Showing posts with label Ryan White CARE Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ryan White CARE Act. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2020

Ryan White & HOPWA Funding Increases in Coronavirus Stimulus Package

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Policy Consultant & Guest Contributor 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law by sitting president, Donald J. Trump, on March 27th, 2020, and in this act, two HIV-specific programs – the Ryan White Program (RW) and the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) – received a combined total of $155m (Johnson, 2020). While the funds have been allocated for these programs, there is little guidance on how those funds will be disbursed or distributed once they are received.

CARES Act
Photo Source: cpabr.com

RW received $90m for “existing contracts” under the law and the Public Health Service Act (Johnson). These funds come at a time when many People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) are at risk of losing health insurance coverage as a result of job losses or financial hardship during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Loss of hours or employment may end up disqualifying many PLWHA from receiving employer-provided health insurance coverage, and loss of those wages may result in losing coverage purchased on the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance Exchange market. These losses in coverage will, inevitably, lead to more people turning to RW as their payor of last resort to cover the costs of medications and doctor visits.

A bigger question, however, is how are the $65m allocated to the HOPWA program going to be distributed to the states? Because of the way the HOPWA program is administered, using a series of grant awards that are then administered by states and metro regions, who then often contract out the management of those funds’ disbursal for rent payments. This relies on a lot of moving parts, not all of which consistently work. In a blog that will be posted to aaa+, later this month, we will take a look at one such situation, where the city government of Atlanta has consistently failed over nearly a decade to properly reimburse funds to a contracted organization, resulting in several hundred HOPWA recipients being evicted from their homes and the closure of the organization that was so far in debt from Atlanta’s failure to remit payment, they were forced to declare bankruptcy.

Both of these funding inclusions are fantastic, especially during a time when it is clear that these services will be vitally important for PLWHA. We will continue to monitor the situation as more news emerges.

References:
  • Johnson, C. (2020, March 26). HIV programs get big money in stimulus deal to fight coronavirus. Washington, DC: Washington Blade. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/03/26/hiv-programs-get-big-money-in-stimulus-deal-to-fight-coronavirus/
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.

Thursday, February 14, 2019

AIDS Drug Assistance Program Advisory Council Invites POZ Advocates to the Table

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

Earlier this month the ADAP Advocacy Association announced that is was soliciting applications from HIV-positive advocates interested in serving on its newly-minted AIDS Drug Assistance Program Advisory Council (hereafter referred to as the "Council"). Our Council will solicit consumer input on improving access to timely, appropriate care and treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS under the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).

Our Council, generally speaking, is charged with discussing policy and program issues confronting ADAP consumers, such the ongoing public financing of the Ryan White CARE Act and the delivery of its services throughout the HIV care continuum. Its main function will be advising the organization's board of directors on ADAP-related matters from the consumer perspective on these matters.

Under the leadership of the Valley AIDS Information Network's President & CEO, Robert "Bob" Skinner, our Council will ensure "that the voice of persons living with HIV/AIDS shall always be at the table and the center of the discussion." Bob has been active in his advocacy for over thirty years. In 2013, Bob was named one of the "100 Unsung Heroes" by POZ Magazine. He has also been an active member of the ADAP Advocacy Association, attending almost all of our previous Annual ADAP Conferences in Washington, DC. More recently, Bob was honored by the Community Access National Network (CANN) as the recipient of its inaugural Gary R. Rose Advocacy Scholarship.

Photo of Bob Skinner
Robert Skinner; Photo Source: Gazette Times

Additionally, two advocates – LaWanda Wilkerson from Henderson, North Carolina, and Noel Chavez-Guizar from Denver, Colorado – will serve as the Council's co-vice chairs. Both are emerging advocacy leaders in their respective states.

Some of the possible issues that may come before the Council for discussion included ADAP drug formularies and the need for greater transparency, ADAP structural deficits, ADAP privacy breaches (as seen in California and Ohio), 340B drug pricing program reform, regional access and health disparities, as well as ways to improve outcomes. The Trump Administration's recent call to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 is also important, considering its past record on HIV/AIDS over the last two years.

Unchartered Water: AIDS Drug Assistance Programs in the Age of Trump

HIV-positive advocates interested in submitting an application should do so online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3CD98ZX.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

UPDATE: Hey Trump! Hands Off Our Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program!

