Hundred dollar bills rolled up in a pill bottle

Ensuring 340B Discounts Trickle Down to Low-Income Patients

By Sravya Chary

The 340B prescription drug program was created with the original intent of providing discounted drugs to vulnerable patients. However, this program inadvertently created a revenue stream for for-profit retail pharmacies and intermediaries, which is cutting into the benefit received by low-income patients.

In a previous blog post, I discussed the pitfalls of a recent 340B advisory opinion released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The aim of this opinion was to provide more clarity regarding contract pharmacy use within the 340B program. However, the opinion ultimately did not alleviate the tension between pharmaceutical manufacturers and 340B representatives.

As one facet of a long-term solution to this ongoing issue, I proposed further investigation of 340B savings to analyze whether discounts are truly trickling down to vulnerable, low-income patients.

Read More

Pill pack.

HHS’s 340B Advisory Opinion: Helpful or Harmful?

By Sravya Chary

A recent advisory opinion released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) left many 340B advocates hungry for answers and pharmaceutical manufacturers frustrated.

The 340B program discounts the price of drugs paid by safety net hospitals to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The program is of critical importance to low-income and uninsured patients, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

HHS should take timely measures to resolve the concerns raised by the advisory opinion and resume the free flow of 340B discounted drugs to vulnerable patients.

Read More

U.S. Capitol Building at Night

How a Public Option Would Lead to Single Payer

By Abe Sutton

This past Democratic Party presidential primary season highlighted the differences between the health policy approaches championed by Senator Sanders and President Biden.

But, despite short-term distinctions and differences in services covered between Medicare For All’s single payer and a public option built on the Affordable Care Act, I believe that in the long run, these approaches are indistinguishable. This is because a public option would lead to single payer over time.

In this post, I walk through three ways that many public option proposals would pave the way for single payer.

Read More

Image of a gavel and stethoscope on top of each other

Reflections on Recent Medicaid Reform Efforts

By Abe Sutton

In the context of limited regulatory resources, Trump’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) prioritized allowing states to impose work requirements over Medicaid fiscal reform.

Now that the Trump Administration’s term in office has ended, it is worth exploring, with the benefit of hindsight, the value of this decision. Setting aside moral arguments used to criticize Medicaid work requirements, administering the requirements proved to be challenging, as did justifying them in court. Additionally, amid indications Medicaid work requirements will not be politically sustainable, it is worth considering whether Medicaid fiscal reform would have led to more significant taxpayer savings.

In this post, I provide an overview of Medicaid work requirements and explore some of the reforms included in the Medicaid fiscal reform proposal CMS ultimately chose not to implement.

Read More

U.S. Capitol Building at Night

Advantages of Using the Congressional Review Act to Revoke Health Care Waivers

By Matthew B. Lawrence

The Trump Administration has granted health care waivers that the Biden Administration will surely look to end, including work requirement waivers that the Supreme Court is going to consider in Azar v. Gresham. How the Biden Administration approaches this task may set precedents that last far into the future, which is one argument in favor of considering the Congressional Review Act as a potential path forward.

Waivers are a huge part of health policy. They entail a state seeking approval from the federal government to make various changes to ACA or Medicaid programs. Waivers are normally approved for several years at a time, and routinely renewed. They foster experimentation, and are also (or especially) a tool the federal government uses to steer national health policy by pushing states to adopt some reforms and not others, as I explain in a forthcoming article.

Over at the Yale Journal of Regulation blog, I describe how the Congressional Review Act (CRA) could potentially be used to revoke health care waivers (like community engagement, aka work requirement, waivers).

In brief, the CRA is a way Congress can change the law to revoke agency actions without the votes necessary to override a filibuster. The CRA might be a cleaner alternative for revoking health care waivers than administrative revocation by the Biden Administration. One big policy advantage of this route is that it wouldn’t come back to haunt health policy. Revocations through the administrative process would set a precedent that could undermine the stability of all waivers, but revocations through the CRA would not.

Read More

Xavier Becerra.

Questions for HHS Secretary Nominee Xavier Becerra

By Abe Sutton

With the 2020 election in the rearview mirror, the Senate has turned its attention to vetting President-elect Biden’s cabinet nominees. As Senators on the Finance and HELP committees prepare their questions for California AG Xavier Becerra, the nominee for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, they should consider probing in three areas to understand his health policy priorities.

