Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2025

Why Is the 340B Drug Pricing Program the Next ‘Too Big to Fail’

Read the full policy paper, “Is the 340B Drug Pricing Program the Next ‘Too Big to Fail’?

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy

The 340B Drug Pricing Program sounds wonky and complex, and most patients probably hear the program's name and think, “Oh, it doesn’t even apply to me or my care.” It is wonky; after all, it’s named after Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act of 1992. And even the most well-versed policy expert would admit the program is indeed complex. But rather than trying to explain it in words, click here to watch an amazingly straightforward patient education video produced by the Community Access National Network (CANN). The bottom line is this wonky, complex program has EVERYTHING to do with patient care, and it is highly likely it impacts the care of most of the folks who read this blog post. And here’s why the 340B Drug Pricing Program is the next ‘Too Big to Fail.’

Too Big To Fail: 340B
Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy

Today, patients living with HIV can successfully access highly effective therapies to manage the disease and achieve undetectable status, thus making a robust 340B Program essential. Unfortunately, that concept has warped into putting providers before patients. Originally designed to help poor patients access affordable healthcare, it has grown into a $66 billion program, largely benefiting healthcare providers. These healthcare providers' CEOs have benefitted abundantly, too, as ADAP Advocacy noted in its 2024 report and its 2025 supplemental report. Ironically, charity care – which is basically “free” healthcare hospitals extend to patients who otherwise cannot afford their care – has declined. So much for helping poor patients, right?

To make matters worse, a few extremely powerful special interest groups and their high-powered inside-the-beltway Washington lobbyists have successfully created a reform denialism narrative. That narrative is a fallacy. The chief antagonist of reforming the program to serve patients better is the American Hospital Association (AHA). Isn’t it ironic that the AHA fights any effort to reform the program that would result in its hospital members having actually pony up charity care for marginalized communities? Sadly, patient advocacy groups see through this smoke and mirrors by the big hospital systems. 

Pharmaceutical manufacturers—who fund the 340B Program via drug rebates—are pushing reforms to NOT “gut” the program but rather ensure their rebates are going to the intended recipients: patients! Industry-backed reforms are all driven by asking for more accountability and transparency on how their rebates are being spent. What could be more “pro-patient” than asking that rebates designed to help patients actually help patients? Novel idea, right?

Cartoon of a Lobbyist with this arm around Special Interests
Photo Source: Live | Viewpoint

The 340B Program’s reform denialists are scared, evidenced by their lobbyists contacting patient advocacy organizations and all but saying they're being duped by industry because they’re not intelligent enough to know what is best for them. Insulting, right?

The reality is that patients, patient advocacy organizations, and industry can and often do share values on public health and the delivery of healthcare services. The 340B Program is one such example. The program keeps exponentially growing, year after year, and yet medical debt is simultaneously exploding. The program is growing but failing to meet the law's legislative intent, which is helping patients. That is why it begs the question: Is the 340B Drug Pricing Program the Next ‘Too Big to Fail’?

Read the full policy paper, “Is the 340B Drug Pricing Program the Next ‘Too Big to Fail’?

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, October 3, 2024

In the United States, is Medical Debt is Truly Hospital Debt?

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Medical debt continues to be a crippling financial burden to many Americans, with most of the debt being owed to hospitals in the United States. Approximately 100 million adults have medical debt ranging from $500 to over $5,000.[1] Despite changes credit reporting agencies made in 2022, 15 million Americans still have more than $49 billion in unpaid medical collections on their credit reports.[2] Medical debt is a financial hindrance to many aspects of people’s lives and can even result in poor healthcare outcomes and denial of care. The evolution of medical debt relief efforts continues to move forward on the federal and state levels in hopes of unsaddling Americans of debt that they had no choice in incurring.

Past Due Notice for Medical Bill
Photo Source: Rhode Island Currant | Getty Images

In response to a 2022 report conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), three nationwide credit reporting bureaus - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion – voluntarily made changes to reduce the number of reported medical bills in collections. They increased the time span that trigger reporting of medical bills in collections from 180 days to one year, stopped reporting and removed bills less than $500, and stopped reporting bills that were previously bad debt in collections but had been paid, thus resolved.[2] Despite these actions, 15 million Americans are still plagued with unpaid medical collections on their credit reporting.

In an attempt to further help Americans, CFPB proposed new rules in June 2024 that would be significant if finalized. The rules would eliminate the special medical debt exception, establish guardrails for credit reporting companies, and ban repossession of medical devices.[3] The CFPBs intent is “to end the senseless practice of weaponizing the credit reporting system to coerce patients into paying medical bills that they do not owe.”[3] These rules would help close existing loopholes that leave medical debt accessible to creditors. Additionally, since much of the collection activity reported is inaccurate, it would prevent predatory collections on false claims. Most of the people who have medical collections on their reports do not have any history of other types of credit problems.[4] It is unfair for creditors to block people from the things that they need when the CFPB found that a medical bill on a credit file is not a good indicator of the likelihood a person will repay a loan.[3]

