340B and how a middleman company profits like a king

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

sloh

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
1,756
Reaction score
2,520
Really good coverage that I can’t find anyone/anywhere else discussing.

Gift article link here:


“Twenty years ago, the federal government chose Apexus to manage what was then a small program, negotiating with drug distributors and manufacturers to secure better prices and access to medications. But Apexus is allowed to collect a fee for almost every drug sold under the program, giving the company an incentive to help hospitals and clinics capture as many prescriptions as possible.
- Its “purchasing optimization team” shows hospitals how they can make more money by buying different drugs.
- A certification program and an Apexus-run “university” trains providers in boosting earnings.
- Apexus employees give advice that broadly interprets the rules of the program so hospitals can claim additional patients and drugs.

The Health Resources and Services Administration, an agency within H.H.S. that oversees the program, declined to answer detailed questions from The Times. But in a statement, a spokeswoman said the agency “conducts rigorous oversight of all contracts,” and “to our knowledge, Apexus has not violated” its contract.

Established in 1992, the 340B program essentially requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer discounts on outpatient drugs to hospitals and clinics that treat a greater share of low-income and uninsured patients.

The hospitals then can charge insurers and patients the standard price and keep the profits. Although the money is supposed to encourage care for impoverished patients, there are few rules to enforce that.

Patients rarely know they are part of this system. Their prescriptions can be counted as 340B when they get outpatient treatment at a hospital or clinic that qualifies for the program, regardless of the patients’ own income or insurance status. The provider can continue to make money off the patients’ future outpatient prescriptions, even if they get them somewhere else.

Apexus has had contracts to handle the program since the early 2000s. The government does not pay Apexus — instead, drugmakers and distributors pay the company a small percentage of sales.

Based in Irving, Texas, it is a subsidiary of Vizient, a private business owned by hospitals that negotiates a range of health care discounts. Apexus was established as a small nonprofit in 2007 but became a for-profit company in 2014.

Around the same time, 340B began to explode for a number of reasons. More hospitals qualified for the program after the Affordable Care Act expanded the number of people on Medicaid. Other health care systems qualified after acquiring hospitals and clinics in poor areas. Some, already eligible for 340B, bought up practices that used high-margin drugs, like oncology clinics. And a government rule change meant hospitals could make money from prescriptions filled at a greater number of pharmacies.

the rules governing the program are ambiguous, and Apexus offers broad interpretations. Apexus has advised hospitals that they can mine records as far back as 36 months for eligible patients they may have missed. Apexus employees have shown hospitals how to maximize the number of pharmacies they work with, boosting the number of prescriptions that can qualify for discounts. About eight years ago, Apexus began selling a $750 course for people to become “certified experts” in 340B. It started a business to give hospitals better access to specialty drugs — for conditions like cancer, H.I.V. and autoimmune diseases — which are major drivers of 340B’s growth. That company, Acentrus, helped hospitals and clinics provide data to manufacturers in exchange for deeper discounts and access to those drugs. The company charges 3 percent in fees for a line of generic drugs that are managed and provided by drug distributors, according to former employees. Apexus simply provides access to the health systems. For the last decade, Apexus has earned millions of dollars on drug purchases made outside the 340B program: Because not all outpatient drugs qualify for 340B discounts, hospitals must stock their pharmacies with medication purchased through different channels. Apexus acts as a middleman, making fees off those transactions. In its statement, Apexus said its federal contract did not preclude it from developing other businesses, as long as they were not in conflict with the terms of the agreement. Regulators were aware of these ventures, the company said, noting that its specialty drug business, Acentrus, was in “no way associated with” the 340B program.”

Members don't see this ad.
 
Seems like the overly easy solution would be just to eliminate/delete the 340B program. Ya their will be losers. I know easy to say probably nearly impossible to implement given the way Congress operates.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Seems like the overly easy solution would be just to eliminate/delete the 340B program. Ya their will be losers. I know easy to say probably nearly impossible to implement given the way Congress operates.

Pharma the biggest lobbyist by a very large margin.
 

Pharma the biggest lobbyist by a very large margin.
Pharma actually gets screwed by 340b. Selling drugs to hospitals at an artificially lower price which ends up getting used on patients who aren't necessarily low SES either.

It's really a strange thing. AHA has pretty strong lobbyists too
 

Pharma the biggest lobbyist by a very large margin.
1737926452343.png
 
I doubt that they get screwed.

 
It is consolidation that makes this program an abuse instead of a service IMO.

Large systems negotiate preferable rates from private payors (we all know this).

Smaller systems can't and are often in locales where payor is close to 80% Medicare/Medicaid.

