Fireside Chat Retreat in Charleston, SC Tackles Pressing Public Health Issues

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy

ADAP Advocacy hosted its Health Fireside Chat retreat in Charleston, South Carolina among key stakeholder groups to discuss pertinent public health issues facing patients in the United States. The Health Fireside Chat convened Thursday, April 25th through Saturday, April 27th. An analysis of the collaborative relationships between patient advocacy organizations and drug manufacturers, patient perspectives about long-acting injectables for HIV treatment and prevention, and the dark side of state-sanctioned prescription drug affordability boards were evaluated and discussed by the 21 diverse stakeholders.

Photo Source: Getty Images

The Health Fireside Chat included moderated white-board style discussion sessions on the following issues:

• Patient Insights: How Patient-Industry Collaboration Can Elevate Healthcare Reform — moderated by Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy
• Patient Perspectives: How Long-Acting Injectables Can Improve Access to Care —moderated by Riley Johnson, Project Lead, Long-Acting Injectables Project, ADAP Advocacy
• Patient Context: How Prescription Drug Affordability Boards Impact Access to Care — moderated by Jen Laws, President & CEO, Community Access National Network (CANN)

The discussion sessions were designed to capture key observations, suggestions, and thoughts about how best to address the challenges being discussed at the Health Fireside Chat. The following represents the attendees:

• Maggie Blunk, Communications Manager, North Carolina AIDS Action Network
• La’Donna Boyens, Patient Advocate
• Erin Bradshaw, EVP for the Advancement of Patient Services and Navigation, Patient Advocate Foundation
• Jeffrey S. Crowley, Distinguished Scholar & Program Director at the Infectious Disease Initiatives, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown Law
• Erin Darling, Associate Vice President and Counsel, Federal Policy, Merck
• Hunter Fasanaro, Director of Strategic Partnerships & Healthcare Initiatives, Archo Advocacy
• Hilary Hansen, Global Public Affairs Head, Oncology, Sanofi
• Patrick Ingram, Community Outreach and Prevention Programs Supervisor, Hennepin County 
• Lisa Johnson-Lett, Peer Support Specialist, AIDS Alabama
• Riley Johnson, Founder, RAD Remedy
• Jen Laws, President & CEO, Community Access National Network
• Michael Luciano, Peer Treatment Educator, Palmetto Community Care
• Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy
• Judith Montenegro, Program Director, Latino Commission on AIDS
• Necaela Penn, Patient Advocate
• Kalvin Pugh, Senior Advisor on Community Engagement, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care
• Donna Sabatino, Director State Policy & Advocacy, The AIDS Institute
• Larry Scott-Walker, Executive Director, THRIVE SS Inc
• Dafina Ward, Executive Director, Southern AIDS Coalition
• Katie Willingham, Blogger, The Well Project
• Marcus Wilson, Senior Director, Community Engagement and Patient Advocacy, Gilead Sciences

ADAP Advocacy is pleased to share the following brief recap of the Health Fireside Chat.

Patient-Industry Collaboration:

The first policy session was Patient Insights: How Patient-Industry Collaboration Can Elevate Healthcare Reform, which was led by ADAP Advocacy's CEO, Brandon M. Macsata. With both patients, patient advocacy organizations, and industry partners all in the room, it represented an opportunity to discuss their collaboration. Macsata provided some background on why such collaborative relationships exist, as well as how they are perceived – including how some characterized the relationships through a negative lens. In general, and not speaking specifically to drug manufacturers money, Macsata noted several commonly accepted reasons why donors give money to organizations or causes. Donors are purpose-driven; donors trust your organization; donors understand their impact; donors have a personal connection to your purpose; donors want to be part of something meaningful; donors are engaged; and donors appreciate tax benefits.[1] He further noted industry partners providing memberships, sponsorships, or charitable grants to nonprofit patient advocacy organizations are no different.

Whereas the group agreed an fair examination of these relationships is a good thing, characterizing the support from industry partners as "dark money" or "tainted money" or "bribes" is disingenuous to the patient advocacy groups who receive it. The implied "quid pro quo" narrative is nothing more than "guilt by association" smear tactic that completely discounts the valuable work being done on public policy. The reality is often time the interests of the patient advocacy community and the interests of the drug manufacturers align, as has been the case numerous times over the years pushing back against attempts to weaken Medicare's six protected classes of drugs. 