The Urban Institute has done a great deal of work aggregating medical debt data. They created an interactive mapping tool, which shows the geography of debt in America and the debt differences that can reinforce the wealth gap between white communities and communities of color. Nationwide, roughly five percent of Americans have unpaid medical debt based on their credit reports.[5] However, the South and people of color carry a disproportionate amount of that debt. For example, in North Carolina, 8.5% of the population has medical debt in collections compared to 5% nationally. In terms of demographic distinction, 10.5% of communities of color in North Carolina have bad medical debt in contrast to 7.8% of white communities.[5]

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
Photo Source: Carolina Journal

Following the trajectory of other states, the administration of Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina created a plan to alleviate medical debt in the state. With the federal government's support, Governor Cooper created the model for a plan that would link Medicaid expansion dollars to patient debt. Medicaid expansion provides billions in funding for hospitals through state-directed payments that states use to pay hospitals to care for low-income patients.[6] Governor Cooper created a plan that penalizes hospitals, reducing the Medicaid expansion funds they would receive if they do not agree to his debt-relief plan. 

Hospitals would have to expand financial aid criteria to allow more patients to qualify for aid to stave off a future of debt, in addition to eliminating old debts of low-income patients.[6] Eliminating debt would occur via debt buy-back in the manner non-profits such as Undue Medical Debt have succeeded.[6] In essence, bad debt is purchased at extreme discounts and then written off. By agreeing to the plan, hospitals would gain almost twice as much funding as they would if they did not. Atrium Health would receive roughly $1.7 billion by participating, compared to $900 million if they did not.[6] Atrium Health has been historically very aggressive with debt collection efforts against patients. In agreement with Cooper’s plan, Atrium Health announced it would nullify all existing judgments and liens against patients for unpaid bills, some going back as far as twenty years.[7]

Numerous reports have showcased how some large hospital systems have practiced aggressive collection and billing activity against vulnerable low-income patients in conflict with their fiduciary requirements to exercise charity care and institute patient financial assistance. Most of the medical debt is specifically hospital debt.[8] According to a report published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, nearly 75% of adults with medical debt owe some or all of it to hospitals.

Chart Showing Source of Past-Due Medical Debt Among Adults Ages 18 to 64, Overall and by Family Income, June 2022
Photo Source: Urban Institute | RWJF

Brenda Miller with the Lown Institute previously argued in a blog, "Hospitals have the choice to offer robust financial assistance, set reasonable prices, not sue patients, and pay their fair share in community benefits if they are nonprofit. By adjusting their policies, hospitals have the power to alleviate the long-term financial suffering caused by our broken healthcare system."[9]

As a part of the continuing examination of the burden of medical debt, this week, ADAP Advocacy launched an online survey to collect data on patient perspectives and experiences with medical debt. It is available nationwide for anyone in the United States to participate. It is also anonymous with the option of providing personal information if you wish to be contacted for additional follow-up.

The ADAP Advocacy-sponsored Ryan White Grantee 340B Patient Advisory Committee commissioned the study to support patient-centered reform. Many hospitals, as recipients of drug rebates under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, are notoriously bad actors. Data from the survey will add color to patients’ lived experiences with medical debt’s whole-person effect on their lives.

Many types of consumer spending are voluntary. Most medical spending is not. When one’s health and well-being are threatened, potential financial ruin should not add stress to decisions nor influence them. Capitalism-driven financial toxicity has no place in healthcare. Hospitals should be institutions of optimal healing for all. As Jen Laws (he/him/his), CEO of Community Access National Network, points out, “...equity-minded persons and entities prioritizing impact over intent is a very real thing.”[10]

Read our related blog, Are Nonprofit Hospitals' Community Benefit Tax Breaks Truly Serving Communities in Need?

[1] Vankar, P. (2024, January 31). Medical debt in the U.S. - Statistics & Facts. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/8219/medical-debt-in-the-us/#topicOverview

[2] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2024, April 29). CFPB Finds 15 Million Americans Have Medical Bills on Their Credit Reports. Retrieved from  https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-finds-15-million-americans-have-medical-bills-on-their-credit-reports/

[3] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2024, June 11). CFPB Proposes to Ban Medical Bills from Credit Reports. Retrieved from https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-proposes-to-ban-medical-bills-from-credit-reports/

[4] Pollitz, K. (2015, Jan 8). Medical Debt Among Insured Consumers: The Role of Cost Sharing, Transparency, and Consumer Assistance. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/health-costs/perspective/medical-debt-among-insured-consumers-the-role-of-cost-sharing-transparency-and-consumer-assistance/

[5] Urban Institute. (2024, July 10). The Changing Medical Debt Landscape in the United States. Retrieved from https://apps.urban.org/features/medical-debt-over-time/

[6] Levey, N., Alexander, A. (2024, September 23). How North Carolina Made Its Hospitals Do Something About Medical Debt. Retrieved from https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/north-carolina-hospitals-medical-debt/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9_BieSj5YKhMJyyO8tuHpBuD1MMqvTUIH1qbLMpxBqXd2wLyVlWUhNZuMd1TjH99Epf8GJEgAie1fXAtiopyrJGRkkQg&_hsmi=325818163&utm_content=325818163&utm_source=hs_email

[7] Crouch, M., Ledger, C. (2024, September 20). Atrium Health cancels thousands of past medical debt judgments