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

The ADAP Blog last week addressed troubling news that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS") planned to divert funds from existing programs to pay for the rising cost associated with the Trump Administration's controversial "zero-tolerance" immigration policy. This statement was indeed true (as fact checked by Snopes),[1] though fortunately the impact is debatable since none of the diverted funding came from the current year's program. What it did accomplish was to ignite a firestorm among many in the HIV grassroots community.

Snopes: True

The good news, especially for the HIV grassroots community, is none of the transferred funding will impact Ryan White-funded supports or services to people living with HIV/AIDS for the current program year. The transfer included expired Ryan White funds from FY 2016, which hadn't been spent and was due to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. Basically the news is still bad, but not nearly as bad as initially thought.

Though news about HHS transferring funds only broke last week by Slate, it has subsequently been determined that the transfer request was made in January 2017. As reported by POLITICO, nearly $200 million in funds were moved to address the refugee crisis, including "at least $17 million in unspent funds on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program."[1]

Emily Holubowich, executive director of the Coalition for Health Funding, raised an excellent point in the POLITICO article when she argued, "If there’s leftover money from Ryan White, it should go to support programs for poor people with HIV and AIDS, not this outrageous separation policy."[3]

This point is exactly why the flames are still burning among many grassroots activists at the state and local levels. It begs the question, couldn't those Ryan White dollars have been used to expand drug formularies under the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs ("ADAP") to pay for anti-diarrhea medications, or Hepatitis C ("HCV") therapies for people co-infected with HCV, or lipodystrophy treatments? These concerns were spelled out in a blog earlier this year.

Donald J. Trump
Photo Source: NY Magazine

Furthermore, at what point does the HIV community draw a red line with the Trump Administration and its Family-Research Council ("FRC") cronies known for their anti-immigrant, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic views? This Administration has been attacking people living with HIV/AIDS for the last eighteen months by proposing harsh federal budgets; demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the public health system; ignoring key leadership posts; sanctioning discrimination by healthcare workers; undermining the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and most recently deleting 20 years of critical medical guidelines. Make no mistake...Trump and the FRC have brought the fight to people living with HIV/AIDS.

Overall the Ryan White program, in general, and ADAPs, specifically, are extremely well-run programs. This is a message that the community should embrace, and not run away from out of fear. The best defense is a good offense!

__________

[1] Garcia, Arturo (2018, July 13). Are Federal HIV Treatment Funds Being Used for Immigrant Internment? Snopes. Retrieved from: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hiv-treatment-funds-immigrants/.

[2] Diamond, Dan (2018, July 18). Trump’s migrant fiasco diverts millions from health programs. POLITICO. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/trump-migrants-health-programs-692955.
[3] Diamond, Dan (2018, July 18). Trump’s migrant fiasco diverts millions from health programs. POLITICO. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/18/trump-migrants-health-programs-692955.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Hey Trump! Hands Off Our Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program!

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

Earlier this week, Slate reported that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS") planned to divert funds from existing programs to pay for the rising cost associated with the Trump Administration's controversial "zero-tolerance" immigration policy. The policy, which separates children from their families on the southern border, is overseen by the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, and it is burning through so much cash that it needs more. In the crossfire is millions of dollars in funding designated for HIV/AIDS services under the Ryan White CARE Act.[1]

According to the reporting by Slate, HHS is planning for a surge in immigrant minors over the next three months:[2]
"The internal documents estimate that if 25,400 beds are needed, ORR would face a budget shortfall of $585 million for ORR in fiscal year 2018, which ends on Sept. 30. Under this scenario, that shortfall would increase to $1.3 billion in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019, adding up to a total shortfall of $1.9 billion for the period between Oct. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018. The documents stress that these budget estimates represent maximum possible expenditures and that actual expenses may be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment about these figures or anything else relating to the documents."
In order to offset the budgetary shortfall, HHS will seek supplemental appropriations from Congress, as well as reallocate existing funds from within the department — including Ryan White funding. Slate's reporting also indicates the process of transferring those HIV/AIDS funds is underway.

The ADAP Advocacy Association has strongly condemned this decision. In an era when people living with HIV/AIDS are already facing enough uncertainty over the current government's commitment to fighting the epidemic, it was the latest setback to achieving an AIDS-free generation.