340B makes infusion services for small hospitals much more profitable and a more secure anchor for the whole system.

But...you need to meet the thresholds for Medicaid patients. In my system, payor is overwhelmingly Medicare but our Medicaid numbers do not meet threshold for 340B status. This means a huge difference in terms of profitability and even in terms of collaboration opportunities.

Large systems may qualify for 340B by having large networks that include enough medicaid patients (typically not cancer patients, but sometimes, often OB/GYN or early life care patients).

MSKCC qualifies for 340B status, my community hospital does not.

I think numeracy is important...regarding the above graph of lobbying contributions...please put in context to the donations of a single donor in the last presidential election as well as the expenditure for a single cultural wedge issue advertisement during the last presidential election cycle. Both of these are in the ballpark of total pharmaceutical lobbying.
 
I think numeracy is important...regarding the above graph of lobbying contributions...please put in context to the donations of a single donor in the last presidential election as well as the expenditure for a single cultural wedge issue advertisement during the last presidential election cycle. Both of these are in the ballpark of total pharmaceutical lobbying.
Agree about numeracy but I think you are really highlighting (and perhaps missing) context.

In the last few cycles there have been large contributions from single (Musk, Zuckerberg, Soros) or small groups of donors on both sides that can influence elections; especially presidential elections.

340b is a law crafted and approved by legislators (with "help" from industry lobbyists); not an executive order from the president. BigPharma is always gonna complain but they are doing just fine.
 
Agree about numeracy but I think you are really highlighting (and perhaps missing) context.

In the last few cycles there have been large contributions from single (Musk, Zuckerberg, Soros) or small groups of donors on both sides that can influence elections; especially presidential elections.

340b is a law crafted and approved by legislators (with "help" from industry lobbyists); not an executive order from the president. BigPharma is always gonna complain but they are doing just fine.
Agree big pharma doing fine. Agree that legislative initiatives influenced by industry are their own animal. I would also state that we should not consider our system as providing high value over all.

Finally, I agree that 340B has been abused. It was implemented in 1992 and originally had 500 participating hospitals. It likely served as a legitimate anchor for hospital systems in poor areas at that point in time. Since around 2000, things have gone bad. A good reference that reveals some of the shi&%y behavior of small legislatures presently.


But this is all part of the sausage making process that we have become accustomed to. Late stage capitalism perhaps, high inefficient and contributes to the consolidation of wealth among the few (systems and people). Lots of ambitious people working in industry models that are all about regulatory capture (see original post).

And therein lies my highlighting. At some point consolidation of wealth reaches a critical point where all we are left with is a cult of personality.

The US Pharmaceutical industry was valued at under 600B in 2023. That is of the same order of magnitude as Elon Musk's personal valuation presently.

We incurred a 6% drop in pro fees payment per Medicare schedule last year....what if its 50%?

Also, while 340B has clearly been abused, and it's dissolution would actually help my hospital from a competitive standpoint, I have no doubt that is is propping up quite a few of our "smaller" employers. Just be aware, your contract negotiations are in fact impacted by your systems profitability.

Volatile times ahead. (Doesn't mean it will be all bad).

I do agree that 340B should be gotten rid of, or at least radically reworked.
 
Agree big pharma doing fine. Agree that legislative initiatives influenced by industry are their own animal. I would also state that we should not consider our system as providing high value over all.

Finally, I agree that 340B has been abused. It was implemented in 1992 and originally had 500 participating hospitals. It likely served as a legitimate anchor for hospital systems in poor areas at that point in time. Since around 2000, things have gone bad. A good reference that reveals some of the shi&%y behavior of small legislatures presently.


But this is all part of the sausage making process that we have become accustomed to. Late stage capitalism perhaps, high inefficient and contributes to the consolidation of wealth among the few (systems and people). Lots of ambitious people working in industry models that are all about regulatory capture (see original post).

And therein lies my highlighting. At some point consolidation of wealth reaches a critical point where all we are left with is a cult of personality.

The US Pharmaceutical industry was valued at under 600B in 2023. That is of the same order of magnitude as Elon Musk's personal valuation presently.

We incurred a 6% drop in pro fees payment per Medicare schedule last year....what if its 50%?

Also, while 340B has clearly been abused, and it's dissolution would actually help my hospital from a competitive standpoint, I have no doubt that is is propping up quite a few of our "smaller" employers. Just be aware, your contract negotiations are in fact impacted by your systems profitability.

Volatile times ahead. (Doesn't mean it will be all bad).

I do agree that 340B should be gotten rid of, or at least radically reworked.
Agree with all of the above. I am out of this mess in June and will be on the other side.
 
Top