Eye on 2024: Federal Action on PBMs, 340B, and Telehealth
2024 stands as a pivotal year in federal healthcare policy, potentially overshadowed by a highly contentious and partisan political landscape during an election year. The backdrop includes ongoing budget fights, looming cuts threatening vital healthcare programs, and a shifting balance of power in Congress thanks to at least one member being removed from office and a couple of high-profile resignations, further complicating the path to meaningful bipartisan legislation. Amidst this chaos, key focus areas such as reforms related to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and the 340B Drug Pricing Program, as well as telehealth expansion are at the forefront of potentially significant policy shifts, all while renewed attacks on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) add to the uncertainty of healthcare reform in an election year.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Pushing for Transparency and Market Reform
PBMs have come under increasing scrutiny in the U.S. healthcare system, particularly regarding their role in prescription drug pricing. Dominated by just three key players, PBMs face criticism for opaque pricing models and practices that may contribute to rising drug costs. The Lower Costs More Transparency Act of 2023 represents a bipartisan effort to enhance transparency in PBM operations, requiring detailed disclosure of pricing and costs. The future of this legislation depends on whether the Senate will adopt the House version or introduce its own bill, with several Senate committees recently advancing similar proposals.
Experts, including those from the Brookings Institution, caution that while increased transparency is a positive step, it may only modestly impact overall drug costs. The effectiveness of these reforms hinges on addressing the complex relationships among PBMs, drug manufacturers, insurers, and healthcare providers.
The current PBM model, often criticized for incentivizing high drug list prices through 'spread pricing,' is under review. Proposed reforms, like those in the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, aim to eliminate spread pricing and ensure that rebates and savings directly benefit plan sponsors and patients.
Additionally, the PBM market's consolidation and “vertical integration” (or self-dealing by another name) raises concerns about market power and its influence on drug pricing. With a few firms controlling a significant market share, PBMs' market power could lead to disproportionate profits, underscoring the need for regulatory measures to ensure fair pricing and competition.
As the healthcare community navigates these reforms, the focus remains on ensuring that changes in PBM operations directly benefit patients, especially those in underserved communities disproportionately affected by high drug costs.
340B Program: Addressing Challenges for Future Reforms
The 340B Drug Pricing Program, essential for providing discounted drugs to healthcare providers serving underserved communities, is at a critical juncture. Facing legal challenges and calls for reform, 340B is under scrutiny, particularly regarding its operational complexities and the definition of a 340B-eligible patient. This definition, crucial in determining who accesses discounted drugs, has been a point of contention, with legal interpretations suggesting a need for broader inclusivity, as noted in Bloomberg Law's analysis.
Advocates, including those supporting people living with HIV, recognize the program's significant impact but seek more direct patient benefits, a sentiment echoed in CANN's blog. The current model's effectiveness in providing direct patient benefits, such as reduced drug prices, is being questioned.
Efforts for greater transparency and accountability are intensifying, with state-level initiatives aiming to ensure that program savings directly benefit patients, especially those with financial barriers to medication access, as highlighted in Avalere's insights. State authority to regulate 340B, however, is still in question as Arkansas and Louisiana face lawsuits around recently passed legislation.
Amidst these challenges, 340B's commitment to aiding underserved communities remains paramount. Collaborative efforts among lawmakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups are crucial to reform the program, ensuring it continues to provide equitable access to care and addresses key issues like medical debt.
Telehealth: A Defining Year in 2024
2024 is set to be a defining year for telehealth, a sector transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This year will witness crucial legislative decisions that could shape the future of access to telehealth services.
At the forefront are policy decisions regarding Medicare reimbursement flexibilities for telehealth, as noted in Modern Healthcare's article. Set to expire in 2024, these flexibilities are vital for the continued viability of telehealth, particularly benefiting small practices and those in rural or underserved areas.