The pushback from a leading national patient advocacy group was swift when news broke that the Trump Administration would use Ryan White HIV/AIDS program dollars to fund its widely unpopular family separation policy at the southern border. AIDS United CEO Jesse Milan, Jr. issued a strongly-worded statement on the funding reallocation:[2]
"As a payer of last resort, the Ryan White Program covers services for people that have no other means to pay for them. Any shortages in funding to the program would result in essential services not provided to potentially thousands of Americans. This could mean people not receiving life-saving medications or losing insurance coverage because funding was not available to cover their premiums. For an administration that just recently proclaimed its commitment to ending the HIV epidemic in this country, stripping funding from the largest HIV-specific federal program defies all logic."
The fact that the money being diverted is "unspent" money makes no difference to people living with HIV/AIDS who rely on Ryan White-related supports and services. There are always creative ways to spend or transfer federal money within an agency's budget,[4] because it happens all of the time. And considering there are ongoing challenges facing ADAP consumers limiting their access to care, such as restrictive drug formularies, that money should be spent on people living with HIV/AIDS. (Editor's Note: Read our previous blog on open drug formularies, "ADAP Open Drug Formulary Programs Improve Access to Care & Treatment; So why are there so few?")

Numerous national LGBTQ groups also condemned the news, including Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign. It appears that this development is fluid, and we will continue to closely monitor it.

__________

[1] Stern, Mark Joseph. (2018, July 10). Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Is Budgeting for a Surge in Child Separations. Slate. Retrieved from: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budgeting-for-a-surge-in-child-separations.html
[2] Stern, Mark Joseph. (2018, July 10). Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Is Budgeting for a Surge in Child Separations. Slate. Retrieved from: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-office-of-refugee-resettlement-is-budgeting-for-a-surge-in-child-separations.html
[3] Milan, Jr., Jesse. (2018, July 10). AIDS UNITED STATEMENT ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO REALLOCATE RYAN WHITE FUNDING FOR CHILD SEPARATION TIED TO ZERO TOLERANCE BORDER POLICY. AIDS United. Retrieved from: https://www.aidsunited.org/News/Default.aspx?id=1197
[4] EveryCRSReport.com (2013, June 6). Transfer and Reprogramming of Appropriations: An Overview of Authorities, Limitations, and Procedures. R43098. Retrieved from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43098.html.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Is it Time for a Reset to the Ryan White CARE Act?

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

It has been almost 27 years since the mother of a young boy dying of AIDS received a phone call from the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), asking if it would be okay to attach the boy's name on federal legislation.1 That young boy's name was Ryan White, and it has become synonymous with the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act (Ryan White CARE Act). Since 1990, it has saved countless lives of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States. The law is due to be re-authorized by Congress, and some are asking if the time is right for a "re-set" so that the supports and services authorized under the law better reflect the state of the epidemic.

HIV surveillance data reveals some interesting trends about the epidemiology of the disease over time. Diagnosis of HIV infection demonstrates that some things have remained constant, such as men who sex with men (MSM) and intravenous drug use (IDU) represent two of the high-risk transmissions groups. But today, HIV infection disproportionately impacts communities of color, as well as people living in rural areas of the country. Heterosexual woman and adolescents are also greatly at risk for HIV infection.

The following charts published by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) help to explain the trends in HIV diagnoses in the United States between 2010 - 2014:2

Photo Source: CDC

Photo Source: CDC

Photo Source: CDC
According to the CDC, "The South now experiences the greatest burden of HIV infection, illness, and deaths of any U.S. region, and lags far behind in providing quality HIV prevention and care to its citizens." It begs the question, shouldn't the federal government adopt a "money follows the person" paradigm to reflect the changing epidemiology?

Some of the important questions surrounding Ryan White reauthorization include the following:
  • should funding stream formulas count cumulative AIDS cases or only living HIV-positive people?
  • should wrap-around services be expanded for clients who have Medicare Part D, Medicaid or Veterans Affairs healthcare?
  • should coverage include inpatient hospital care?
  • should coverage include Hepatitis C (HCV) drug therapies?
  • should commercial health insurance premium assistance programs be liberalized?
"At a time when we have the most effective and simple HIV treatments and a very volatile healthcare insurance landscape, WE NEED the Ryan White safety net program for continuity - less we forget without care and treatment HIV is a deadly and transmissible disease," summarized David Poole, Director of Legislative Affairs at AIDS Healthcare Foundation."

