Ripple Effect: How PBMs and Counterfeit Drugs Threaten Patients
The infiltration of counterfeit drugs into the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain poses a significant risk to patient health and safety, particularly for those living with HIV. While counterfeit drugs are nothing new, the criminals threatening our safety have a surprising new ally: Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). A report by the Partnership for Safe Medicines unveils how criminal entities exploit vulnerabilities in the supply chain, made worse by PBMs, whose reimbursement policies often leave pharmacies on the edge of financial viability.
The fight against HIV/AIDS is significantly hindered by the infiltration of counterfeit medications into the pharmaceutical supply chain, an issue that transcends mere regulatory challenges or financial losses. It directly impacts the health and safety of people living with HIV (PLWH), undermining the global effort to manage and eventually End the HIV Epidemic.
A striking example of the severity of this issue is the investigation conducted by Gilead Sciences Inc., which was extensively covered by The Wall Street Journal. This investigation uncovered that over two years, a staggering 85,247 counterfeit bottles of Gilead's HIV medications Biktarvy and Descovy, valued at more than $250 million, had been distributed within pharmacies. These counterfeit products, the result of sophisticated criminal networks exploiting supply chain vulnerabilities, ranged from being filled with harmless over-the-counter painkillers to dangerous antipsychotic drugs, posing significant health risks to unsuspecting patients. “Harmless” is relatively qualified here because when PLWH are not receiving necessary antiretroviral medications, conditions can develop quickly with deadly consequences, medication resistance can bloom, and new transmissions can occur.
The presence of counterfeit medications not only endangers the lives of PLWH but also severely erodes trust within communities, particularly those that are already marginalized and financially strained. The breach in the supply chain security caused by these counterfeit drugs highlights a critical public health issue that demands immediate and concerted action from all sectors involved in healthcare delivery.
Addressing the Challenges Posed by Pharmacy Benefit Managers and Under-Reimbursement
PBMs are at the heart of growing scrutiny for practices exacerbating healthcare system challenges, notably impacting the economic viability of pharmacies, and facilitating the entry of counterfeit drugs into the supply chain.
Their primary role is to negotiate drug prices and manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of health insurers, under the guise of controlling costs and streamline the prescription process. The reality is, PBMs do not necessarily pass on “savings” to patients or plan sponsors and have, in truth, become a self-dealing entity working hard to maximize the profits of insurance company shareholders. PBMs often implement reimbursement policies that pay pharmacies less than the actual cost of acquiring and dispensing medications when those pharmacies are not owned by the PBM itself. This under-reimbursement pressures pharmacies, especially independent ones, to find ways to sustain their operations amidst shrinking margins. In other instances, PBMs offer higher reimbursement rates to their mail-order pharmacy and work hard to steer patients away from independent pharmacies.
This economic squeeze leads to a consequential gap in the market: the demand for medications that the legitimate supply chain cannot adequately supply at the prices set by PBMs. Counterfeiters exploit this gap, introducing fake or substandard medications into the supply chain and offering the fakes at a lower acquisition cost than legitimate wholesalers. The cycle perpetuated by PBM under-reimbursement practices not only undermines the financial stability of pharmacies but also compromises patient safety. Pharmacies, caught in the vise of financial pressures, may unknowingly procure medications from less reputable sources, inadvertently becoming conduits for counterfeit drugs. This situation is exacerbated in rural and underserved communities, where pharmacies are often the sole healthcare providers, making the impact of counterfeit medications even more devastating. These counterfeit drugs find their way into pharmacies struggling to balance financial viability with the provision of quality care. The allure of lower cost options in the face of under-reimbursement makes these counterfeit products dangerously appealing for pharmacists seeking to meet patient needs.
The financial strain on independent pharmacies due to PBM policies is further highlighted by the National Community Pharmacists Association's (NCPA) support for a class action lawsuit against Express Scripts. This legal action accuses Express Scripts and several smaller PBMs of colluding to manipulate reimbursement rates and impose higher fees on pharmacies, further squeezing their financial resources and compromising their ability to provide quality services.
American Pharmacy Cooperative, Inc. (APCI)'s initiative to engage Vanguard Inc., a significant investor in the conglomerates owning the "Big 3" PBMs, exemplifies the urgent need for systemic reform. This effort, celebrated by Pharmacists United for Truth & Transparency (PUTT), emphasizes the necessity of reforms that ensure transparency, fair reimbursement, and ethical conduct to safeguard the pharmaceutical supply chain.
Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) and Their Impact
Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) are quickly gaining popularity among states, being sold as an attempt to make healthcare more affordable. These boards, armed with the authority to scrutinize and cap drug prices, aim to shield the public from the soaring costs of essential medications. However, there's concern that these actions might limit access to medications for marginalized communities and create more challenges for pharmacies.