Another key development is the anticipated update to remote prescribing rules for controlled substances. The decisions made will crucially balance the need for accessible care with the regulation of controlled substances, impacting how telehealth can be used for medication prescribing.
As 2024 unfolds, the healthcare community faces the challenge of navigating these legislative and policy changes to maximize the benefits of telehealth in patient care and access.
Budget Battles: Critical Healthcare Advocacy Amid Congressional Challenges
The intense budget battles in Congress, underscored by proposed cuts in the House L-HHS Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5894), are central to healthcare advocacy. These cuts, amounting to $767 million, pose a significant threat to essential HIV/AIDS programs, risking the reversal of years of progress in treatment and care. These programs are not just healthcare initiatives; they are vital lifelines providing necessary medications and support to individuals living with HIV.
The Coalition on Human Needs has expressed grave concerns about potential severe cuts to non-defense discretionary appropriations (NDD) for fiscal year 2024, which could drastically impact a range of vital services. In their sign-on letter to Congressional leaders, they warn that these cuts, potentially up to 9% according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would significantly harm programs essential for public health, education, environmental protection, and more, affecting diverse communities across America. The Coalition advocates for completing the FY24 appropriations process with a bipartisan approach, emphasizing the need to protect these crucial investments that support the nation's most vulnerable populations and uphold the commitment to public health and welfare.
Any major legislative changes will be at the mercy of presidential election year politics, and the congressional balance of power will only make it harder. Issues like PBM reform, or 340B reform, and Telehealth expansion will probably receive a lot of attention via hearings and news clippings, but legislative action remains in doubt.
Payers Seek to Expand Telehealth, in Libraries
In Louisiana's public libraries, a significant transformation is taking place. Amidst the traditional setting of books and quiet study areas, telehealth booths are emerging as highly accessible resources for health and wellness. These innovative installations, described by the State Library of Louisiana as looking like “futuristic phone booths,” are not merely modern fixtures; they represent an essential expansion of healthcare access, particularly benefiting those in low income and rural areas, and people experiencing homelessness.
Yet, this progress faces challenges from the current culture war, notably the attacks on LGBTQIA+ communities and the removal of related literature and displays. Libraries, long-standing bastions of knowledge and inclusivity, are now at the center of ideological disputes, potentially impacting the very access they aim to provide.
The Culture War's Impact on Library Access
Recent reports from Vice, Book Riot, and AP News highlight a concerning trend: libraries are increasingly becoming ideological battlegrounds. In Louisiana, actions such as the banning of LGBTQIA+ themed books and the removal of pride-related displays have created an environment of fear and exclusion.
The politicization of libraries could deter potential partners and funders, hindering the expansion of healthcare services. Insurance companies, crucial stakeholders in the telehealth initiative, may view libraries as contentious spaces and reconsider their support. This could significantly impact the availability and expansion of telehealth services, particularly to marginalized communities who stand to benefit the most. The culture war's escalation within these traditionally neutral and inclusive spaces poses a real threat to the continued provision and growth of essential health services in libraries.
Despite these hurdles, Louisiana’s telehealth initiative, supported by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana Foundation, demonstrates resilience. Telehealth booths in libraries like West Baton Rouge provide private spaces for virtual healthcare consultations, essential for those with limited access to healthcare or who are afraid of stigmatizing interactions at traditional points of service.
Of the most...interesting aspects of this partnership includes Louisiana’s incoming Governor, Jeff Landry, joining the board of directors of Blue Cross Shield of Louisiana. Landry has been a vocal critic of libraries running up to his gubernatorial campaign, though his tone has since softened some. By, “interesting”, we mean uniquely “Louisiana weird”.
The Role of Insurance Payers in Library Telehealth Initiatives
As telehealth services expand the role of insurance payers becomes pivotal. Their involvement is not just about funding; it's about influencing the broader narrative to support public health initiatives in nontraditional spaces like libraries. Amidst the escalating culture war, their decision to back libraries can be a powerful statement in favor of inclusivity and access to healthcare. By supporting telehealth in libraries, they can help ensure that these spaces remain open, welcoming, and free from the divisive impacts of cultural conflicts.