Next week this issue will be discussed at the ADAP Advocacy Association's AIDS Drug Assistance Program Regional Summit in Raleigh, North Carolina. "Ryan White & Service Delivery Systems in the Age of Budget Austerity" is one of the topics on the agenda with leading policy stakeholders concerned about the future of the program, and potential impact on patients living with HIV/AIDS and other underserved populations.

For complete information about the Ryan White CARES Act please visit http://hab.hrsa.gov/abouthab/legislation.html.


__________
[1] Groppe, Maureen (2014, July 30); Future of Ryan White program not clear; JConline. Retrieved from http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/07/30/future-ryan-white-program-clear/13376961/.
[2] National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (2017, March 24); HIV Surveillance—Epidemiology of HIV Infection (through 2015); Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/slidesets/cdc-hiv-surveillance-genepi.pdf.
[3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2016); HIV in the Southern United States; TheBody.com. Retrieved from: http://www.thebody.com/content/76879/hiv-in-the-southern-united-states.html. 

Thursday, February 9, 2017

California has an ADAP Problem

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

A contentious switch in contractors approved by the California Department of Health’s Office of AIDS (CDPH/OA) in 2016 has had several negative consequences, including two lawsuits from the previous contractor, lost applications, dropped coverage, a broken application system, and wrongly denied coverage for California ADAP clients. In other words, it is a complete mess in California.

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), Part B of the Ryan White CARE Act (RWCA) is designed to be the “payer of last resort” for patients living with HIV/AIDS whose incomes fall near enough to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to make affording the cost of care prohibitive, if not entirely unaffordable. As such, ADAP clients come to rely upon the uninterrupted delivery of those services in order to effectively treat their HIV infection, address co-morbidities, and achieve and maintain the viral suppression that makes transmission of the virus highly unlikely. By those measures the state of California has abjectly failed the charges whose health the ADAP program was intended to address.

California Department of Public Health (CDPH)

The process that resulted in California’s dereliction of duty began in October 2015, when the initial Request for Proposal Process (RFP) was sent out. The initial RFP followed state guidelines using a 1,000-point allocation system to award the bid to contractors. Consistent with government regulations, the actual monetary bid for the contract (“Cost Calculation”) was weighted at 75% (750 points) and “Technical Calculation” requirements were weighted at 25% (250 points), with a contract term of three years with two one-year extensions for a total of a five-year contract (Hews, 2016).

Using this state-mandated RFP, the then-existing contractor, Ramsell Corp (Oakland, CA) submitted a bid of $900,000 per year, with no increases over the five-year period, for a total of $4.5 million for the Enrollment Benefits Management (EMB) part of the program – the process where clients apply for coverage and maintain enrollment in the program. A competing bid was submitted by Michigan-based A.J. Boggs & Co., Inc.: $4,699,585 for the first year, $2,212,563 for the second, $2,208,767 for the third, $2,211,532 for the fourth, and $2,235,012 for the fifth and final year, totaling $13,567,459 – a bid roughly $9.067 million higher than Ramsell’s (Hews).

Under the terms of the RFP, point allocation to the lowest bidder – Ramsell – would have been 750 points, while Boggs would have received 296 points, using the state-mandated formula. That was the case, until CDPH/AO Procurement Officer, Jeffrey Mapes, changed the terms of the RFP on December 03, 2015, reversing the calculations so that the Technical Calculation became weighted 75% and the Cost Calculation, weighted by 25% (Hews). Mapes’ actions, along with simple math miscalculations, led the Boggs being awarded the new contract on March 04, 2016.  Ramsell, unaware of these changes and miscalculations, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents related to the Boggs bid – a request whose fulfilment was delayed and incomplete. 