[8] Karpman, Michal. (March 2023). MOST ADULTS W ITH PAST-DUE ME DICAL DE BT OWE MONEY TO HOSP ITAL. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2023/03/most-adults-with-past-due-medical-debt-owe-money-to-hospitals.html

[9] Miller, Brenda. (2023, March 28). Are Hospitals Driving Medical Debt? The Lown Institute. Retrieved from https://lowninstitute.org/are-hospitals-driving-medical-debt/

[10] Laws, J. (2023, June 19). The Necessity of Patient-Centered 340B Reform. Retrieved from https://www.hiv-hcv-watch.com/blog/june-19-23

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 1, 2024

Nicolas Overfield’s Avoidable Tragedy is a Symbolic Failure of Justice

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Access to timely, appropriate care is required for a high quality of life and optimal healthcare outcomes. Vulnerable populations face many challenges to proper care, especially people who are living with HIV (PLWH). Incarcerated PLWH endure compounded harm. The same people who are disproportionately represented in jails and prisons are also disproportionately represented by HIV. Recently reported in the media is the story of a young man, Nicholas Overfield, who lost his life because he was denied his HIV medication while in jail.[1]

Nicholas Overfield is shown with his mother, Lesley Overfield. She is suing El Dorado County and Wellpath Community Care, a company that contracts with governments to provide medical treatment in correctional facilities. (Overfield family)
Photo Source: Los Angeles Times | Overfield family

In February 2022, Nicholas Overfield was arrested and detained at El Dorado County Jail for failure to appear in court.[2] Upon his arrest, he informed the police that he was HIV positive and required his HIV medication daily to keep his HIV controlled.[2] His medication was present at this home, and his mother gave his medication to the police before they took him away.[2] On April 22, 2022, Nicholas’ mother visited him, and he was brought to her in a wheelchair because he was too weak to walk and was unable to speak.[2] The following day, his mother confronted a jail nurse demanding the medical care that he needed, and he subsequently ended up being rushed to the hospital that same night, requiring emergent care. After being hospitalized, he was placed into hospice care and died on June 21, 2022.[2]

Under the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prisoners have a right to receive medical care, especially for serious medical issues, regardless of whether they are housed in a local, state, or federal jail or prison.[4] Mandisa Moore-O’Neal, Executive Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), explains, “It is a fundamental duty to provide the necessary healthcare to those under your care and control, and yet jails and prisons across the country find so many ways to circumvent or all around avoid that duty.” 

It is well-documented that many inmates in jails and prisons receive substandard medical care.[3,5,6]. About 19% of inmates haven’t had a single health-related doctor visit since incarceration. The disjointed and weak infrastructure of incarceration health is especially life-threatening for people with chronic health conditions such as HIV. 

Sign that reads, "Medical neglect is cruel and unusual"
Photo Source: PBS News Hour

Incarcerated PLWH frequently have long delays in receiving medication, spotty administration of medication, or complete omission. This can result in drug resistance, which can make a person even sicker. In the case of Nicolas Overfield, because he was denied his medication, he progressed to AIDS.[2] His lack of proper care in jail also resulted in the failure of his body to fight off the encephalitis varicella-zoster virus that he contracted while incarcerated, which also contributed to his physical decline.[2]

Nicolas Overfield’s situation spotlights one of the contributing factors to poor prison healthcare, which is the outsourcing of prison healthcare to private contractors. Marcus J. Hopkins, founder & executive director of the Appalachian Learning Initiative (AAPLI), explains, “One of the biggest issues with carceral healthcare provision is that most of it occurs behind a wall of secrecy. As with most services, healthcare provision has been contracted out to private companies, such as Corizon and Wellcare, who use trade secrets laws—specifically the provisions that protect the negotiation of services and prices—to shield the exact services they provide.” 

This makes it hard to gather information since they are characteristically lax in reporting their data. A deep-diving Reuters study of over 500 jails revealed that from 2016-2018, jails relying on one of the five leading jail healthcare contractors had higher death rates than facilities where medical services are run by government agencies.[3] Often, some facilities, especially those in smaller jurisdictions with tighter budgets, will hire private contractors for ease of managing health services and to save money.[3]

Unfortunately, the means by which some private contractors save money is by denying care, such as not sending inmates to hospitals when care is needed. The contracts these private providers have sometimes do not have proper standards, staffing requirements, and protocols stipulating protocols for health monitoring and hospitalizations.[3] When inmates, especially those with chronic and mental health conditions, do not receive care, it is not only dangerous for their well-being but also the well-being of other inmates and staff. Inmates with documented mental health issues can be a danger to themselves and others when they are not effectively monitored and kept on their medications. Additionally, when inmates are not treated and screened for sexually transmitted diseases, diseases spread. Eventually, people in jails and prisons are released back into society. This is a danger to public health at large, releasing people with undocumented and uncontrolled diseases or ailments. 