The integration of telehealth services into public libraries represents a significant leap forward in making healthcare more accessible and equitable. It's essential for insurance payers and other key stakeholders to recognize the role libraries and other nontraditional spaces play in bridging healthcare gaps. Their support can help counteract the negative impacts of the culture war, ensuring that libraries continue to serve as welcoming hubs of health and knowledge for all community members.
In this challenging landscape, the support of insurance payers and stakeholders is more than just a financial commitment; it's a commitment to upholding the principles of equity and access in healthcare. Their involvement can help steer the conversation away from divisive politics and towards a focus on the health and well-being of entire communities, no matter their minority status. As we navigate these complex issues, it's crucial to keep libraries as inclusive and supportive environments, where everyone has access to the health services they need, free from the constraints of political discord.
DEA Appears Open to Tele-Script for Certain Controlled Substances
On August 7th, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) issued a notice of meeting regarding telemedicine prescription of certain controlled substances (Schedule II only). The meeting(s) will be conducted as “listening sessions”, conducted Tuesday, September 12th, and Wednesday, September 13th from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the DEA Headquarters (located at 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA). Participants must pre-register using this link, before or on August 21st. In-person requests will be granted via lottery and the sessions will be live-streamed. Similarly, those wishing to provide limited oral presentation, either in-person or via live-stream must also fill out the form. Again, these will be selected by DEA personnel based upon quality of summary of presentation. Presentations may be made by anyone with an interest in and expertise in the subject matter. The DEA has asked for feedback on the following questions:
If telemedicine prescribing of schedule III–V medications were permitted in the absence of an in-person medical evaluation, what framework, including safeguards and data, with respect to telemedicine prescribing of schedule III–V medications do you recommend to help DEA ensure patient safety and prevent diversion of controlled substances?
Should telemedicine prescribing of schedule II medications never be permitted in the absence of an in-person medical evaluation? Are there any circumstances in which telemedicine prescribing of schedule II medications should be permitted in the absence of an in-person medical evaluation? If it were permitted, what safeguards with respect to telemedicine prescribing of schedule II medications specifically would you recommend to help DEA ensure patient safety and prevent diversion of controlled substances?
If practitioners are required to collect, maintain, and/or report telemedicine prescription data to DEA, what pieces of data should be included or excluded? What data is already reported to federal and state authorities, insurance companies, and other third parties?
If pharmacies are required to collect, maintain, and/or report telemedicine prescription data to DEA, what pieces of data should be included or excluded? What data is already reported to federal and state authorities, insurance companies, and other third parties?
The listening sessions come as a direct result of the DEA receiving truly unprecedented responses to proposed rules published in March, in anticipation of the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and, thus, the DEA’s telemedicine waiver issued at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In all, the DEA received almost 40,000 comments across the proposed rules with much focus on the General Telemedicine proposed rule. We covered the content of those rules (and why they were a step backward as written) in March. In particular, we expressed concern over returning to pre-pandemic limitations on telemedicine when the pandemic-related waiver did not prove any spike in diversion and did, indeed, improve access to medication assisted substance use treatment for many patients. Along similar lines, because testosterone is considered a controlled substance, such a return at the height of bias-driven, state-based legislation limiting access to certain gender affirming care would have a disproportionately harmful impact among transgender men and undermine President Biden’s commitment to combat these hateful efforts.
The relationship between the DEA and harm reduction advocates has been long and fraught. Many harm reduction advocates criticize the role of law enforcement’s actions, particularly that law enforcement agency, working against best practices in public health, even those best practices recognized by federal public health agencies. For example, a couple of weeks ago, we highlighted the Substance Abuse Mental Health Administration’s document (currently open to public comment) aimed at formalizing certain policy positions, entitled Harm Reduction Framework. Nowhere in the “framework” is the conflict with law enforcement positions addressed.