Industry partners participating in the discussion shared their perspectives on the difference between transactional support and transformative support. The latter is designed to impact systems change, rooted in further empowering patients to end the HIV epidemic. Without industry partner support, it would be even more challenging – if not impossible – to advocate for greater access to HIV long-acting injectables, or repealing draconian HIV criminalization. All of the impudent exposes published by the likes of the KFF Health News or Axios failed to recognize that fact.

The group concluded with a lengthy assessment of the status of patient advocacy, which included calls for more transparency among these groups.

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees:

• Our Commitment to Transparency, 2023
• Our Commitment to Transparency, 2021
• Our Commitment to Transparency, 2018
• 340B Hypocrisy: The Inconvenient Truth Behind Why We Need to Reform This Vital Safety Net Program
• 340B Covered Entities’ Revenue Witnessed Huge Executive Compensation Increases, Alarming Charity Care Decreases
• Pharma's influence on patient advocacy
• Patient Advocacy Groups Take In Millions From Drugmakers. Is There A Payback?

ADAP Advocacy would like to also call attention to how this very conversation is happening among academia, evidenced by the recent report featured in The Crimson: ‘Deal with the Devil’: Harvard Medical School Faculty Grapple with Increased Industry Research Funding.

Long-Acting Injectables:

Riley Johnson, who serves as ADAP Advocacy's Long-Acting Injectables (LAIs) Project, presented initial themes and findings from the project's research methods – including a quantitative survey, a qualitative focus group, and an examination of data – across two populations – those who are HIV-positive (the use of LAIs for treatment) and those who are HIV-negative (the use of LAIs for prevention). This project was made possible by support from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare. A final report will be issued in May 2024.

ADAP Advocacy’s LAIs Treatment Survey had 262 respondents and the focus group had 8 participants, whereas the Prevention Survey had 184 respondents and the focus group had 8 participants. Key themes in the focus groups included provider barriers, supply chain issues, medical mistrust (both historical accounts/community trauma as well as current individual feelings), and insurance coverage barriers.

Discussion at the Fireside Chat focused on patients’ ability to navigate health environments and insurance processes as well as Fireside Chat participants sharing best practices for wraparound services that help patients address some of the more tangible issues they face when pursuing LAIs (e.g. providing documentation to assist with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requests, transportation assistance, etc.)  The final report of this iteration of the Long-Acting Injectables Project is slated for release later this month.

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees:

• Advocacy Needed to Reduce Barriers to Accessing Long-Acting Agent Therapies
• Barriers to Uptake of Long-Acting Antiretroviral Products for Treatment and Prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in High-Income Countries
• Cost-effectiveness of Cabotegravir Long-Acting for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in the United States
• PrEP, a Key HIV Prevention Tool, Isn’t Reaching Black Women
• MAKING A SPLASH: For people living with HIV who are experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, long-acting injectable treatment holds great promise—how Ward 86 makes it work
• Evidence Suggest Long-Acting Injectables Game Changer for Adherence
• The State of Long-Acting Injectable Medicaid Coverage

ADAP Advocacy would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Riley for facilitating this important discussion.

PDABs:

The Community Access National Network (CANN) action center on Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) served as a focal point for this discussion, which was led by CANN's President & CEO, Jen Laws. While there are ten states with established boards, each operates slightly differently, with some of those including power to establish an "upper payment limit" (reimbursement ceiling) for selected medications. Because of a variety of public health funding mechanisms, specifically rebates utilized to fund Medicaid programming, federally qualified health centers and other 340B grantee entities, and State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, these reimbursement caps are a threat to the sustainability of certain programming and efforts supporting health equity and tackling health disparities. The value of these rebates are found in the "spread" between the reduced acquisition cost and the reimbursement rate — meaning the lower the reimbursement rate the lower the value of the rebate and the fewer dollars 340B grantee entities have to reinvest in programs and services. Further, federal matching dollars for the Medicaid program are based upon reimbursement rates. Reduce the reimbursement rate and the federal matching dollars are therefore reduced.

Additional conversation centered on what medications were being reviewed for selection by PDABs, and who the target beneficiaries of any action should be (patients vs. systems). Laws pointed out that while the political marketing behind PDABs focuses language on patients and "commonly used" medications, those medications being selected are those treating rare and chronic conditions, some of which have no alternative or for which there is a contraindication for any alternatives (ie. genotype specific ARVs), and discussion is increasingly focused on so-called "savings" for the systems, rather than patients. The bait and switch on actions from the "sales point" raises serious alarms.