Hand inside prison bars
Photo Source: The Lancet | Copyright © 2016 Sakhorn

The largest jail healthcare companies are Wellpath Holdings Inc., NaphCare Inc., Corizon, PrimeCare Medical Inc., and Armor Correctional Health Services Inc.[3] Wellpath is the company in charge of the jail where Nicolas Overfield was a pre-trial detainee. Not only is Wellpath private, but it is owned by a private equity firm, which would indicate that it has a targeted interest in saving money and making a profit.[3] Some private jail health contractors state that the levels of healthcare challenges of incarcerated populations are why they have higher death rates. However, studies have shown that when you control for the differences in the health of the overall population as compared to the general population, private prisons still have more deaths.[3]

Nicolas Overfield’s avoidable tragedy is a symbolic failure of justice. Ms. Moore-O’Neal expressed, “his incarceration sheds some light on the injustice that is our criminal legal system. The fact that he was even in jail because of a February 2022 arrest for failure to appear in court should have all of us appalled and ready to overhaul this entire system.” Many people like Nicolas Overfield sit in jails and suffer harm and neglect, sometimes fatally before they even make it to trial. Failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care is not only a legal issue but a human rights issue.

[1] Kandel, J. (2024, January 19). ‘A shocking failure’: Inmate died after jail medical staff denied him HIV medication for months, lawsuit alleges. Retrieved from https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/a-shocking-failure-inmate-died-after-jail-medical-staff-denied-him-hiv-medication-for-months-lawsuit-alleges/

[2] Complaint for Damages OVERFIELD v. WELLPATH, et al. (2024, January 16). Retrieved from https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24369518/overfield-v-wellpath-complaint.pdf

[3] Szep, J., Parker, N., Eisler, P., Smith, G. (2020, October 26). Special Report: U.S. jails are outsourcing medical care — and the death toll is rising. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2HG0MD/

[4] Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976).

[5] Levins, H. (2023, March 6). Reviewing The Flaws of U.S. Prisons and Jails’ Health Care System. Retrieved from https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/the-flaws-of-u-s-prisons-and-jails-health-care-system/

[6] Wang, L. (2022, June). Chronic Punishment: The unmet health needs of people in state prisons. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/chronicpunishment.html#insurance

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, September 21, 2023

340B Hypocrisy: The Inconvenient Truth Behind Why We Need to Reform This Vital Safety Net Program

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy
       Jen Laws, President & CEO, Community Access National Network

The 340B Drug Pricing Program (“340B”) is probably one of the most transformative public health programs providing lifesaving supports and services to people living with HIV in the United States, second only to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (“RWHAP”). As such, rigorous debate about the future of the program is not only healthy, but it is also paramount to its success. As patients (and patient advocates), it is our responsibility to demand accountability, transparency, and stability. There is universal agreement about the vital role 340B plays in improving access to healthcare. But for many – including ADAP Advocacy and the Community Access National Network – we contend that the program could be doing more…and better! The focus of the program should be on the patients, and not the Covered Entities, medical or service providers, or any other business enterprises making lots of money off it. That is the inconvenient truth behind why we need to reform this vital safety net program.

340B
Photo Source: CANN

Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) is a Drug Pricing Program established by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992. That year, Congress struck a deal with pharmaceutical manufacturers to expand access to care and medication for more patients; if pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted to be included in Medicaid’s coverage, then they’d have to offer their products to outpatient entities serving low-income patients at a discount. The idea was brilliantly simple. Drug manufacturers could have a guaranteed income from participation in the Medicaid program and Covered Entities could have guaranteed access to discounted medications. Congress set-up a payment system by way of rebates and discounts affording certain healthcare providers a way to fund much needed care to patients who could not otherwise afford it. 

“…to stretch scarce Federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” 
H.R. Rep. No. 102-384(II), at 12 (1992)

THAT is the legislative intent behind 340B. THAT is where some of us want to return 340B’s focus. THAT is why reform is coming!

Ironically, critics of the 340B reform movement – often motivated by self-preservation and protecting their ever-expanding budget and geographic footprint – are quick to attack the idea of the need for reforms. Sadly, they’re also quick to turn their criticism into personal attacks, including questioning the intentions, morals, and character of the people supporting reform. They charge, using Inspector Clouseau “gotcha” style rhetoric, that we’re in the “pockets” of the drug manufacturers because we accept their money to help with our patient advocacy and education (yet there is no “gotcha”, since this information is quite publicly available on our websites, annual tax returns, Guidestar, as well as frequent public commentary). 

Isn’t it funny how the “gotcha” mentality cannot accept the obvious, that maybe our interests align with the drug manufacturers because it is in the best interest of the patients. Drug manufacturers make products patients want and need. Ensuring funding flows in a way that expands patient access to medications does indeed benefit both patients and the drug manufacturers. It should be noted, this criticism tends to also neglect mentioning the interests of the entities challenging reform: anti-competitive consolidation among hospitals and pharmacies (leaving whole areas without services), increasing profits, paying for salaries unrelated to healthcare, and increasing administrative salaries are all excellent examples of why we’re left asking “Who is actually benefiting from this program?”

The truth of the matter is, aside from a growing list of patients, patient advocacy organizations, and drug manufacturers, there is a growing chorus calling for reform. Academia wants it (NEJM, Penn LDI, USC Schaeffer), economists want it (Nikpay, Gracia), national trade associations want it (NACHC, NTU), policy think tanks want it (CMPI, NAN), and even multiple news media outlets are suggesting it (Forbes, NYT, WSJ). Local activists are also increasingly fed-up with what they’re witnessing (Dinkins, Feldman, Winstead).