In this post, I suggest Senators consider asking the nominee about his plans for the future of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), as well as how he aims to encourage healthcare competition and foster innovation.

His answers may be illuminative about his potential tenure as secretary, and should factor into Senators’ decisions on whether to vote for confirmation amid questions regarding his qualifications. Senators may also wish to weigh the nominee’s moral and human services priorities, topics not discussed in this post.

Read More

a pill in place of a model globe

Preparing for Antimicrobial Resistance: Vision and Social Science Mission of the INAMRSS Network

By Timo Minssen, Kevin Outterson, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Pedro Henrique D. Batista, Clare Chandler, Francesco Ciabuschi, Stephan Harbarth, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Ramanan Laxminarayan, Kathleen Liddell, Michael T. Osterholm, Lance Price, Steven J. Hoffman

NB: The below contribution is an extended version of our editorial that was recently published in the Bulletin of the Word Health Organization.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness of the urgent need to improve the design of health systems, as well as the practical implementation of new strategies and technical solutions to better prepare for future pandemics. These preparations must also consider harms secondary to the pandemic, including the resulting effects on antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

While drug-resistant infections pose a well-known and severe threat to human and animal health, the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding this already problematic situation.

Read More

Blue stethoscope with gavel on white background

Two Conceptions of the Right to Health Care: Video with Gabriel Scheffler

The Health Law Policy, Bioethics, and Biotechnology Workshop provides a forum for discussion of new scholarship in these fields from the world’s leading experts.

The workshop is led by Professor I. Glenn Cohen, and presenters come from a wide range of disciplines and departments.

In this video, Gabriel Scheffler gives a preview of his paper, “Health Care Reform and Two Conceptions of the Right to Health Care,” which he will present at the Health Law Policy workshop on November 30, 2020. Watch the full video below:

image of the US Supreme Court

What the Supreme Court’s ACA Ruling Might Mean for Nonprofit Hospitals

By Jacob Madden

California v. Texas, a pending Supreme Court case that concerns the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s individual mandate, could have profound implications for the standards to which nonprofit hospitals are held.

The ACA’s individual mandate requires people to have health insurance or otherwise pay a penalty. While the Court previously upheld the individual mandate as being constitutional under Congress’ taxation power in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, it may not do so again. For one, the 2017 Trump tax cuts effectively eliminated the individual mandate’s penalty, raising the question of whether the individual mandate is still a valid exercise of Congress’ taxation power. And conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, filling the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, has significantly changed the composition of the court.

If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, the rest of the ACA could be in jeopardy, depending on the specifics of the ruling. The Court has several options: sever the individual mandate from the ACA and keep the ACA alive, strike down the ACA in part, or strike down the ACA entirely.

The immediate concern, should the Court strike down the ACA entirely, is that tens of millions of Americans likely would lose their health insurance and other protections afforded by the law. Another, albeit lesser known concern, is that we would lose § 501(r).

Read More

Woman holding sign that reads "I can't breathe."

Anti-Bias Training is Needed to Counter the Public Health Threat of Systemic Racism

By Megan J. Shen

With the recent confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, many public health issues are seemingly on the line, including the Affordable Care Act, women’s reproductive rights, and access to in vitro fertilization. But Coney Barrett’s lack of awareness of the rampant, systemic racism in the U.S. – an oversight that generally was left out of the flurry of media coverage around her confirmation – is symptomatic of an even more pervasive and dangerous public health threat.

Senator Cory Booker’s questioning of Judge Amy Coney Barrett during her Supreme Court Confirmation hearings revealed her apparent lack of awareness of systemic racism. Booker brought up Coney Barrett’s ruling on a workplace discrimination case.

“This employee claimed that he had been subjected to hostile work environment, and that the supervisor called him the N-word,” Booker said, “But you ruled that the employee had failed to make the case that he had been fired in retaliation for his complaints about race discrimination.”

This instance is one of the clearest demonstrations of the systemic racism prevalent in the U.S. due, in large part, to a lack of anti-racist training and education.

Read More