Further still, other layers of complication include the regular and routine concerns voiced by non-chain, independent pharmacies already facing under-reimbursement threatening their ability to serve their communities and the fact that wholesalers and distributors are often located outside of a particular state, meaning the acquisition is very likely to remain the same, regardless of reimbursement rate, threatening access to care for patients in multiple ways.

These varied concerns are ultimately why several states ended up not taking on PDAB legislation this year. Effective advocacy both pre- and post-legislation is necessary to inform these boards and ensure patients guide in a process that's supposed to be about patients. One last tidbit: all board establishing legislation contain conflict of interest provisions which otherwise prevent patient representation on these boards. In HIV, there is a commonly-accepted theme, "nothing about us without us", and yet, that's exactly what these boards are premised on doing.

The following materials were shared with retreat attendees: 

• NASHP Model State Legislation
• CANN PDABs Action Center
• Health Plans Predict: Implementing Upper Payment Limits May Alter Formularies And Benefit Design But Won’t Reduce Patient Costs
• NMQF Webinar: State Prescription Drug Affordability Boards & Health Equity
• Ripple Effect: How PBMs and Counterfeit Drugs Threaten Patients
• Prescription drug affordability boards do more harm than good

ADAP Advocacy would like to publicly acknowledge and thank Jen for facilitating this important discussion.

Additional Fireside Chats are planned for 2024 in Houston, New Haven, and New York City.

[1] Bonterra (2022, February 20). 7 reasons why donors give + how to appeal to their motives. Retrieved online from https://www.bonterratech.com/blog/7-reasons-why-donors-give

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.

Did South Carolina Just Weaken Patient Choice Protections for Specialty Drugs?

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

An undeniable fact with largely universal consensus is that the United States needs healthcare reform. Healthcare reform is an overhauling of the healthcare system to achieve what the Institute for Healthcare Improvement describes as the Triple Aim: “improving the patient experience of care (including quality and satisfaction), improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita cost of health care.”[1] The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most recent attempt to reach the Triple Aim by increasing insurance access, mandating levels of quality, and trying to make healthcare more affordable. The challenge of healthcare reform is that healthcare is a system. By definition, a system has moving components that not only move independently but also are interdependent upon other parts of the system. Regarding healthcare, the moving parts of the system are smaller systems. South Carolina recently attempted to make some positive changes to the healthcare infrastructure in that state, though it is unclear if all the changes will actually benefit patients.

Photo Source: Greenville Legal

It is important to remember that regulation is one tool used to attempt the improvement of the many U.S. healthcare system components. Through legislative regulation, lawmakers try to create frameworks to optimize how various healthcare system component’s function. A significant component of healthcare is prescription medication. Pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and insurance plans are several players in the prescription medication system. Presently, the costs and availability of drugs are primarily controlled by PBMs. Insurance companies employ pharmacy benefit managers who control which drugs appear on plan formularies, negotiate the prices insurance plans pay for prescriptions, decide which pharmacies can participate in a plan’s network, and more.[3,5]

While many components within the U.S. healthcare system operate under detailed and enforced regulation, PBMs do not. They are largely unregulated. To maximize their profits, they participate in multiple practices that create challenges for insurance plans, pharmacies, and ultimately patients, driving up costs and creating inefficiencies in patient care.[3,5] South Carolina has been working through legislation to curtail and regulate the activity of PBMs - including Senate Bill 520 (SB520), part of the Pharmacy Audit Protection Act - which was recently passed by the state legislature.[2]

One of many excessive practices by PBMs to drive profit is pharmacy audit. A pharmacist with over 30 years experience providing care to patients living with HIV/AIDS summarized, “Pharmacists are constantly being audited by strong-arm PBMs. They often go after the high-cost drugs and deny claims for minor infractions. It’s a bullying tactic.” SB520 aims to protect pharmacies from unjust audits by PBMs. The bill defines explicitly the structure of what entity can be designated a PBM; it explains what PBMs operationally can and cannot do, defines the rights of pharmacies in general and in the face of a PBM audit, gives patients freedom of choice in utilizing in-network pharmacies, and much more. PBMs use numerous abusive audit practices to drive profit, including audit fees, denying claims for minor clerical errors forcing pharmacies to pay back money for drugs they were reimbursed, and making it difficult for pharmacies to re-bill PBMs after winning audit appeals.

Photo Source: Framework LTC

The bill is essentially a step in the right direction. However, multiple payers lobbied to add verbiage potentially adversely affecting HIV patients and others. Section 38-71-2245, subsection (A) states: “A pharmacy benefits manager may neither limit an insured from selecting an in-network pharmacy or pharmacist of the insured's choice nor deny the right of a pharmacy or pharmacist to participate in a network if the pharmacy or pharmacist meets the requirements for network participation set forth by the pharmacy benefits manager, and the pharmacy or pharmacist agrees to the contract terms, conditions, and rates of reimbursements.”[2]  This section protects patient choice of pharmacists. 

