Avita is working every possible angle to protect the 340B program and the communities who depend on it.
The 340B program is vital for our partners and the patients they serve, so we work tirelessly to promote the importance of the program by educating the public at large and, when necessary, actively defending the 340B program from the actions by manufacturers.
Avita supports many 340B Advocacy groups, and we routinely provide comments and suggestions for the Secretary of HHS as well as HRSA leadership. Whether directly or indirectly, Avita will continue playing a key role in 340B advocacy for the sake of our Covered Entity partners and the patients we serve together.
In 2020, a handful of drug manufacturers either eliminated or significantly curtailed the 340B discounts that they are lawfully required to provide to 340B Covered Entities such as Ryan White Clinics and Consolidated Health Centers (CHCs). These Entities care for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. So, Avita hit the ground running—engaging with HRSA and other key legislative officials, teaming with our Covered Entity partners to provide data which enables them to quantify the potential negative effect these decisions have on their patients, and actively engaging with national advocacy organizations to garner their support for the program.
Avita deeply understands that our Covered Entity partners rely on 340B savings to achieve their mission of extending care to underserved people and communities, and we are passionate about protecting patient access.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers do not have rights to your patient and pharmacy data. These demands represent a threat not only to the vitality of many of our covered entity partners’ businesses but to the 340B program at large. In many cases, the requested data is considered protected by HIPAA as well as “confidential” under the terms of pharmacy services agreements and/or non-disclosure agreements. These actions on the part of pharmaceutical companies will significantly impact federal grantees (Consolidated Health Centers, FQHC & look-alikes, Ryan White programs, HTCs, etc.).
If 340B access dollars are reduced due to the actions of these drug manufacturers, many of the services that our partners offer for their patients will be reduced or eliminated because drug costs will nearly double. Elimination or reduction of these programs and services will impact public health, in particular to the underserved and uninsured populations who would be disproportionately impacted by these service cuts.
Advocacy organizations have united to develop tools that can be very effective in influencing decision makers. Signing on to letters from healthcare and patient advocacy organizations are helpful. Using letter templates to write to state and federal government officials can also help raise the voices of patients in need of services.
Here are some examples:
Article on Eli Lilly – Overcharge Reports Needed to Counter Lilly’s Move Against Contract Pharmacies
Article on Sanofi – Sanofi is Latest Manufacturer to Demand 340B Contract Pharmacy Data
Article on Kalderos – Kalderos to Help Drug Companies Replace 340B Discounts with Rebates
340B Health Analysis – Legal and Operational Burdens Imposed by Merck’s Request for Data
340B Coalition Letter to HHS – Recent Actions by Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Eli Lilly and Merck Impacting 340B Covered Entities