Academic Literature

Cost Consequences of the 340B Drug Discount Program

Unintended consequences of the 340B drug discount program alter physician prescribing habits, widen the disparity in hospital profits, and increase list prices of drugs to compensate for revenue losses.

Authors

Originally published on 05/15/2013 in JAMA Viewpoint

The 340B program is a federal drug discount program that allowed a handful of hospitals that served low-income communities to obtain drugs for reduced prices.

Through a series of expansions, including some enumerated in the Affordable Care Act, numerous other types of entities such as community hospitals and cancer centers that serve both the poor and the well-insured can participate. Between 2009 and 2012 the number of enrolled hospitals doubled, and today the program includes 1679 hospitals, a third of all hospitals in the United States.

The original intent of the 340B program was presumably to enable under-financed care facilities to purchase drugs that would be used for the treatment of medically and financially vulnerable patients they served. The program does not require hospitals to only provide the discounted drugs to patients who are poor and in need, nor does it include a requirement that the savings on drugs be passed on to patients or insurers. Therefore, hospitals can use the discounted drugs with all of their “eligible” patients (except those receiving Medicaid).

When insurers and patients pay for the treatments as if the hospital obtained the drugs at list price rather than at the 340B-based discounted price, the hospital or treating physician practice can keep the profits generated. Likewise, contract pharmacies can retain the profits they obtain when they dispense discounted drugs to patients who are fully insured. A recent report suggests that a single practicing oncologist can generate about $1 million in profits for a hospital by obtaining drugs at 340B-discounted prices and using them to treat well-insured patients.

The 340B program drives down the acquisition costs of drugs but not their reimbursement. Therefore, it may be having paradoxical effects on the costs of patient care, in particular for patients with cancer, for 3 reasons.

Read the full article here.

Share

Authors

Research & Insights

We conduct non-partisan, independent research, and make our work accessible and informative to policymakers and the general audience alike. Browse our featured research or explore our work by article type.

Expansion of the Medicare 340B Payment Program
As the 340B program expands, it continues to draw national attention.
JAMA Viewpoint 12/11/2018
Impact of President Trump's Proposed 340B Hospital Eligibility Threshold
Research tells us 9% of hospitals would lose their 340B eligibility under Trump's drug pricing plan. Essentially all are in Medicaid expansion states.
Drug Pricing Lab 05/11/2018
The 340B Program: Hospitals Profit by Reaching Affluent Communities
The 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.
Health Affairs 10/01/2014
The Conflict Between QALYs and Well-Funded Patient Advocacy Groups
The goal of a QALY is to figure out how much any given drug is worth to a society so that we, as a society, have a benchmark to evaluate the price of pharmaceutical products.
Relentless Health Value 12/10/2020
Remdesivir Less Expensive for "Government Programs"? Not So Fast.
Two options are proposed if Gilead wishes to offer the discounts to the full array of government programs.
Drug Pricing Lab 07/01/2020
Blueprints for Indication-Specific Pricing
Several approaches that rewire existing reimbursement conventions as alternatives to facilitate ISP are proposed.
Drug Pricing Lab 05/19/2020
Pharmaceutical Products and Their Value
Steep increases in prices and spending on prescription drugs in the United States have triggered public outrage and questions about their value.
Value in Health 03/29/2020
Drop in Cancer Deaths Reflect Failures of Our Society. Really.
Despite declining cancer death rates, the nation still presents societal failures to improve the state of our population's health.
The Boston Globe 02/21/2020
Dissecting PhRMA's Opposition to H.R. 3 Lower Drug Costs Now…
Dr. Peter Bach responds to PhRMA's stance of opposition to H.R. 3 Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019.
STAT News 10/11/2019
Time to Throw in the Towel on Biosimilars
Peter Bach and Mark Trusheim of MIT Sloan School of Management underscore the drawbacks of Washington's preferred solution to introduce competition for biologics, the biosimilar model.
The Wall Street Journal 08/21/2019
Mortgaging New Treatments Kicks the Can on High Drug Prices
The launch price for one-time gene therapy Zolgensma presents various implications.
Morning Consult 07/09/2019
A $475,000 price tag for a new cancer drug: crazy…
Drug Pricing Lab op-ed in STAT News discusses indication-specific pricing of Kymriah.
STAT News 08/31/2017

Featured News

See All News
Bloomberg Opinion 07/16/2020

Before Spending Billions, U.S. Hospitals Need to Study Remdesivir Further

As COVID-19 continually evolves and new therapies are approved and administered individually and in combination, the best way to apply scientific principle is to continue to test each treatment separately and together, beginning with Remdesivir.
Read Article
Newsletter

Stay up to date on our work and news