New 340B proposals put safety-net services on the line: Here's what to watch
Industry Buzz
There is a financial incentive for hospitals to enter into the 340B program and enhance their revenue stream. There is no correlation between the magnitude of profits that they retain from this program [and] the amount of funds allocated to the care of financially vulnerable patient populations.
—Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, via Oncology News Central
Hospitals... should have to show how that money is actually helping patients. We need … more meaningful reporting standards, and probably some minimum expectations around how much of that revenue must be returned to the community in [the] form of direct patient benefit.
—Robert Popvian, PharmD, MS, via a podcast
A federal drug discount program has become a growing flashpoint among hospitals, drugmakers, and lawmakers as new state and federal proposals could affect prescribing, hospital finances, and outpatient drug access.
Created in 1992, the 340B Drug Pricing Program requires drug manufacturers that participate in Medicaid to provide discounted outpatient medications to eligible hospitals and clinics serving vulnerable patients.[]
Hospitals can use the savings to expand services and offset uncompensated care.[][] Participating hospitals, health centers, and contracted pharmacies now account for a substantial share of outpatient drug purchasing.[]
Related: Docs call FDA approval without an RCT 'truly bananas.' What precedent does it set for evidence standards?Why clinicians should care
For outpatient physicians and hospitalists, the 340B program is increasingly tied to operations.
Many health systems use 340B savings to provide services in mental health clinics, rural outreach, free vaccines, and medication management programs.[] Hospital leaders say cuts could reduce services in rural and safety-net settings.[]
Pharmacists also face growing compliance burdens, including tracking eligible prescriptions, avoiding duplicate Medicaid discounts, and managing contracted pharmacies.[][]
Doctors practicing in hospital-owned outpatient clinics may see growing scrutiny around prescribing patterns and site-of-care decisions. Critics argue the 340B program has incentivized hospital consolidation and costlier outpatient care.[]
Research on the program has been mixed. Some studies suggest that 340B hospitals provide important safety-net services and expanded access to care, while others question whether the program savings consistently reach underserved patients.[][]
“There is a large financial incentive for hospitals to enter into the 340B program and enhance their revenue stream,” Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president of policy and strategy for Texas Oncology in Austin, told Oncology News Central. “Unfortunately, there is no correlation between the magnitude of profits that they retain from this program [and] the amount of funds allocated to the care of financially vulnerable patient populations.”[]
The legislation that could reshape 340B
Several proposals could reshape how the program operates.
At the federal level, lawmakers have discussed adding stricter reporting requirements for how hospitals use 340B savings, tightening eligibility standards, and increasing oversight of contract pharmacy arrangements.[]
Drugmakers have pushed to limit the use of contract pharmacies, arguing that the structure lacks transparency and contributes to duplicate discounts. Multiple companies have already imposed restrictions, triggering ongoing litigation and regulatory disputes.[]
State-level legislation is also gaining momentum. Minnesota is considering laws that would prohibit manufacturers from restricting contract pharmacy access for 340B participants. Supporters say these laws protect rural and underserved patients; opponents argue they expand a program that already lacks accountability.[]
“Hospitals taking in hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in 340B-related revenue, should have to show how that money is actually helping patients,” Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer at the Global Healthy Living Association, said in an episode of his podcast. “We need clearer definitions of what charity care is, more meaningful reporting standards, and probably some minimum expectations around how much of that revenue must be returned to the community in [the] form of direct patient benefit.”[]
Related: Could your cost-saving advice be sabotaging your patients' deductibles?What to watch next
Hospitals could lose flexibility in how they use 340B savings.
Reduced reimbursement or tighter pharmacy restrictions could affect specialty services and access to outpatient medication, particularly in oncology, infectious disease, and rural medicine.[]
Physicians working in large health systems may also see increased internal compliance oversight as regulators and manufacturers continue challenging how the program is administered.
The bottom line is that changes to the 340B program could directly influence how hospitals deliver outpatient care and how clinicians manage vulnerable patient populations.