Dr. Diane Nugent, Founder & Medical Director of the Center for Inherited Blood Disorders, recently noted an opinion piece in the Times of San Diego, “A September 2022 analysis by the Community Oncology Alliance revealed that some hospitals participating in 340B price leading oncology medications nearly five times more than the price they paid. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions.”

But speaking of deep pockets, isn’t it also an inconvenient truth that the very folks fighting reform, and fighting improving the program so patients can benefit more directly from it, are the same folks financed by big hospital systems, and mega service providers abusing 340B intent?

A question often asked by advocates learning about 340B: “So, exactly how much money are we talking about here?”

$100 Billion
Photo Source: Business 2 Community

Well, we don’t really know…sort of. For Federal Grantees covered under 340B, their grant contracts require accounting of 340B rebates as part of their programmatic revenues. Those revenues are required to be re-invested in the program, which generated the income. This level of transparency is pretty much a “gold standard” that other Covered Entities (less maybe hemophiliac centers) in the 340B space are required to meet. That’s part of why we, and other advocates, are calling on minimum reporting requirements for hospitals, contract pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers (insurers covering medications) to begin providing some data. Clearing up the murkiness, if you will. What we do know is drug manufacturers reported more than $100 BILLION in 340B-related sales last year.

That’s concerning especially because “charity care” is declining and medical debt is a growing issue for more and more patients and their families. The Affordable Care Act mandated “charity care”, or “financial assistance”, to be offered by non-profit hospitals seeking to qualify as 340B entities but did not place any definitions behind the mandate, including any “floor” of how much charity care a hospital has to offer. 

Now, in all rhetoric opposing any type of transparency in 340B, hospitals tend to conflate their “uncompensated care” and “unreimbursed care” or “off-sets” for public health programs – these don’t necessarily reflect any “charity” being provided to patients. These things should be separated when considering what benefit hospitals provide a community. And under that lens, things get kind of ugly with far too many of the 340B hospitals reporting providing less than 1% of their operating costs as charity. When reviewing how much hospitals write off in bad debt, or going after patients who can’t afford care, often far exceeding those charity care levels, we’re left asking if the “non-profit” designation is really a declaration of concentrating “profits” by way of salaries to top executives rather than formal shareholders?

That bad debt shows up for patients as medical debt. And we need to be very specific here: according to the Urban Institute, some 72% of patients with medical debt owe some or all of that debt to hospitals. Meaning, what we call medical debt is really hospital debt. The situation is unarguably bad. This year alone the Los Angeles County Office of Public Health issued a report outlining for policymakers the role and responsibility hospitals have in driving medical debt and how increasing charity care might stem this problem. 

Medical Debt
Photo Source: Business Insider

As patients, and frankly as patient advocates who represent thousands like us, medical debt isn’t an issue that can be swept under the carpet. Entire communities avoid necessary care to protect their financial interests. We’ve personally watched our friends open GoFundMe accounts to cover medical expenses. We’ve helped our loved one’s cover food and light bills to not miss a medical bill. We also well recognize how negative credit reporting from medical debt can hurt people from getting rental housing or a car loan, or even simple necessities. And when thinking about how much we don’t know about what’s behind that $100 billion price tag, the fact that patients face these concerns on the regular is pretty obscene.

We do know there are plenty of good actors in the 340B space. Particularly, Federal Grantee Covered Entities, like Ryan White Clinics and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs). And we know they’re generally great actors because of that transparency in reporting and the oversight offered by their grant contracts. Ultimately, we’re not necessarily asking for a whole lot more than that for literally everyone else who stands to make a buck in the chain between drug manufacturers and patients. Indeed, that trust on Federal Grantees, particularly Ryan White Clinics and ADAPs, is part of why drug manufacturers restricting 340B sales held a carve out for these Federal Grantees. (To be fair and without much public fanfare, years ago, we – as in ADAP Advocacy and CANN – helped to negotiate these carve-outs as part of our advocacy. Our relationship with drug manufacturers isn’t a one-way street as detractors might try and sell you on. 

$100 billion is a lot of money! Is it too much to ask, “Why aren’t patients benefiting more directly from this ever-growing healthcare program?” Facts show that 340B revenues are soaring year after year, yet against the grim backdrop of consistently declining charity care in the impoverished communities needing the most help. To make matters worse, rising medical debt is crushing families. Patients deserve better. People living with HIV who depend on the RWHAP and 340B deserve better! And THAT is why we need reform.

Read our policy reform suggestions here.

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, August 24, 2023

Reflections from an HIV Advocate's Journey: Rev. Alexander Garbera

By: Rev. Alexander Garbera, Co-Chair, New Haven Mayor’s Task Force on AIDS 

Life is a circle.  I remember spiking high fevers and having strange rashes in the Summer of 1980 while working on a Psychology master’s degree at Stony Brook University. It was a mystery. Cell phones and the Internet did not exist as we know them today. Information was scarce, and LGBQT persons led a shadowy existence. It seemed that attempted suicides were on the rise, and I believed part of the problem was isolation and a general distrust of established counseling centers.   

