Tag: 340B

white pills spilling out of orange plastic pill bottle onto hundred dollar bills.

Merck Price Negotiation Lawsuit May Face Same Obstacles as 340B Takings Claims

Laura Dolbow Leave a comment

By Laura Dolbow

Merck recently filed a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Medicare price negotiation program created by the Inflation Reduction Act. Under this program, HHS will select a small number of single source drugs for price negotiation. Merck alleges that the price negotiation program operates as a price control because it effectively requires manufacturers to accept the maximum fair price as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Merck argues that this form of price regulation charts a “radical new course” for Medicare that violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But the price negotiation program is not the first time that Congress has placed a restriction on the prices that Medicare program participants can charge. And Merck’s lawsuit is not the first suit that has alleged that such price regulations are unconstitutional takings. Drug manufacturers recently made similar claims in litigation involving the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Two district courts rejected those claims, highlighting several obstacles that Merck’s takings claim may face as well.

Read More

Bill of Health - American currency (50, 100, 20) on a wooden table next to pills and spilling bottle of pharmaceuticals

Many Hospitals Receiving Discounted Drugs May Not Offer Patients Pharmaceutical Assistance

Temple University Center for Public Health Law Research Leave a comment

By Amy Cook, JD, Jonathan Larsen, JD, MPP, and Sabrina Ruchelli, JD

Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act requires that pharmaceutical manufacturers give discounts on specified outpatient drugs to certain covered entities who typically serve low-income or otherwise underserved patients, including hospitals and clinics.

However, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are no measures built into the program to assure that 340B program discounts are being used to support care for low-income populations, let alone to improve access to medicines discounted through the program.

Read More

A male pharmacist is examining a drug from a pharmacy inventory.

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

Ameet Sarpatwari Leave a comment

By Ameet Sarpatwari, Alexander Egilman, Aviva Wang, and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of April. The selections feature topics ranging from a discussion of manufacturer’s restricted delivery of 340B drugs to contract pharmacies and ensuing litigation, to an analysis mapping the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products, to an evaluation of the clinical benefit of novel drugs approved in the U.S. from 2018-2019. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

gavel on top of a pile of bills and pills

Federal Court Halts Implementation of 340B Dispute Resolution Rule

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

By Sravya Chary

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s recent decision to grant Eli Lilly’s motion for a preliminary injunction rightfully halted the implementation of a dispute resolution rule for the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

The Alternate Dispute Resolution Final Rule (“ADR Final Rule”), issued on December 10, 2020, attempted to settle oft-occurring battles between pharmaceutical manufacturers and 340B covered entities. A few weeks later, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a 340B advisory opinion defining the department’s understanding of the statute.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established by Congress in 1992 with the intent to stretch federal resources to serve the nation’s most vulnerable patients. In practice, however, the program has deviated from its original intent.

Read More

Hundred dollar bills rolled up in a pill bottle

Ensuring 340B Discounts Trickle Down to Low-Income Patients

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

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?

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

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

pills

Cuts to 340B Drug Reimbursement May be Harmful During COVID-19

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

By Sravya Chary

On October 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided not to revisit two rulings that upheld Medicare reimbursement cuts for hospitals that participate in the 340B program.

The 340B program provides drugs at discounted prices to hospitals that primarily help under-served populations. Slashing Medicare reimbursement for safety-net hospitals that participate in the program may have devastating effects on the individuals who rely on these hospitals for discounted drugs and care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read More

Pile of colorful pills in blister packs

Duplicate Discounts Threaten the 340B Program During COVID-19

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

By Sravya Chary

The 340B program, which provides discount drugs to safety-net hospitals, faces an uncertain future due to revenue leakage faced by pharmaceutical manufacturers and increased demand spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the last few months, growing demand for 340B drugs and hard-to-monitor billing issues have placed an immense and unforeseen financial burden on pharmaceutical manufacturers. In response, some pharmaceutical manufacturers have threatened to withhold 340B drugs from contract pharmacies, thus limiting access to steeply discounted drugs for eligible patients.

Read More

Main Entrance Of Modern Hospital Building With Signs.

To Address COVID-19 Disparities, 340B Hospitals Need More Flexibility

Sravya Chary Leave a comment

By Sravya Chary

Many racial minorities and low-income individuals rely on 340B hospitals and associated child sites for access to discounted drugs and charity care.

In 1992, Congress enacted the 340B program as an avenue of access to prescription medication for “the nation’s most vulnerable patient populations.” Hospital savings incurred from purchasing 340B drugs at a steep discount are invested in charity care programs to enhance patient services and access to care.

The 340B program is an essential component of the COVID-19 response. Increased flexibility for 340B covered entities is necessary to address disparities faced by marginalized communities.

Read More

PhRMA Sues HHS (Again) For Trying To Expand 340B Discounts To Orphan Drugs

rachelsachs Leave a comment

By Rachel Sachs

For all those who have been following the ongoing fight between pharmaceutical companies and HHS over the 340B Program’s coverage of orphan drugs (I know you’re out there), last week PhRMA filed a new complaint challenging HRSA’s interpretive rule on the subject under the APA. For all those who are not (but should be) paying attention to this battle, here’s what’s happening.

The 340B Program allows certain health care organizations (such as disproportionate share hospitals) to purchase drugs for their patients at significant discounts. The Affordable Care Act expanded the number and kind of organizations that can participate in the 340B Program, but it also added an exception stating that most of the covered organizations could not obtain 340B discounts for orphan drugs — or, as the statute puts it, for “a drug designated … for a rare disease or condition.” 42 U.S.C. § 256b(e).

The battle between PhRMA and HHS is over is whether this statutory exclusion applies to orphan drugs or orphan indications. There are many drugs which have received an orphan designation for certain indications but are also FDA-approved and prescribed more generally for non-orphan indications. In such a case, can a 340B facility purchase the drug at a discount if it is being prescribed for a non-orphan indication?  Read More