional Medical Center—increased the charity care they provided as a percentage of overall revenues by 114.9%, 86.7%, and 13.2%, respectively. An additional two hospitals provided no charity care information. Overall, charity care as a percentage of revenues decreased across all hospitals at an average rate of 29.7%. When accounting for outliers, the average decrease was 36%.

These decreases in charity care as a percentage of total revenue come at a time when there are mixed reports about the number of Americans and households with medical debt in the United States. Different agencies and outlets report vastly different perspectives and analyses of medical debt, highlighting the need for more clarity and transparency about how medical debt is calculated and counted.

According to the Biden Administration, the number of Americans with medical debt on their credit reports fell by 8.2 million from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2022. They attribute this decrease to streamlining by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to improve access to medical debt relief for veterans with lower incomes, the purchasing and forgiveness of medical deb from hospitals and other sources using funds from the American Recovery Plan (ARP) by individual municipalities and counties, and the development of a new credit score that excludes medical debt.

Photo Source: National Foundation for Credit Counseling

Conversely, a report released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2022 found that there was roughly $88 billion in medical debt on consumer credit reports. Since that report, credit agencies have voluntarily removed debts of less than $500, debts less than a year old, or those that have been marked as ‘Paid’ (Goldberg, 2023). Additionally, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) found that one out of every ten adults has medical debt and that the amount owed is at least $195 billion. 

According to Goldberg’s article in Politico, the real issue is that total medical debt is impossible to quantify in the United States “…because it hits people in incalculable ways.” Medical debt doesn’t always take on the form of debt sent to collections that will be reported on credit reports:

• Patients may be actively paying on debts owed, meaning that the only people aware of the medical debt are the holder and the patient.
• Patients may have paid medical debts using credit cards or personal loans, which again, so long as the patient remains current on their payments, would not be reflected on credit reports.
• Patients may have borrowed from family or friends and are repaying them.

These represent just a few of the potential scenarios that make the true total of medical debt impossible to quantify.

What is clear when looking at maps of households with medical debt released by the Urban Institute is that the communities where the percentage of households with medical debt in collection are largely located in the American South, including almost every county in West Virginia and South Carolina, as well as a plurality of counties in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Texas. It is therefore important to evaluate which hospitals serving those communities are living up to their obligations of using 340B funds to improve patient care and access to care and treatment.

Editor’s Note: At the request of ADAP Advocacy’s CEO, Brandon M. Macsata, to demonstrate transparency, we’re sharing some information about compensation paid to his firm, Purple Strategy Group, Inc. (PSG). PSG is paid a monthly management fee, which covers the work Brandon does on administrative, accounting, governance, marketing, and programs. The monthly fee is $8,000 per month, which has remained at that level since 2013 without an increase. Based on budget and net revenue year-end numbers, Brandon is also eligible to receive a performance bonus up to $6,500. Additionally, Brandon gives back to the organization annually, with his annual financial contributions ranging between $2,500 and $15,000+. No fringe benefits are paid, since Brandon is a 1099 contractor and not an employee. He is eligible to receive additional compensation for special projects that fall outside the scope of work, although most years there are no such projects.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates. 

Medical Debt is a Severe Financial Burden in the United States

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Medical debt is a major financial crisis in the United States. It is a major barrier to financial health and even physical health. Studies show that medical debt is negatively correlated with health issues. People who have problems paying their medical bills have a shorter life expectancy, poorer mental health, health issues like hypertension, and lower self-reported health status.[1] 

Photo Source: The Sycamore Institute

Even though over 90 percent of the U.S population has some semblance of health insurance, medical debt is still a pervasive and debilitating issue.[2] Present-day medical insurance plans have many cost-sharing requirements that saddle patients with bills they cannot pay. With high monthly premiums, these requirements, such as high deductibles and co-payments, result in bad life decisions. People face juggling basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing with paying medical bills generated by necessary care. Moreover, people borrow from family or even financial institutions, going into even further debt to take care of their medical bills.

The Kaiser Family Foundation published a brief shining light on the burden of medical debt in the United States. The overall finding was that the burden of medical debt is stratified along racial and economic lines, age cohorts, strength of insurance coverage, and health status. The data source was the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Significant medical debt was defined as people who owed more than $250 in unpaid medical bills as of December 2019.[2]  The survey shows that people in the United States owe, at the minimum, approximately $195 billion in medical debt. Roughly six percent of adults have over $1,000 in medical debt, and one percent (about 3 million people) owe over $10,000.[2]

Photo Source: KFF

Along racial lines, African-Americans are reported to be more likely to have significant medical debt. Of the 9 percent of adults surveyed who meet the study threshold of high debt, 16 percent of those are non-Hispanic African-American. This contrasts to 9 percent of non-Hispanic White Americans and 4 percent of non-Hispanic Asian-Americans. Regarding gender, more women report having high medical debt than men; 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Part of this discrepancy could be attributed to women having lower incomes and increased healthcare expenditures associated with childbirth.

Unsurprisingly, older adults are more likely to have significant medical debt than younger people. However, there is a distinction apparent among those later in life. The report shows that the percentages decrease when older adults reach Medicare age. Twelve percent of adults aged 50-64 report significant medical debt, in contrast to 6 percent of those aged 65-79.[2] 

In terms of income, those with lower or moderate incomes are more likely to have high medical debt. Twelve percent of adults with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level have such debt. Income is essential because some do not have liquid assets to pay out of pocket maximums, deductibles, and co-insurances, even with insurance. Sixteen percent of adults stated they would need to take on credit card debt to meet an unexpected $400 expense.[2] Four hundred dollars could easily be an emergency room visit co-pay for a privately insured person or even an urgent care visit for someone who was not insured.