I thought creating a dorm-based counseling service might help individuals struggling with gender and issues of sexuality more accessible. A poster hanging outside my dorm door announcing the first meeting was set on fire. It burned through, and if I had been sleeping at that time, I would probably not be writing this blog today. 

Newspaper clipping
Photo Source: Stony Brook Satesman Vol. 23 No. 61 3/14/1980

I was traumatized. The words of the security guard are imprinted in my brain: “You’re a big boy, you can handle it.” It wasn't until the past few years I’ve really become keenly aware of trauma and how it affects us. The counseling project was put on hold and full attention was given to completing my studies, graduation and corporate ladder climbing. 

Having always been health conscious, I regularly checked into a STD clinic every six months. Something seemed strange though around 1984. The Long Island free clinic was re-designed and once open cubicles were now fully shielded by plexiglass. Even-though I never tested positive for any STDs, I was told: “you should go to New York City where homosexuals go. I should go to a homosexual clinic.” I hadn’t the slightest clue why or where to go.  

Employment brought me to CT instead. I found a gay physician and buried myself in my work. When at a Boston training seminar, I met someone. He wanted to move to CT, and so we decided to begin a healthy relationship, starting off with the new HIV test that just came out in 1986. I tested positive and was shocked, after all, I never had tested positive for any STDs… my partner at the time was extremely supportive. He said it did ‘t make a difference to him as he was putting together a portable BBQ grill.   His test results came a week later, also positive. Thus, a journey began but the healthy relationship soon turned out to be anything but. He never wanted to talk about it and didn’t want anyone to know. He acted out by drinking and I acted out by trying to control his drinking.   It was a volatile drama that catapulted me into Al-anon to return the focus onto me and my own sanity. 

At that time New Haven had a very large, strong, vibrant Gay AA and Gay Al-Anon groups that would periodically have joint meetings and annual convention called a Round-Up. It was a godsend. People talked about everything, well almost everything. Nobody mentioned the words HIV or AIDS, and I knew I wasn’t the only one. There is an Al-Anon slogan “Let it Begin With Me” and so I did start talking about my HIV. First at local group meetings, then at Round-Ups in Connecticut and Provincetown, giving workshops on being HIV positive and in recovery. Over the years individuals would bring it up claiming it saved their life.   I was appreciative but always reminded them the life they saved was of their own doing. (I have issues with compliments)

I didn’t do it to help others so much as it was necessary to talk about the feelings of living with HIV, being ejected from a dentist after disclosing my status, navigating life. The gay physician I was seeing frowned when I mentioned taking vitamins and things to boost natural immunity, so I switched to the new HIV clinic at YALE New Haven Hospital.   

It was so new they initially did not have a physical space for people with HIV/AIDS. We were combined within the Gerontology clinic. So, there I was a young gay man in his early 30’s, with an oxygen tank breathing aerosolized pentamadine next to an elderly man hooked up to his oxygen tank looking at me very puzzled wondering what I was doing there.

It also seemed that I never got to see the same provider more than once and felt very disconnected from my own care. When I attended a talk by Dr. Gary Blick, MD who mentioned a more holistic, cutting edge and educational approach I knew that as the right match for me. 

Life is a circle. Thinking of that old man looking at me seems ironic. I am now a senior, over 65 – but not requiring assisted breathing yet.   

In the recent past there have been a slew of workshops/ seminars on HIV and aging, responding to the fact that most people living with HIV are living longer and are now over 50 years old. 

This may seem intuitive as medication’s become less toxic and easier to take. It is not as simple as one might assume. A relatively recent study created headlines that “HIV May Speed Up the Body’s Aging Process” 

Yet, I am not seeing much structural adaptation to our aging HIV population, and non-HIV related medical research tends to exclude people with HIV.   

Accelerated aging issues and increased susceptibility to conditions more prevalent for older persons is not news for those long-term HIV survivors actively engaged in managing their health outcomes. Just as issues of HIV stigma and social isolation echo what many elderly faces. 

The accelerated aging process is what horrified people in the early days of the pandemic — before HIV’s discovery — as young gay man was exhibiting symptoms and dying of rare diseases more typical in elderly populations, particularly around the Mediterranean region. Now that we understand more about HIV and people with HIV are living longer there seems to be much less sense of horror giving way to apathy and ageism.   

We didn’t have the luxury of apathy “back in the day”— a phrase I lifted from a young nurse asking me questions about the 1980’s before he was born. Death was in our face.  People are still dying, but in far fewer numbers. We have also become more clinical about death, even secretive under the cloak of HIPPA and it no longer sparks any outrage. 

Back then, radical right preachers said AIDS was sent from God to punish homosexuals and drug users  (which probably is still around however unspoken). My response was that if it was sent by God, it was sent as a spotlight on our will to live and love ourselves and each other. Perhaps a test of our compassion and readiness of our social and medical institutions.   

