Tag Archives: Hepatitis C

Treating HCV in Pediatric Patients

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

In April of this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Sovaldi and Harvoni (Gilead) for use in treating Hepatitis C (HCV) in pediatric patients aged 12-17. This is an important step in treating HCV in no small part because children and teenagers are considered a vulnerable population. They are, for the most part, not properly equipped to make well-informed decisions about their health, leaving treatment decisions in the hands of the adults who care for them.

Stamp marked, "Approved" next to the initial, "FDA"

Photo Source: 3Dprint.com

Treating pediatric patients is a much riskier prospect, because people outside of the medical community consider children to just be “small adults;” virtually every treatment regimen for every disease must be modified to achieve commensurate outcomes. There are a variety of reasons why this is so, from bodyweight variances between children and adults, to the various ways that physical and chemical changes that occur during the growth and development process from childhood to adulthood can impact how medications behave in pediatric patients. Essentially, “results may vary.”

The new FDA ruling that expands treatment to pediatric patients allows patients weighing at least 77 lbs. to take an unmodified regimen. While access to treatment in adults has proven fraught with hurdles to overcome before being approved by payers, children covered by Medicaid may, in fact, face fewer hurdles than adults. This is due to the following provision: under Federal law, state Medicaid programs must cover “…early and pediatric screening, diagnostic, and treatment services” for children under age 21 that are necessary to correct or ameliorate physical and mental illnesses (Andrews, 2017). While that’s great for patients covered by Medicaid, those covered by private insurers may have a tougher road to hoe, as most within the industry expect the latter payers to largely maintain similar restrictions in pediatric clients as adults.

One of the reason pediatric patients are so vulnerable is that the majority of HCV-infected patients acquire the disease in the womb; only about 20% acquire it through drug use (Andrews). That said, the likelihood is very low – only a 6% chance that babies will acquire HCV if the mother has it.

Hopefully, pediatric patients will face an easier time gaining access to Sovaldi and Harvoni than adults, but only time will tell.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

HCV Prescribing Lags While Prices Soar

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

An article in Newsweek in March 2017 talked about a “…crowded and confusing” landscape for treating Hepatitis C (HCV) that prevents many Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from prescribing the new Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat the disease (Wapner 2017). The argument posed is that, physicians are “…still too unfamiliar with the regimens to speak with confidence about them,” according to Ira Jacobson, a hepatologist who leads the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital in New York. He posits that this discomfort leads them to send patients to liver specialists, or to delay treatment until more severe symptoms arise, the latter of which is a regular pre-requisite on virtually every Prior Authorization (PA) request form.

This argument caught my eye, as someone who writes about and researches coverage for these DAA drugs, as has done so since 2013. One of the most frequent conversations I heard when Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen) were first released on the market was that there was confusion over which doctors could prescribe them. Unlike HIV, treatments for HCV largely lagged in the ‘completely intolerable’ realm, with patients dropping out of treatment like flies and a success rate of only around 50%. Things, however, have radically changed; the question, then, becomes, “Have doctors?”

Prescription Pad

Realistically, we have a considerable problem, in the United States, with aspiring doctors choosing to specialize, rather than going into general practice, in no small part because it guarantees them higher incomes. Higher incomes for them, however, means higher costs to consumers, in the same way that higher-priced drugs to treat chronic conditions get shunted into the highest pricing tiers. This gets passed along to consumers in the form of higher co-pays for visits ($25 for PCPs; $75 for Specialists), and higher co-pays for medications ($3 for blood pressure medication; $250 for HIV).

This problem extends, also, to prisons and jails – the high cost of treatment serves as a significant barrier to providing inmates with treatment, which presents a larger issue, because inmates have an exponentially higher incidence and prevalence of HCV than the general population (Gloucester Times, 2017). Testing prisoners is expensive, as well, as inmate populations swell, while prison healthcare budgets remain relatively stagnant. Once those prisoners are released back into the general population, if they’re unaware of being infected with HCV or whose infections have gone untreated, they can go on to infect those who are not part of the prison system, are also unlikely to be tested and treated.