A recent webinar hosted by the National Minority Quality Forum (NMQF) brought to light the challenges PDABs face in balancing drug affordability with healthcare equity. Jen Laws, President and CEO of the Community Access National Network (CANN), voiced a critical perspective, highlighting the limitations of PDABs' current toolkit, which primarily revolves around setting upper payment limits. Laws pointed out, "The only tool that the PDABs have been provided is an upper payment limit, and they are not being encouraged to explore other tools or learn how to make investments into issues of health equity and access. When we take money out of systems, the people not represented lose out first." Few of these boards have patients appointed to them. This insight underscores the complexity of ensuring drug affordability does not come at the expense of access, particularly for those in marginalized communities.
Echoing this sentiment, Gretchen C. Wartman, Vice President for Policy and Program and Director of the Institute for Equity in Health Policy and Practice at NMQF, emphasized the need for PDABs to broaden their approach. "We must pursue efforts to ensure that PDABs are improving access to medicines, rather than constraining that access in the interest of financial risk mitigation," Wartman stated, advocating for a more holistic strategy that aligns drug affordability with comprehensive access to care.
The discussions surrounding PDABs, particularly highlighted in the NMQF webinar and our CANN blog, reveal a critical need for a nuanced approach to drug affordability that doesn't inadvertently compromise access or exacerbate vulnerabilities in the pharmaceutical supply chain. By focusing narrowly on upper payment limits (UPLs) as a primary tool for cost containment, there's a real risk of creating gaps in the medication supply that counterfeiters could exploit, further endangering patient safety and public health. This scenario underscores the importance of developing comprehensive strategies that not only address the immediate issue of drug costs but also consider the broader implications for healthcare equity, pharmacy viability, and the integrity of the medication supply chain. Policymakers and stakeholders must work collaboratively to ensure that efforts to control drug prices do not inadvertently introduce new risks, particularly for marginalized communities and the pharmacies that serve them.
A Legislative Response: The Florida Prescription Drug Reform Act
The Florida Prescription Drug Reform Act stands as a major legislative response to the pressing issues within the pharmaceutical supply chain, particularly addressing the detrimental practices of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that contribute to pharmacy under-reimbursement and indirectly foster an environment ripe for counterfeit drugs.
Focused Provisions:
Regulating PBM Operations: The Act mandates PBMs to obtain a certificate of authority, introducing a layer of accountability and transparency previously absent. This requirement aims to scrutinize and regulate PBM practices more closely, ensuring they operate in a manner that supports rather than undermines pharmacy financial stability.
Prohibiting Harmful Practices: Specifically targeting practices that have strained pharmacies, the Act prohibits PBMs from engaging in retroactive fee recoupments and spread pricing strategies. Such practices have historically placed pharmacies in precarious financial positions, making the supply chain vulnerable to counterfeit medications as pharmacies seek cost-saving measures.
Ensuring Fair Reimbursement: By enforcing a pass-through pricing model, the Act ensures that pharmacies are reimbursed the actual cost paid by the health plan to the PBM for medications. This approach directly addresses the issue of under-reimbursement, reducing the financial pressures that can lead pharmacies to inadvertently engage with dubious suppliers.
Implications for Supply Chain Security:
These targeted reforms within the Florida Prescription Drug Reform Act are designed to directly impact the economic pressures pharmacies face due to PBM policies. By ensuring more equitable and transparent reimbursement practices, the Act mitigates one of the key factors that have made the pharmaceutical supply chain susceptible to counterfeit drugs. It represents a significant step towards safeguarding pharmacies from the financial instability that can compromise patient safety and healthcare integrity.
In essence, the Act provides a comprehensive framework for other states and federal entities to consider, highlighting the importance of addressing PBM practices as a critical component of enhancing supply chain security and protecting patient health.
Advocating for Change: Strategic Policy Reforms and Mobilization
The challenges posed by PBMs, PDABs, and drug affordability impact not just the healthcare industry and policymakers but directly affect patients seeking affordable, safe medications. This underscores the urgency for a unified advocacy movement towards systemic reform. Drawing on the initiatives of groups like PUTT and APCI, as well as the framework set by Florida's Prescription Drug Reform Act, we have a clear path to advocate for transparency, equity, and patient access across healthcare.
Calls to Advocacy
Broadened Engagement with Policymakers, Investors, and the Public: Advocacy efforts must expand to encompass not just policymakers but also investors and the broader public. Echoing APCI’s engagement with Vanguard Inc., it's critical to advocate for investor responsibility in healthcare practices. Moreover, by leveraging the legislative model of Florida's Prescription Drug Reform Act, advocates can champion similar transparency and regulatory measures nationwide. This expanded advocacy should also include a focus on ensuring PDABs operate with a mandate that balances drug affordability with the need for access to innovative treatments.
Unified Support for Legislative and Regulatory Reforms: Stakeholders are encouraged to unite in supporting and proposing legislative initiatives that tackle the foundational issues of PBM reform and the effective operation of PDABs. Advocacy should push for laws that not only enhance drug pricing transparency and regulate PBM reimbursement rates but also ensure PDABs do not inadvertently limit access to essential medications for marginalized communities.
Active Participation in Rulemaking Processes with Strategic Alliances: Stakeholders should actively participate in the rulemaking process, forming strategic alliances to influence the regulations governing PBMs and PDABs. This collective action is vital in shaping policies that promote fair reimbursement practices, safeguard pharmacy access, and ensure PDABs contribute positively to healthcare equity.