Realizing the errors in the process, Ramsell submitted a protest on April 06, 2016, from which the following excerpt comes:
We are concerned that the amount of time that has been allotted for system beta testing and enrollment worker training is not adequate. The Office of AIDS has notified us that the new system is still being developed, beta testing has not yet begun, and enrollment worker training will not begin until just weeks before the July 1st transition.  Further, the system is transitioning from one to three contractors which will require additional coordination to effectively serve clients. In order to ensure a seamless transition, we believe additional time is necessary to adequately beta test the new system, train enrollment workers, and ensure time for feedback on what works properly and what needs improvement (Otiko, 2016).
In June 2016, Ramsell Corp filed two separate suits related to the EBM and the Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM) contract awarded to Magellan Rx Management, LLC. The EBM suit alleges that:
…after Ramsell complained about major defects in the unfair procurement, CDPH cancelled the award to Boggs, and then gave them an illegal, sole-sourced contract only days later in violation of the requirements of the State Contracting Manual. The lawsuit also notes that the Boggs’ bid was about three times higher ($9 million more) than the Ramsell bid (Allen & Barajas, 2016).
The PBM suit alleges that:
…in procuring the new contracts, CDPH: (1) failed to follow its own rules as set forth in the Request for Proposals (RFP); and (2) conducted the procurement in a biased manner that was slanted in favor of the out-of-state companies (Allen & Barajas).
Despite these lawsuits being filed, CDPH/OA continued the transition to the three new vendors, which also included Pool Administrators Inc. (which covered the Health Insurance Premium Payments (OA-HIPP) and Medicare Part D premium payment programs), effective July 01, 2016 (Grimes, 2016). Since that transition occurred, ADAP clients, healthcare providers, clinics, pharmacies, and AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs) have experienced numerous problems accessing coverage.

Clients have been turned away at pharmacies, forced to postpone medical procedures, and some have been dropped from the program, altogether (Gorman, 2017). Additional complaints from patients and caseworkers allege that reimbursement claims have been repeatedly rejected (Allday, 2017) and patients have been dropped from the health insurance because ADAP failed to send premium payments to the correct address (Gorman). Dr. Karen Smith, director of California’s Public Health Department, stated in a letter to state Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) that: 
Shortly after [the department switched to new contractors in July 2016], …CDPH received a letter from constituents expressing concerns that there were issues for some clients receiving medications.  …As you note, the ADAP portal was unexpectedly unavailable for ADAP enrollment worker and client use as of November 29, 2016, due to information security vulnerabilities in the system. …To ensure uninterrupted client access to medications, we have extended client eligibility to their next reenrollment or recertification date occurring after June 30, 2017 (Hemmelgarn, 2017). 

Photo of California State Senator Scott Wiener
California State Senator Senator Scott Wiener; Gloss Magazine

Dr. Smith noted that her agency identified two separate breaches of information, and that impacted clients were notified. Those breaches, however, led to the online portal, where patients could register, re-enroll, and re-certify, being taken offline indefinitely on November 29, 2016. As of January 23, 2017 – just seven days short of the January 30 extension deadline – that online portal has not been replaced. This failure on the part of Boggs forced patients and caseworkers to register for ADAP by fax – a process that took weeks, due to a shortage of both fax machines and customer service workers to handle the load (Allday).

In response to patients being unable to access pharmacy services due to complications with PBM contractor, Magellan, the staff at Magellan were authorized by the state 
…to provide real-time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week authorizations to pharmacies for a 30-day supply of medications for ADAP clients with active eligibility who experience access issues at the pharmacy (Hemmelgarn). 
While this step is a nice quarter-way measure to ensure that active patients – those who have not been erroneously dropped or unable to enroll or certify – can gain access to their lifesaving HIV medications, it in no way serves as a long-term solution to address the myriad disasters that this ill-advised contract switch has created. For those patients, providers, and caseworkers who have been unable to successfully register clients, process claims, pay premiums, or be successfully reimbursed, this disastrous transition is entirely unacceptable.

Further frustrating already harried caseworkers and providers is that this transition from one California-based, minority-owned contractor (Ramsell) to three out-of-state contractors, one of which is inexperienced in the arena, could and should have been entirely avoided, had the CDPH/OA complied with the state-mandated RFP process and properly calculated the points, even within the new calculation. That Ramsell Corp, a company that had successfully provided services to California’s ADAP program for nearly twenty years, was summarily dismissed and their bids rejected in what appears to be retaliation for filing a formal protest in response to the procurement process is foolish behavior on the part of the CDPH/OA.


CDPH/OA’s failure to follow even the most basic statutes indicates the need for a new Procurement Officer, as Jeffrey Mapes’ unexplained and potentially illegal (Hews) actions indicates that he is unfit for the position. California’s patients deserve better, and until there is a permanent fix in place, it is incumbent upon all California residents, advocates, caseworkers, and providers to keep the pressure on the CDPH/OA.

According to sources, the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services is aware of the situation and monitoring it.


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.