Putting more pressure still on the DEA’s absolute refusal to meet its commitment from 2009 to introduce meaningful telemedicine rules (in response to passage of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act) is the fact that the stimulant medication shortage is at its worst. Things are so bad the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and DEA issued a joint letter on August 1st to further detail actions being taken to address the shortage and consumer struggles. The problem with the letter is it is largely bypasses the responsibility the DEA has in the current situation. Leaning into a claim that manufacturers haven’t filled their annual quota limits in production and pointing fingers at an increase in legitimate prescription of stimulants to manage conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the letter fails to recognize that the DEA also places extraordinary limits and scrutiny on pharmacies dispensing stimulant medications. Known as “drug diversion”, the idea behind monitoring pharmacies has some merit when viewed under the lens that pharmacies have a responsibility to limit index events like those “pill mills” associated with the opioid epidemic. However, the DEA doesn’t take responsibility for pharmacy raids or strict enforcement against prescribing providers working to keep patients from turning to street supplies by providing legitimate prescriptions.
For the DEA to be a meaningful partner in combatting both illicit and harmful drug use and overdoses and help to address drug shortages, limiting harmful diversion, the agency needs to consider a dramatic shift from an “all drugs are bad, and the people who use them are bad” mindset. There needs to be a thoughtful “medium, wherein stakeholders other than law enforcement can engage in distinguishing best practices in supply chain security and harm reduction and readily identifying criminals taking advantage of patients seeking care by any means they can achieve it – including illegal and illicit channels.
Patient advocates outside of harm reduction and substance use disorder focuses and the industry stakeholders who serve these patients would do well to consider engagement in these and other opportunities to help re-shape and re-imagine the DEA’s role, ideas, and programs to better serve the public at large, better secure the supply chain and limit disruptions, and ensure patients can have ready, reliable, and modernized access to the care we need.
DEA Proposed Rules Risk Harming Access to Care
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has held certain relaxed or waived rules regarding prescribing of controlled substances. On January 30th, President Biden announced his administration would end the public health emergency (PHE) declaration related to COVID-19 in May of 2023, after one, last renewal in February. Part of what’s being called an “unwinding” of the PHE includes returning to “normal” operations for executive entities like the DEA. But times have changed dramatically in terms of healthcare access since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably around the issue of telehealth. Thus, on February 24th, the DEA announced two proposed rules regarding permanent telehealth access and prescribing related to controlled substances.
The DEA’s controlled substances list is…controversial, to say the least. The five category list includes those which the agency has deemed to have the “potential for abuse or dependency” characterization. Schedule “V” (five) having a “low” potential for abuse relative to other levels and having sufficient medical value, resulting in quantity limits but, typically, not more than that in terms of regulatory impact. These medications include certain cough medicines and an anti-diarrheal medication, among others. Schedule “I” (one) substances as having been deemed to have “no” medicinal value, a high potential for abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use even under medical supervision. These substances include marijuana, “ecstasy”, LSD, and peyote. In between these, you’ll find certain pain killers, treatment for attention deficit disorder (ADD), anabolic steroids, and medications used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). The DEA’s proposed telehealth rules (here and here) would allow for a provider who has never conducted an in-person assessment of a patient to only prescribe up to a 30-day supply of schedule III-V non-narcotic medications and a 30-day supply of buprenorphine. In order to get a refill or maintain treatment, a patient would have to then arrange for an in-person assessment. For patients referred by a provider who has already conducted an in-person assessment in the last year or for providers who are directly prescribing the medication and have already had an in-person assessment in the last year, the limitations on telehealth would not apply.
