The AHA May 1 expressed concerns to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the payment process established under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, explaining ways it undermines the purpose of the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The Medicare Transaction Facilitator is intended to support data and payment exchanges among dispensing entities, plan sponsors and drug companies to implement drug discounts. However, CMS will only require dispensing entities, and not drug manufacturers, to participate in the payment module overseen by the MTF. This would allow drug manufacturers to establish their own payment systems outside of the MTF, making agency oversight more challenging. Additionally, CMS would let drug manufacturers make required discounted prices available retrospectively, which could jeopardize patient access to critical medications.

The AHA said the retrospective process established by the prior administration to effectuate the maximum fair price for selected drugs undermines congressional intent and frustrates the agency鈥檚 stated goals of lowering drug prices for patients and providers. The process is 鈥渃omplex, overly burdensome and operationally unworkable, particularly with respect to the critical 340B Drug Pricing Program,鈥 AHA wrote. 鈥淏y allowing drug manufacturers to deny upfront access to the MFP or the 340B price and force dispensing entities to participate in a retrospective process designed by the manufacturers themselves, this process unfairly disadvantages patients and the providers who serve them, in favor of drug manufacturers whose pricing practices necessitated legislative intervention in the first place.鈥

The AHA called for CMS to finalize a process ensuring efficient and prospective access to the MFP and 340B price for all dispensing entities furnishing selected drugs to eligible patients, as well as strict accountability measures to ensure drug manufacturer compliance with applicable laws. The AHA also urged CMS to require drug company participation in the MTF payment module and to disallow drug companies from unilaterally changing alternative payment arrangements after approval by CMS.

Related News Articles

Headline
The AHA today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, defending the Department of Health and Human Services鈥 decision to鈥
Headline
The Department of Health and Human Services today issued a notice announcing a 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program as a voluntary mechanism for qualifying drug鈥
Headline
Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., today introduced the 340B Patients Act, AHA-supported legislation that would codify 340B providers'鈥
Headline
The AHA July 16 filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in defense of the state鈥檚 340B contract pharmacy law prohibiting鈥
Headline
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri July 11 granted a motion by the state to dismiss claims by AbbVie that the state鈥檚 340B contract鈥
Headline
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee June 30 denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by AbbVie in its lawsuit against the state鈥檚鈥