Revenue-Sharing or Revenue Lost? The Hidden Costs of 340B to Employers

Author(s)

Sun C1, Martin R1, Zeng S1, Motyka J2, Campbell J2, Westrich K3
1IQVIA, Quincy, MA, USA, 2National Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, DC, USA, 3National Pharmaceutical Council, Herndon, VA, USA

OBJECTIVES: The 340B Drug Discount Program ("340B program") is a federal program in which manufacturers provide discounted outpatient drugs to participating 340B-covered entities. The financial flow of the program is complex and involves hidden costs. 340B hospitals have proposed sharing 340B revenue with self-funded employers as part of a direct contract. This study aims to quantify the financial impact of this revenue sharing to employers and other healthcare stakeholders.

METHODS: We created a model to analyze the financial impact of 340B revenue sharing, with parameters estimated using national samples of consumers, payers, products, and providers. Five scenarios were modeled: (A) status quo (20% of workers and prescriptions are 340B eligible), (B) counterfactual where 340B does not exist (0% 340B eligible), (C) employer plan enters into a direct revenue-sharing contract with a 340B hospital (50% 340B eligible due to site of care shifts, 20% revenue-sharing), (D) adds hospital markups to C, and (E) expands 340B eligibility (75% 340B eligible) to D.

RESULTS: In the status quo (A), total healthcare costs for self-funded employer plans were 1.6% higher, due to lost rebates, than B’s counterfactual where the 340B program doesn’t exist ($4,009 per covered worker vs. $3,945). When comparing C, D, and E to A, the cost for employer plans increased by 1.8% ($4,080), 14.3% ($4,583), and 15.9% ($4,648), respectively, as lost rebates and added hospital markups exceeded 340B revenue shared. Under these scenarios, revenue decreased for manufacturers (8-23%), pharmacy benefit managers (18-60%), and non-hospital providers (30%), but increased for the 340B hospital (1,025-1,464%). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS: 340B discounts conflict with manufacturer rebates, causing hidden revenue loss for employers. Participating in a 340B revenue-sharing agreement may sound enticing, but it is likely to exacerbate revenue loss for employers and other healthcare stakeholders, benefiting only the 340B hospital.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-05, ISPOR 2024, Atlanta, GA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 6, S1 (June 2024)

Code

HPR11

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Pricing Policy & Schemes, Reimbursement & Access Policy

Disease

Drugs, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×