References:

Monday, March 21, 2016

Co-Paying the Piper

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

One of the biggest changes for many lower income patients under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been the transition to paying co-pays for their medical care. For patients living with HIV, this has been exceptionally difficult in states whose Ryan White Part B programs – the AIDS Drugs Assistance Programs (ADAPs) – have opted to pay for their clients’ insurance premiums, rather than simply directly paying for services as they’re administered. What this means for patients is that, where they once never had to worry about doctors’ visits or paying for medications, depending on their state of residence, they may not be responsible for paying co-pays for services.

To the average American with a stable, if thinly stretched, income, this may not seem like a big deal; but, to those of us living with HIV/AIDS on fixed or fluctuating incomes, this distinction may create an additional barrier to care that may not have existed, prior to now. It can be difficult to explain to people how, when one’s income is already low, paying $20-$30 for a visit to the doctor requires foregoing other basic necessities such as food or a utility bill put off until later; paying $100 for your HIV medications every month can mean that you no longer have enough to afford rent.

People who live without a chronic disease often fail to see the hardships presented with treating that disease. Outside of simply the cost of treatment, there are additional social and emotional issues at play. Having to rely on government assistance for any reason is frequently derided in our nation as a weakness; a moral failing that renders the recipient incapable of taking care of themselves. As such, there is often a guttural sense of shame and humiliation that accompanies having to rely on these assistance programs. It is this component that is so often left out of the conversation.

More than just the psychosocial aspect of seeking assistance, the reality is that, when a patient discovered their HIV-positive status, they are often unaware of the options that exist, in the way of coverage. Now that people with pre-existing conditions can no longer be barred from insurance coverage, many simply assume that private insurance is the only option available to them. In states where Medicaid services have not been expanded to include coverage for people living with HIV, many patients are unaware of the existence of the Ryan White or ADAP programs that are in place to provide assistance for lower income patients who cannot afford the cost of treatment.

Even with these programs in place, their assistance does not meet the Federal requirement for insurance coverage, and clients whose incomes are higher than the maximum allowed for exemption from the penalty for not having private insurance are often left to foot that bill, as well. This is one of several reasons why many ADAP programs are switching their coverage over to paying for private insurance, rather than a direct payment model.

For lower-income patients still having trouble paying for treatment, even with insurance, Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) exist that can help to partially or totally defray the costs. These programs are, however, largely unknown to people outside of the “know,” as it were – if you don’t “know” about them, you don’t know about them, and oftentimes, you only find out about them through random word of mouth. Sadly, many ADAP programs’ employees are unaware of these programs, and aren’t able to provide adequate information about either their existence or the requirements for applying.

One such program – the Patient Access Network (PAN) Foundation – has long served this purpose for people who are underinsured living with HIV. The maximum award level is $7,500 per year. Patients may apply for a second grant during their eligibility period subject to availability of funding.

Unfortunately, funds available through this program have been depleted. As of March 14th, 2016, patients seeking assistance for HIV are being encouraged to go to the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) for assistance. Individuals who have been recently approved for grants through the PAN Foundation will not be affected. When needing additional assistance or to re-enroll, individuals are encouraged to check back with PAN to determine if the fund has been re-opened and/or to seek additional support through PAF.

Patient Advocate Foundation

While the funds at PAN for HIV assistance have been exhausted for 2016, there are still funds available for patients who are mono- or co-infected with HCV at both PAN and PAF; one only needs to apply separately for assistance with that specific condition, as funds for HIV drugs do not carry over to HCV without an additional application.

Additionally, it should be made clear that these programs are not designed for the uninsured; rather, they are designed for the underinsured – those who carry some form of insurance, but for whom co-pays are unaffordable. It is also crucial to understand that these programs cover only the costs associated with drug co-pays; office visits and other non-pharmaceutical costs are not covered, and are left up to the individual and/or the Ryan White funds allocated to their clients.

For more information about PAF, and how it differs from the Patient Advocate Foundation, please visit www.patientadvocate.org.

________
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. 


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Florida Solution: Prescription Freedom Act of 2016

By: David W. Poole, Director of Legislative Affairs, Southern Bureau, AIDS Healthcare Foundation

Mandate, Mitigate, and Manage, perhaps the 3 M’s are the most overused verbs tossed around regularly and often throughout our vast and complex healthcare systems, all in the spirit of optimal outcomes for the patient, right?  Perhaps some of the time. Hopefully patient outcomes are core to all parts of our healthcare universe – which includes hospitals, pharmacies/specialty pharmacies, outpatient surgery centers, home health care,  rehabilitation centers, manufacturers, insurers, wholesalers, and the list goes on and on. Patient outcome language was certainly integrated into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “PPACA” or the often shortened “ACA.” And the Ryan White legislation throughout its now 25 year history has long since included patient health outcomes as an expectation for grantees managing this very important safety net for person living with HIV disease.