Payers asked for the following verbiage added to the section: 

“Notwithstanding subsection (A), a pharmacy benefits manager may, for specialized delivery drugs, specify requirements for network participation that: (1) directly relate to the ability of the pharmacy or pharmacist to store, handle, or deliver a prescription drug in a manner that ensures the quality, integrity, or safety of the drug, its delivery, or its use; or  (2) relate to quality metrics that affect a pharmacy's or pharmacist's ability to participate, provided that the pharmacy benefits manager applies such terms equally to all network participants. (C) For prescription drugs that qualify as a high-cost prescription drug, subsection (A) of this section does not apply to a pharmacy benefits manager. A high-cost prescription drug is defined as a prescription drug whose current or prior year's annual average wholesale price exceeded 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level for a single-member household. (D) A pharmacy benefits manager must provide notification of any changes to all applicable specialized delivery drug lists and high-cost prescription drug lists and must make such lists available on a website and upon request to participating pharmacies. A pharmacy may appeal a classification determination to the Department of Insurance.”[2]

The verbiage states that patient choice protections do not apply to specialty or high-cost prescription drugs. In section 38-71-2200, the bill defines specialized delivery drugs as “a prescription drug that meets a majority of the following criteria, as set forth by the manufacturer, FDA, or other applicable law or regulatory body and: (a) requires special handling or storage; (b) requires complex and extended patient education or counseling; (c) requires intensive monitoring; (d) requires clinical oversight; or (e) requires product support services; and the drug is used to treat chronic and complex, or rare medical conditions  (i) that can be progressive; or (ii) that can be debilitating or fatal if left untreated or under-treated.”[2]

Given the broad definition of specialty and high-cost prescription drugs, the bill allows PBMs to manipulate how HIV antiretrovirals and related treatments are filled. The pharmacist consulted on this issue also explains, "It’s a way for PBMs to mandate that these prescriptions need to be filled from their central mail pharmacies. Since most HIV ARVs are oral and do not require special handling, access has commonly been allowed at retail. The high cost is what’s driving this change. Also, most independent pharmacies don’t mind not having to fill these drugs because of the high cost. For HIV-focused pharmacies, these prescriptions and patients will no longer have access to trained pharmacists and relationships with providers… will all go to mail and automation.” 

He further explains that: “In exchange for fewer audits on specialty drugs, since the retail pharmacies won't be filling them anymore, the managed care organizations will allow more access to more regular prescriptions at retail pharmacies, a move that a lot of non-specialty pharmacies like because it allows them to serve more patients. They’re trading away HIV patients for more ‘non-specialty’ patients.”

Photo Source: SNF Solutions

The bill's definition of “specialized delivery” drugs affects other types of drugs as well. Using the example of antibiotics for a UTI for an elderly person, Jen Laws, President & CEO of Community Access National Network (CANN), explains: “Under the requirements set forth, most antibiotics lose efficacy when exposed to high heat, might require education as to contraindications for patients with other co-occurring conditions, will require monitoring for clearance of infection, and these types of infections can be progressive or debilitating in elderly patients. And while this is an extreme example, it is possible under the bill as written. Given payer willingness to abuse carve-outs and loopholes in laws, it's egregious to define ‘specialty’ so broadly, especially as medicine becomes more and more personalized.”

Increased financial burden on HIV patients and providers is another bill outcome. ARVs are not always defined as specialty drugs on formularies, and thus, many times, they are on lower tiers of formularies that only require cost-sharing of fixed lower copays. Since the bill allows PBMs to define all ARVs as specialty drugs, they can move them to higher formulary tiers, which have much higher cost-sharing practices, such as significantly higher copays and coinsurance. This creates a significantly increased out-of-pocket financial burden on patients and covered entities that are covering the 340B patient copay cost.  