Comprehensive Educational Campaigns to Foster Awareness and Action: Initiating educational campaigns that explain the roles and impacts of PBMs and PDABs in the healthcare system is essential. By incorporating success stories from state and federal legislative achievements and insights from advocacy efforts, these campaigns can underscore the benefits of reform for pharmacies, patients, and the healthcare system at large. The goal is to inform the public, inspire support for reform efforts, and motivate active participation in advocacy initiatives.
The path toward meaningful reform in pharmacy benefit management, drug pricing, and the equitable implementation of PDABs is fraught with challenges. Yet, the successes achieved in regions like Florida provide hope that meaningful reform is possible. By rallying for targeted policy reforms and engaging in proactive advocacy, we can drive systemic changes that ensure the pharmaceutical supply chain operates with transparency, equity, and a steadfast commitment to patient health. Together, we have the power to reshape the landscape of drug affordability and access, guaranteeing that all people receive the comprehensive care and medications they deserve.
Emergency Alert: Substance Use Safety Net in Trouble
In April, the Biden Administration released a Statement of Drug Policy Priorities, outlining areas of improvement and policy priorities necessary to address the nation’s opioid epidemic. The statement was followed up in May by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announcing $3 billion in block grants to be distributed to states as emergency funding related to the American Rescue Plan Act, passed in March. The press release from SAMHSA highlighted preliminary data from the Centers of Disease Control and prevention (CDC) showing an estimated 90,000 overdose deaths in 2020, a 20,000 overdose death increase from 2019. Belying the nature of “emergency”, the SAMHSA announcement came 2 months after President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, the release did not include a timeline for these block grants to be received by states or any indication from SAMHSA that guidance attached to use of these funds would be forth coming. That’s a problem for substance use treatment service providers who have been struggling to keep their doors open and services flowing throughout the COVID-19 public health emergency.
According to Michael Pickering, executive director for Regional Addiction Prevention, Inc. (a residential treatment program in Washington, D.C.), residential programs had to cut the available number of patients who could be housed at any given time, in order to help slow the spread of COVID-19 and reduce risks of clients and staff contracting the virus while restrictions were in place. That meant revenue necessary to operate shrunk dramatically. However, in order to maintain a minimum number of services, not many staff were reduced. Ultimately, these combined factors underscored a long-term issue as the agency faces potential closure: private and public payer rates for are so low that even the slightest emergency could be catastrophic for many substance use service providers.
Indeed, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last adjusted addiction treatment services reimbursement rates for inflation in 2016 – meaning the “basement” for reimbursement hasn’t increased in 6 years while the rest of costs associated with providing care have grown. According to one entity, CODAC Behavioral Healthcare, reported reimbursement losses of nearly 40% from Medicaid on a 45-minute treatment session. The same report cited the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) as stating Medicaid as the largest payer of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder, accounting for anywhere between 35 and 50% of services provided in the hardest hit states.
Tucked among Biden administration priorities in drug policy is a familiar statement regarding racial equity in health care. At the intersection of disparities in access to care and lack of health equity along racial lines is Medicaid’s low reimbursement rate. A study, included in the Statement, specifically highlighted how few private providers accept Medicaid for substance use treatment, opting instead for “cash-pay only” policies, resulting in a concentration of services provided to white people and leaving an unmet need among people of color, who have also been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the Biden administration also cited a need to recruit and retain medical providers and staffing talent to stigma, low reimbursement rates also translate to low compensation relative to other areas of health care and substance use services require more time to functionally provide for the needs of a client than other areas of health care. This leaves clinics and providers serving the public with an exceedingly high turn-over rate; CODAC cited a near 50% turnover rate for 2019. Just as with federally qualified health centers, compensation rates tied to clinic revenue (reimbursement rates) and grant awards that aren’t meaningfully increased, can’t compete in terms of compensation – the private sector, focused on profit margins and serving well-to-do clients, can readily recruit skilled talent from public service entities with more attractive compensation packages.
The administration’s priorities in drug policy are lofty and admirable, with a comprehensive map on moving forward. However, getting these resources – especially emergency funding - to entities providing critically necessary services seems to be a major barrier the administration doesn’t seem to have a good plan to deal with. Just as with the emergency rental assistance monies allocated under the American Rescue Plan, emergency monies are slow to reach substance use service providers in dire need, risking destabilizing an already weak safety net. Regional Addiction Prevention, Inc. provides just one example of an entire industry at risk, where funds are bottlenecked at the local agency distribution level. Earlier this month, advocacy organizations from around the country and service providers in D.C. wrote to the Mayor and City Council urging an expedited process to ensure emergency funds for these services were distributed in a more timely fashion.
The Biden administration can set all the goals in the world and even secure funds from Congress, but these goals won’t be met on a one-time funding or periodic “emergency” funding basis. The administration needs to provide funding distribution guidance commiserate with the urgency of keeping public addiction service providers afloat, ensure the country’s annual budget reflects these priorities, and increase Medicaid reimbursement rates to reflect these policy priorities.