Medical claim form with a "DENIED" stamp on it
Photo Source: optimistically pessimistic

But what about the “C” word, CHOICE or the “F” word, FREEDOM. Choice and the freedom to choose should be at the real heart of our continuum of care – choice or options that facilitate optimal health care outcomes. And if you have optimal health outcomes shouldn’t the economic benefits follow. Choice is the enemy of barriers to access (which can include the 3 M’s),  both purposeful and unintentional. Choice and freedom are the best friends to individualism – what works for one patient doesn’t work for the next patient, thus having choice and the freedom to choose what works - serves the patient and all health care stakeholders in the best possible way.

You may be surprised to learn that your health care systems deprive you of the freedom to choose the option that serves you best and none is more glaring than many insurer mandated mail order policies. These policies can take many different forms with nuances too numerous to cite; however, two lawmakers in Florida have filed legislation for 2016 that will hopefully reverse this trend with persons living with HIV, Epilepsy, Diabetes and Hypertension. Senator Rene Garcia (R-Hialeah) and Representative Debbie Mayfield (R-Vero Beach) have filed Senate Bill 780 and House Bill 583, "The Prescription Freedom Act." These bills simply provide for patient choice of receiving their medications through a brick and mortar pharmacy or a mail order program – the insurer must not mandate that a patient access their medications from only one or the other and there cannot be financial advantage or leverage assigned to one over the other for the patient or for the insurer. Let freedom ring in health care choices and may options be abundant!


________
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. 

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Thank You, Ryan White; ADAP Saves Lives

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

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In 1984, during the midst of the public hysteria over the emergence of AIDS in the United States, it was a 13-year old boy from Indiana who defined the courage of a nation. That young boy's name was Ryan White.

(To learn more about Ryan's story, click here)

Decades later, we honor that young boy from Indiana by celebrating the passage of the law named after him: Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. As the nation's only public healthcare program specifically designed to provide supports and services for people living with HIV/AIDS, it is hard to truly measure the impact it has had in linking patients to timely, appropriate care and treatment. Simply put; it has saved hundreds of thousands of lives since 1990!

A key component of the Ryan White CARE Act is the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which funds access to medications for the treatment of HIV-infection. Amendments to the law over the years have added additional language allowing ADAP funds to be used to purchase health insurance for eligible clients, as well as to pay for services that enhance access, adherence, and monitoring of drug treatments. Today, ADAP serves as model government program.

ADAP enjoys broad bi-partisan support. The program continues to receive more federal dollars annually (albeit far less than what is needed) despite budget austerity in Congress. It is routinely recognized as a cost-efficient, taxpayer-funded program. As recent as last month, we learned that ADAPs have also assisted in the success of the Affordable Care Act's implementation (Editor's Note: read our last blog, 68,000 Patients Obtained ACA Insurance Coverage, Thanks to ADAP).

The virtue's of the law were spelled out in an Op-Ed penned by Sean Cahill, PhD and Kenneth Mayer, MD. They call for additional federal and state funding, more front-line public health training, better culturally competent and nondiscriminatory care, and increased program coordination. The ADAP Advocacy Association agrees!

Yet, despite the progress of the last few decades there still remains an underlying barrier preventing access to care for far too many. That barrier is stigma. It is the very same stigma that Ryan White confronted while attending Western Middle School in Indiana some 31 years ago.

According to the SERO Project, currently there are over thirty States across the nation with "HIV-specific" statutes criminalizing some aspect of HIV/AIDS. Even in States without an HIV-specific statute, people living with HIV/AIDS are still at risk of prosecution under other criminal statutes.

Map of the United States showing states with HIV-specific criminalization laws. Learn more at http://seroproject.com.
Source: SERO Project
As we celebrate the extraordinary life of a 13-year boy who won over the hearts of a nation (and helped to educate them, too), as well as the law named after him to help the people living with the same disease, let's remember there is much more work to be done!

Thank you, Ryan White!