Compounding the increased financial burden is the usage of copay accumulators. Patients in the past who used manufacturer copay assistance programs could apply the copay card payments to their insurance deductible and out-of-pocket costs. Presently, many insurers use copay accumulators, which allow the copay assistance programs to pay the copays but do not allow the payments to count towards deductibles or out-of-pocket expense limits. Thus, the insurance companies are essentially being paid twice by requiring the insured to still must pay their deductibles and out-of-pocket limits after exhausting copay assistance cards. Additionally, patients are in danger of being unable to afford their medication since they would be responsible for paying the full price of their medications after the copay assistance was exhausted up until the limits of completely paying their deductibles.[4]

This bill is an example of the challenges of healthcare reform. It is easy for well-intentioned legislation to be tainted by opposing interests. It is imperative to be vigilant about whom we select as legislative representation and stay informed about legislation being written that affects our daily lives.

[1] Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2023). The IHI Triple Aim. Retrieved from https://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspx

[2] South Carolina State House. (2023). S0520. Retrieved from https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/520.htm

[3] Royce, T., Schenkel, C., Kirkwood, K., Levit, L., Levit, K., Kircher, S. (2020). Impact of pharmacy benefit managers on oncology practices and patients. JCO Oncology Practice 16(5) 276-284. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.19.00606

[4] National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023, February 23). Copayment Adjustment Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/health/copayment-adjustment-programs#:~:text=When%20a%20patient's%20health%20plan,out%2Dof%2Dpocket%20maximums

[5] Healthcare Value Hub. (2018, January). Pharmacy benefit managers: Can they return to their client-centered origins? Retrieved from https://www.healthcarevaluehub.org/advocate-resources/publications/pharmacy-benefit-managers-can-they-return-their-client-centered-origins

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.  

Reflections from an HIV Advocate's Journey: David Pable

By: David Pable, Community Co-Chair, South Carolina HIV Planning Council

In June of 2002, I was ready for my life to end. I was married and had wonderful children, but I was unable to live the lie I had created by trying to live a straight life. I thought the only thing to do would be ending my pretend life.

During that next 6 months I met someone, and he encouraged me find a counselor and that helped me tremendously for a while. But, in January of 2003, he took his own life. I was devastated, obviously. He had helped talk me off of the ledge. I would have loved to have been able to do the same for him.

I found out the day after he passed away that he had HIV and by June a year later, I too, found out that I had HIV. Once again, I fell into depression and saw no hope for the future. There had been bouts with substance abuse that I kept secret and I had lived in state of denial for many years.

They say that time heals all wounds, and little by little and with a lot of help from the Ryan White Program in Charleston, SC, my excellent psychiatrist along with my therapist, I was able to piece things back together enough to want to live. It took about seven years for me to realize that one of the most tragic moments of my life had been the seed for change within me.

The clinic where I received care was forming a community advisory board and I was asked to chair it. I was so happy to be able to be part of this at the time and it also inspired me to be more present at other group events they held at the clinic. By attending such events, I met my partner, Rick. I remember thinking: he is not leaving here without my phone number! We have been together almost 7 years now.

I have volunteered at our local AIDS Walk and Art for Charity by donating some of my paintings. I found myself making more and more friends who were also advocates and together we joined the SC HIV Taskforce, and SC HIV Planning Council, of which I am the current Community Co-Chair.

In 2013, I went to the United Stated Conference on AIDS (USCA), held in New Orleans. I was blown away with how many advocates attended this event and really began to see how we can all inspire each other. So many people at this conference who at the time were strangers to me, have had an impact on my life in positive, productive and compassionate ways. I alone cannot do much in this world, but myself along with this patient and persistent group of advocates, we can change the world a little bit each day.

Author Carolyn Myss says: “Once we are awakened to something - a truth or injustice - we are held accountable and must take action according to that truth."

Once I returned from USCA, I really got involved with advocacy through the SC HIV Task Force by advocating at our State House for Medicaid expansion, as well as being involved with planning community forums around the state to educate the public on what Medicaid expansion would mean to the people of South Carolina. To date we have not expanded Medicaid, but I believe we should keep our eye on the brass ring…

I went to AIDSWatch in the early part of 2014 for the first time, and once again I was surrounded by a group of people from over 30 states who were there to talk to and advocate for people living with HIV.  I believe we had 12 people from South Carolina. I have been there multiple times since then and plan on going again in the future.

I have a few friends that I have been blessed with and we together have gone to events like HIV is Not A Crime, ADAP Advocacy Association Annual AIDS Drug Assistance Program Conference, and Positive Living Conferences. Each time, I learn from my peers about how I can become a better advocate.

I am very thankful to and have learned so much from the conferences over the last few years. There are so many things I have been able to bring back to our planning council and also to those in the community after attending these events.

Ghandi said “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” I think about this often and I thank God for giving me an opportunity to change and grow in positive ways, and I know he has done so through all the amazing advocates i have met over the years.



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.