Health status in combination with income is another relationship leading to medical debt. Those with more medical issues, by definition, have more medical expenditures due to chronic health maintenance needs, and higher utilization of services generates more bills that accumulate over time. Those with more serious medical issues cannot earn as much income being hindered physically by their medical problems in both ability and maintaining consistent employment.

Geography was also shown to be a factor by the report. People living in rural states in the South reported as being 12% of those reporting high medical debt, as opposed to 10% in the Midwest, 6% in the West, and 8% in the northeast. Related to this geographical distribution is Medicaid. Twelve states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[3]

The KFF report is proof that expanding coverage is not a panacea to alleviating the financial burden associated with medical debt. Effective change will come with restructuring healthcare finance, socioeconomic infrastructure, wholistic population needs assessment, and re-examining the country’s value system.

[1] Pellegrin, M. (2021, May 19). How medical debt affects health. Retrieved from https://www.sycamoreinstitutetn.org/how-medical-debt-affects-health/
[2] Rae, M., Claxton, G., Amin, K., Wager, E., Ortaliza, J., & Cox, Cynthia. (2022, March 10). The burden of medical debt in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/
[3] Holahan, J., Buettgens, M., Banthin, J., & Simpson,M. (2021, June 30). Filling in the gap in states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/jun/filling-gap-states-not-expanded-medicaid

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates. 

Kaiser Family Foundation Publishes Fact Sheet on AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs)

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy Association

The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) recently published an excellent Fact Sheet on the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), which are authorized under the Ryan White CARE Act. ADAP provides medications for the treatment of HIV disease for people who are uninsured, or under-insured. The ADAP Advocacy Association commends KFF for making this important educational tool available.

Download the KFF Fact Sheet.

The KFF Fact Sheet is broad, in that it provides relevant background information about ADAP, as well as budgetary summaries, drug formularies, and program expenditure breakdowns. It also highlights information on eligibility requirements, client demographical data, cost containment measures, drug purchasing models, and pertinent information related to Medicare Part D. It serves as a useful tool, especially for advocates trying to educate lawmakers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Did you know that ADAPs are not entitlement program?[1]

Did you know that State funding only accounted for 6% of the overall ADAP budget?[2]

Did you know that the average amount spent on drug purchases and co-payments was $8,663?[3]

Did you know that 257,396 people were enrolled in ADAPs in CY 2015, ranging from 140 in Wyoming to more than 35,000 in California?[4]

Did you know that not all State ADAPs received rebates from drug companies?[5]

These interesting facts, along with others can be viewed online at http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

The National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) released its 2017 National ADAP Monitoring Project Annual Report earlier this year, which tracked state-by-state programmatic changes, emerging trends, and latest available data on the number of clients served, expenditures on prescription drugs, among other things. The Fact Sheet on the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) published by KFF certainly complements the comprehensive analysis done by NASTAD on the program, annually.

Of particular interest to the ADAP Advocacy Association — as well as many ADAP stakeholders — is the overview on the drug formularies provided in the KFF Fact Sheet. These drug formularies are the foundation by which states mold their strategies to promote access to care and treatment. According to the KFF Fact Sheet, some key points of interest include:[6]

• Six (6) states had an open formulary
• All states offered all of the drugs identified in the “recommended regimens” in the nation’s HIV treatment guidelines.
• Of the 45 ARVs currently available (including multi-class combination products and generics), ADAP formularies covered between a low of 37 drugs in Arkansas to all 45 in 27 states.
• In addition to ARVs, many ADAPs provide access to drugs to treat opportunistic infections and HIV co-infection (e.g. treatment for hepatitis).

The importance of state drug formularies cannot be understated!

Dating back to the inception of this organization ten years ago, we have routinely sounded a cautionary alarm that the ADAP waiting lists (which were officially eliminated several years ago) are only the “tip-of-the-iceberg” because other cost containment measures restrict access to care and treatment. Among them, restrictive drug formularies. By limiting the treatment regiments available to people living with HIV/AIDS, states are indeed restricting access to care and treatment. These restrictions can also impact treating other chronic conditions associated with the disease, such as lipodystrophy or diarrhea.

Concerns over restricted state drug formularies was charactered as follows by Eddie Hamilton, Founder of the ADAP Educational Initiative: "The increased cost or additional effort of restricted formularies are a barrier for ADAP clients and may cause them to abandon the prescription which their doctor has written for a medically necessary reason. Many of the excluded medications are to combat side effects and co-morbidities caused by the primary antiretroviral regimens. These restrictions will continue to compromise their health and will lead to costly complications such as hospitalizations, lower medication adherence and overall higher healthcare costs."

To be fair, State ADAPs are often forced to face the harsh reality of prioritizing limited resources, especially since not all of them receive state matching funds or pharmaceutical rebate dollars. Also to NASTAD's credit, they make available another great resource, specific to ADAP drug formularies. Download the 2016 ADAP Formulary Database.

To learn more about the KFF Fact Sheet on AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, or other HIV-specific information and resources offered by the Kaiser Family Foundation, visit http://www.kff.org/graphics/hivaids/.
__________

[1] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.
[2] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.
[3] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.
[4] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.
[5] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.
[6] Kaiser Family Foundation (2017, August 16); AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); HIV/AIDS. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/aids-drug-assistance-programs/.