Alex Garbera, 2006
Picture: 2006

In a chapter title “Living with Insanity” from Stories From the Other Side: Thematic Memoirs I wrote: “I think HIV/AIDS is here to teach us a few lessons. My fear is that unless we learn them, it is not going to go away and something worse will come along if we keep our heads buried in the sand.”  This came from a metaphysical principle that the lesson never goes away until it is learned.

As a spotlight, HIV has and continues to shine light to many of our phobias and isms: homophobia, transphobia, sexphobia, racism, classism, colonialism, ageism (to name a few) and all the intersections where they inevitably meet.   

If HIV is viewed as a spotlight on aging, it needs a very wide lens. Covid-19 raised the social isolation alarm to a deafening silence.  It wasn’t too long ago that the surgeon warned that loneliness is as dangerous to one’s health and longevity as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. 

Upon hearing this and knowing the issues of increased susceptibility to certain illnesses and cancers correlated with HIV, the U.S. Surgeon General’s report almost made me want to smoke cigarettes.  

Of the many diverse long-term survivors, I know one of the shared themes is a strong unmet need for socialization, meaningful social interaction, intimacy, and lighthearted fun.

It is curious that in the early days of HIV there was less funding yet more community activities — at least in CT — such as weekend spiritual retreats, support groups, interfaith services, and healing circles. 

While it takes planning and resources to create relevant accessible senior support/socialization groups and creating supportive HIV senior housing, perhaps going back to the early days of HIV buddy programs would be a good/easy place to start?

Another difficult need is finding gerontological expertise in concert with expert HIV care. 

These structural changes require educating our aging HIV population as well as using trauma informed care to address complex post traumatic stressors (CPTSD) from accumulated of years of living with HIV. There are many levels of trauma and HIV stigma, and some can be very scarring, making isolation, however deadly, deceptively preferable. 

Very early on, when many PLWHAs were given only a few months to live, it was clear that survival alone was insufficient. Quality of life matters. 

The word “heal” means “to make whole.” We know what works, and in addition to medication supportive services such as housing, mental health, nutrition is crucial, just as addressing the disparities in health care and outcomes.  

There was a time when HRSA funded complimentary therapies such as medical massage, nutritional supplements, chiropractic care and acupuncture. These therapies helped PLWHAs deal with systemic inflammation, medication side effects, pain, and mobility issues.

With the war launched against opiate abuse I see very little of these alternatives coming back — and pain management an increasing nightmare. I wonder why the proceeds from opiate related lawsuits aren’t being channeled back into holistic therapies.

Quality of life also requires integrating life extension research factoring aging issues as well as the metabolic and inflammatory demands HIV incurs. Current programs directed at the health and well-being of clients such as nutritional programs need adjustments accordingly.  

HIV Aging issues are not academic. They may seem daunting, but the good news is there is much room for growth, change and novel approaches. 

Looking back at everything I would say that one should never underestimate the importance of being able to make a difference in one’s own life and others. Just as Margaret Mead said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

If people were terrified when young persons were getting old people’s diseases and now those young-ins are old, can we re-ignite, or even approach, the same level of urgency, action, and care?

Alex Garbera
Picture: 2023

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, August 17, 2023

Reflections from an HIV Advocate's Journey: Kamaria Laffrey

By: Kamaria Laffrey, Co-Executive Director at The Sero Project

Coming up on recognizing my 20th year of living with HIV in September, I have taken time to anchor myself in gratitude for the life I get to live. When I chose to be public about my status, I wasn’t seeking visibility to propel myself into any position in life, I simply didn’t want another Black, young mother like myself to go through what I went through. Educating about prevention is what started out my advocacy as I was called on to share my story at various events. I was always grateful to be with youth especially and keep up with many of those that I educated as they are adults and have families now. 

Kamaria Laffrey

The more I told my story over the years, re-disclosing and living through various levels of grief, shame, and trauma, I had to recognize I didn’t live in that space anymore. At 27, I realized I wasn’t the sheltered, scared, insecure, college girl that didn’t know she had a voice. That meant, my narrative had to shift. That meant, I no longer wanted to position myself in prevention education as a cautionary tale. That meant I finally saw my humanity on the level that I wanted others to see me, without the veil of stigma. That was key. 

Then, I doubled down on learning as much about HIV beyond prevention as I could. I focused on treatment adherence and began hearing about undetectable equals untransmittable. I signed up for mailing lists and participated in any free webinar I could to hear folks with years of experience talk about emerging issues and innovative ideas. I found myself showing up at local health events and if sexual health was on the agenda, I made sure to insert HIV. I took up space so that I could learn. 

Kamaria Laffrey protesting

It opened my eyes to intersectionality and bodily autonomy and I give credit to Positive Women’s Network and The Well Project for introducing me to building this framework in my advocacy. All of this eventually built the path that I am now in serving as the co-executive director of The Sero Project where we center PLHIV leadership to end the criminalization of HIV, mass incarceration, and racial and social injustice by supporting inclusive PLHIV networks to improve policy outcomes, advance human rights and promote healing justice.

When I hear people talk about ending the HIV epidemic, I pause and look for the words between the lines. Twenty years of living with anything can mold you, shape you and form your identity. I have spent 20 years advocating to be heard, valued, healthy, and sustained in my life and that takes a firm place in acknowledging a collective identity. Part of battling the stigma of HIV for me is to never forget who I was before my diagnosis, not just in remembering where I come from but remembering my dreams and goals, aspirations and hopes. I have always been an introspective person, so in my reflection, in my gratitude, I am always assessing, who is Kamaria when HIV ends?  

