2/ “The 340B program was established in response to concerns among safety-net providers regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which was enacted in 1990 and required manufacturers to offer their lowest prices to the Medicaid program.”
3/ “An inadvertent effect of [Medicaid Drug Rebate] policy was that safety-net providers lost access to the discounts they had previously received from drug manufacturers. The 340B program was intended to restore discounts to providers caring for low-income and uninsured people.”
4/“Because of the size and growth of the 340B program, manufacturers have, over time, increased the prices of their products to account for the required discounts. Health care systems have restructured service delivery, seemingly to maximize their profits under the 340B program.”
5/ “Despite the original intent of the program to support charity care, provider participation in the program wasn't found to be associated with the provision of uncompensated care, expanded delivery of low-profit services, or lower mortality in low-income populations.”
6/ “The [#340B] program has shifted from one that supported hospitals caring for the neediest patients to one that increases margins for a range of hospitals.”
7/ “Now that taxpayers will once again bear billions of dollars in payments related to the #340B pro-gram, it's worth evaluating whether this provision still confers a meaningful benefit for the public.”
8/ “When the program was established more than 30 years ago, it represented a limited remedy for a selected group of providers.”
9/ “Although advocates have imputed broad policy goals for the #340B program based on its original focus on safety-net providers, none of these goals were translated into statutory obligations for participating providers.”
10/ “Considering the broad and perverse effects this program has had on the organization and cost of health care, there seems to be little justification for maintaining it in its current form.”
🧵”The approval process health insurers impose on medical services or drugs is generating a toll that exceeds the purported benefits, according to a physician survey released today by @AmerMedicalAssn and shared in a letter to federal health officials.”
2/ For an infographic of the survey results, please see👇
3/ “While health insurers claim prior authorization requirements are used for cost and quality control, a vast majority of physicians say authorization controls lead to unnecessary waste and avoidable patient harm.”
“The AMA already has serious concerns about #PBM business practices that can have a detrimental impact on patients’ access to and cost of prescription drugs.”
“Hospitals and doctors strongly believe that no patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill and that patients should be kept out of the middle of any billing disputes between providers and commercial health insurance companies.”
continued 👇
3/“The AHA & AMA fully support the lawsuit just filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas which challenges the government’s August 2022 final rule (tinyurl.com/ycypc2fa) regarding the No Surprises Act’s independent dispute resolution process.”
🧵👏👏 TY @RepBera @RepLarryBucshon for introducing HR 8800, the “Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022.”
This would give critical support to physicians who, w/release of the proposed rule for the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, again face payment cuts.
2/ Read: Across-the-board Medicare physician pay cuts are wrong way forward
3/ The bipartisan legislation would provide relief from the scheduled 4.42% Medicare conversion factor payment cut and offer stability as the @AmerMedicalAssn works to improve the #Medicare payment system.
“…PBMs make up an oligopoly of rich, vertically integrated conglomerates that routinely prey on health care practices, providers, and their patients.”
2/ “PBMs have done this by overwhelmingly abusing their responsibility to protect Americans from this country’s drug pricing crisis, instead exploiting the opacity throughout the nation’s drug supply chain to enrich themselves.”
3/ “[The report] explores how the recent levels of consolidation among PBMs and health insurers is adversely impacting #cancer care, fueling drug costs, all while allowing for massive profits for #PBMs and health insurance companies.”