Potential Part B Drug Payment Cuts for 340B Hospitals

19 January 2016 Health Care Law Today Blog

The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has voted to recommend to Congress in its March report that Medicare Part B drug payment rates for 340B drugs be reduced by 10 percent for hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program (340B Program). Currently, hospitals are paid the same rate by Medicare for drugs whether or not the drugs are purchased through the 340B Program. MedPAC will also recommend that program savings from this payment cut be redistributed to hospitals based on the amount of uncompensated care they report on Worksheet S-10 of the Medicare cost report. MedPAC’s recommendations were approved during a January 14, 2016 meeting; the changes would require legislative action to take effect.

The 340B Program provides discounts to participating covered entities on the cost of acquiring outpatient drugs. Covered entities are currently able to retain the difference between the discounted purchase cost and the amount reimbursed by payors to enable them to “stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” According to a MedPAC presentation, Medicare currently pays approximately $1.2 billion above 340B Program drug acquisition costs. Medicare payment cuts targeted at 340B Program covered entity hospitals would reduce the amount of savings realized by the hospitals.

Only three members of MedPAC—all hospital stakeholders—voted against the change to hospital reimbursement, expressing concerns that the measure might make it more difficult for some hospitals to care for low-income patients and could make the 340B Program less effective. Following the meeting, several hospital associations raised concerns about the potential negative impact on participating hospital covered entities, including, for example, the likelihood that the Medicare payment cuts would effectively reduce 340B Program hospitals’ savings by approximately 30 percent and the significant operational challenges implementing MedPAC’s recommendations would impose on the hospitals.

Congress specifically requested that MedPAC provide its input on the 340B Program. MedPAC’s recommendation is especially significant because of its similarity to the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG’s) conclusion in its November 2015 report that shared savings arrangements between the Medicare program and 340B Program covered entities would result in substantial savings to the Medicare program, while still providing covered entities with incentives to purchase drugs through the 340B Program. With Congress hearing from multiple sources that the Medicare program could realize savings or further other program goals by cutting its reimbursement for drugs purchased under the 340B Program, there is an increased risk that it will impose cuts on 340B Program covered entities. Given the likelihood that such legislation would adversely affect hospitals that rely on the 340B Program to meet the needs of low-income and underserved populations, it will be critical to carefully monitor congressional action in this area in the coming year.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.