Kamaria Laffrey speaking

And that thought never terrifies me, but I am deeply concerned for my community because so many of us have our identities anchored to this diagnosis. I am concerned that when we cling to that, we sometimes get in our own way or jump on a hamster wheel of validation because we are afraid to step into a bold imagination of our future, a real-world and place where HIV doesn’t exist. Public health in concept should be forever, HIV shouldn’t be. 

So, for me, 20 years of living with HIV could have been done in secret and my life would not be what it is today. I am grateful to have met and worked alongside so many courageous people over the years. People who love to and are incredibly talented in their passion to cook, foster pets, braid hair, rock climb, collect Funko pop, create fashion lines, raise their children, garden, knit, and perform spoken word - vastly beautiful beings that have shown me living beyond a diagnosis of HIV and stigma is not just possible, but my right. Liberation is our right. Right?

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, August 10, 2023

Reflections from an HIV Advocate's Journey: Jax Kelly

By: David "Jax" Kelly, JD, MPH, MBA, President at Let's Kick ASS (AIDS Survivor Syndrome) Palm Springs

It was my first time waking up in a hospital bed. Seventeen years ago I was in a private room at the end of an unusually quiet maternity ward. Attached to a vein in my left arm was one of those drip bags that was supposed to rehydrate me. No flowers or cards. Not even my partner of 14 years.

Jax Kelly

But I was grateful he brought me here.  

It's unlikely that he brought me to that hospital out of gratitude. I already had been sick for weeks. A cough had lingered so long I could only sleep if I lay on my side at a certain angle. When I bent over in the shower, I had to make sure I took a deep enough breath so I could come back up. At the hospital I was shocked to discover I weighed 144 pounds. My home scale said "65" and I thought the first digital number wasn't working. It turned out the scale had been switched to read in kilograms. But there's nothing like being sick if you want to lose a few pounds!

In the hospital, I had time to assess a lot of things in my life, including my long-term relationship. Laying in a hospital bed and being told you have AIDS can change your world. I didn't have one of those "life flashing before my eyes" moments, but I do remember thinking that if I died I felt I had lived a life with many accomplishments. I could die happy. But with a new lease on life, I started thinking of other clichés: "life's too short", "live life to its fullest" and most of all, "clean house".

Jax Kelly

I began a journey with a therapist who helped me come to terms with my diagnosis. Physically, I had not seroconverted for over twenty years since the pandemic begun. Emotionally, I had witnessed the shock and horror of uncontrollable disease on a generation I was supposed to gain wisdom and grow old with.The therapy unpacked a lot but took a break when I felt strong enough to find my own path.

The partner is now the "ex," and a new boyfriend has become my husband. My gratitude is shared between my new loves: him and members of the HIV positive community. The weight I regained is thrown around to advocate for HIV and aging services. My breath is stronger and louder to create meaningful change. Now I live with purpose, focus, and ability.

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, August 3, 2023

Reflections from an HIV Advocate's Journey: Brady Etzkorn-Morris

By: Brady Etzkorn-Morris, Executive Assistant of Global Operations, Prevention Access Campaign

I couldn’t have been more excited when I moved to Nashville in the early spring of 2008. I had just turned 32 and had taken a corporate office job. My career path was falling into place and I felt as if I was finally getting a grasp on “adulting”. However, in July of that same year, my new primary care doctor walked into the room and informed me I had AIDS. Everything around me began to crumble and finding my footing seemed impossible. To help numb the shame and internal pain that came with my diagnosis, I turned to alcohol and methamphetamine which also led to numerous suicide attempts. Thankfully, I had family and friends that came to my rescue and they helped pull me from that dark place.

Brady Etzkorn-Morris

Having existed in that dark place for so long was one of the biggest reasons I decided to become public about my diagnosis. I realized that while that part of my own story had been written, I could help others to not let their stories sound similar to mine. I became a member of the Nashville Regional HIV Planning Council, Mr. Friendly Tennessee, and various other organizations where I could use my own life experience to create change and to help influence HIV policy on a local level.

Then in 2016, I learned about U=U (Undetectable = Untransmittable), which was the last tool I needed to shed the internalized HIV stigma I had carried since the day of my diagnosis. I was able to use my experiences to influence the Nashville Metro Public Health Department to adopt a resolution supporting the science behind U=U. A U=U Task Force was also formed under the umbrella of our EHE efforts and we became one of the few cities across the country with a local U=U Ambassador program.

Brady Etzkorn-Morris

When I reflect back on my past 15 years of living with HIV, I now see that so many of the things that I was afraid of happening, never materialized, and HIV gave me so much more than it ever took away from my life; the people I have met along my journey, the love I have received from the HIV community, and my current position working for Prevention Access Campaign has shaped who I am today; and I’m happy to say I truly love this version of myself.

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, June 1, 2023

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.

South Carolina state flag
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.

Chart showing flow between pharmacies and PBMs
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.