By the numbers: Contract pharmacy participation in the 340B program
The 340B contract pharmacy policy needs to be revisited as part of broader patient-centered changes to the program.
The 340B contract pharmacy policy needs to be revisited as part of broader patient-centered changes to the program.
There are many things that set the 340B program apart from other federal prescription drug programs, namely that patients are not the primary beneficiary. While in other programs, patients qualify for Medicaid or Medicare based on clear eligibility criteria, hospitals and clinics qualify for 340B based on very loose criteria and then receive discounts on many medicines without appropriate safeguards. Those entities decide if they want to share any of those discounts with patients since it isn’t required under the 340B program.
Another thing that sets 340B apart? It has been flooded by for-profit retail pharmacies even though it was intended for non-profit entities providing care to vulnerable patients. These pharmacies contract with 340B participating hospitals and clinics to dispense 340B discounted medicines. They share in the discounts and, again, have zero requirements that they use those discounts to help patients.
Recent research looking at the location of contract pharmacies adds to our concerns. An analysis by Xcenda found that only a quarter of contract pharmacies affiliated with 340B disproportionate share hospitals are in areas deemed as medically underserved areas. Similarly, a study published in the American Journal of Managed Care found “growth of contracts with 340B hospitals was uncorrelated with uninsured rates, poverty rates, or areas of medical underservice.”
Here’s a closer look at contract pharmacies.
The 340B contract pharmacy policy needs to be revisited as part of broader patient-centered changes to the program.