Particularly, in the rules, the DEA argues medications used to treat OUD are at risk of diversion and misuse, despite evidence that misuse is relatively rare and declining and despite the fact that only about 11% of the population which could benefit from medication assisted treatment (MAT) have access, according to a report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Reasons for limited access are slowly being addressed. Most notably, the “X-Waiver”, a program which limited which prescribers could offer buprenorphine and other MAT and how many patients they could treat. The “X-Waiver” requirements were repealed in Section 1262 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (otherwise known as the Omnibus). Another giant barrier to prescribing MAT is provider stigma. This stigma against people who use drugs (PWUD) often leads to patients having an exceptionally hard time finding a provider willing to help them, when they need it. Years of prescribing limits and the vagueness of the DEA requiring pharmacies to report “suspicious” orders (the DEA does not define what’s constitutes “suspicious”), has also left pharmacies, wholesalers, and distributors exceedingly cautious as not gaining the DEA’s ire. With these proposed rules, the biggest barrier to President Biden’s plan to expand access may be the bureaucracy he enabled as a Senator and Vice President (Politico details more here).
Additionally, some states are attempting to ban access to gender-affirming care; not just for minors but for anyone accessing public payer programs and even attempting to forbid private, commercial plans from offering gender affirming care. While these would not necessarily impact access to care for transgender women seeking out-of-state telehealth, it would adversely affect transgender men because testosterone is a schedule III controlled substance. Thus, under these rules, transgender men would have to have in-person assessment with a provider in order to begin or continue accessing prescribed testosterone replacement therapy. Where this is a bit of a “come uppins” moment for President Biden is in his historical record of championing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, making testosterone and anything related to it a controlled substance. The law rose to a certain popularity because of major sports leagues in the United States insufficiently addressing steroid use among professional athletes. The world has changed greatly since then and most, if not all, of those entities have adopted tight controls and regular screenings of athletes (which do need some update to appropriately reflect the endocrinological variety the human species offers). A carve out in the law would allow for the DEA to exempt medications which “does not present any significant potential for abuse.”
Chronic pain patients, disability advocates, harm reduction advocates, and advocates for access to gender-affirming care are sufficiently outraged to see their life-saving care being ripped from the ease of telemedicine. Leo Beletsky, a law professor at Northwestern University said, “The fallout is going to be measured in lives lost.” Dr. Brian Hurley, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine said, “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion.” “forcing people with disabilities who are immunocompromised or high-risk to choose between potential COVID exposure and forgoing vital medications is ableist and dangerous,” said Madeline T. Morcelle of the National Health Law Program. Adult ADHD patients are already fighting a shortage on their medications and providers who will prescribe them. And with the rural health care crisis limiting access to providers for queer people, disabled people, and PWUD, this rule will strip them of the only time they’ve seen their access to care expand in decades.
A bi-partisan, bi-cameral group of legislators have written a letter to the DEA cautioning against these rules and Senators Warren (D-MA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) have also written a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the DEA about de-scheduling testosterone. Neither letter has been answered yet. Orion Rummler of 19th News recently asked for an update and will be following up on the status of a response from the Biden Administration and executive agencies.
With these massive concerns on finding and accessing care, patients may well turn to the black market or grey market to self-manage the life-saving medications they need. This not only defeats the purpose of the DEA’s rules in attempting to prevent diverse by artificially creating a market for illicit trade, it exposes patients to risks of infections, counterfeit medications, and other safety hazards.
Patients should not have to risk their lives and even incarceration in order to access life-saving medications they have readily enjoyed over the last three years. The DEA should engage providers, advocates, and patients more than any other stakeholder from law enforcement to approach promulgation of these rules in a way that aligns with public health instead of carelessly chasing after ways to limit access to life-saving medications.
The proposed rules aim to come into effect in November. The public comment period ends on March 31, 2023. We encourage our partners, including those not directly involved in issues of substance use or production of controlled substances, to comment in support of adjustments to the proposed rules that would maintain telehealth access to care, meet the stated public health goals of the Biden Administration, and, most directly, maintain access to the life-saving medications patients depend upon. The public may submit comments here and here.