Beyond just the cost of co-pays are the long-term costs of PCPs being reticent to screen or prescribe for HCV: failing to address HCV will lead to liver decompensation, liver cancer, kidney diseases and failure, higher HCV viral loads that make spreading the disease easier, jaundice, digestive illnesses, and thyroid issues, none of which are particularly cheap to treat. The host of accompanying side effects of leaving the disease untreated far outweigh the admittedly outlandish prices set by HCV drug manufacturers.

The reality is that any medical doctor who has prescribing privileges can prescribe these new treatment regimens. The vast majority of these doctors also have access to smartphones, all of which have any number of apps designed to compare new drug regimens with existing prescriptions to ferret out counter-indications; there is, in fact, an entire website specifically aimed at finding counter-indications (http://www.hep-druginteractions.org/) that also offers mobile apps. The argument that doctors are unsure of the counter-indications is really rendered moot by the existence of these easy-to-use tools.

With that, the biggest hurdle to overcome, for virtually every party involved, is the cost of treatment, and with the current administration’s funding priorities being…questionable, at best…it’s unapparent if even the existing treatment coverage landscape will exist. We’re hoping for more stable conditions, and less erratic proposals. Until then, we’ll just keep plugging to try and find a solution.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New River Valley Region Reports Sharp Rise in Hepatitis C

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

The New River is 360 miles long that spans three states – North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia – flowing from south to north (one of only a handful of rivers in the world to do so) and serves as one of the most scenic rivers in the eastern United States. It’s known for hosting some of the best white water rafting and kayaking in the U.S., and for having the third-longest single-arch bridge in the world. Nestled along some of the most rural parts of the three states in spans, the New River Valley (NRV) region is also home to a growing Hepatitis C (HCV) epidemic.

HEAL Blog has covered the exploding rates of HCV in West Virginia many times since our inception in 2013, as well as having covered those rates in the rest of the Appalachian Mountain Region (AMR). What frustrates many advocates and healthcare workers who live and work in the NRV is that the sharp increase in new HCV infections is largely a product of pharmaceutical companies’ – and healthcare providers’ – making.

Map showing the New River Valley area

Photo Source: Snipview

During the early-1990s, Perdue Pharma using rural towns and counties in the NRV as testing grounds for OxyContin, one of the most widely prescribed opioid drugs of the late-90s and early-00s. HEAL Blog has previously reported on this issue (Cassandra in the Coal Mines), and I stand by the assessment that this region and its population have been systematically targeted by the manufacturers and wholesalers of prescription opioid drugs; wholesalers have, in fact, spent several tens-of-millions of dollars settling cases in West Virginia related to oversupplying the drugs and creating “pill mills” in the state.

There is a direct link between the opioid and heroin epidemics in this region and the vast increase in new HCV infections. In December 2016, Dr. Marissa Levine warned during a meeting of the Virginia Board of Health that the state should expect a “tidal wave” of HCV and HIV primarily related to Injection Drug Use (IDU). The state saw a 21.212% increase in new HCV infections in 2015, from 6,600 in 2014 to 8,000 in 2015 (Demeria, 2016). Dr. Levine also argued that the lack of a dedicated funding stream greatly hinders the ability of the Health Department to accurately capture and track the data accurately, an argument shared by virtually every state in the U.S.

Beyond just opioid drug injection, New River Health District Health Director, Noelle Bissell, M.D., has seen a spike in acute HCV infections (as opposed to chronic conditions) linked to tattoo parlors, the use of homemade tattoo guns at parties, and in people who report more than 10 sexual partners, as well as a trend in cases associated with IDU involving methamphetamine, and in pregnant women and women of childbearing age (SWVA Today, 2017). It should be noted, however, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) specifically states that the transmission of HCV via sexual activity is “not common” (CDC, 2015). The virus is inefficiently transmitted in this manner, and while it is possible in the manner Dr. Bissell describes, much of the data provided during screening is self-reported by patients – self-reporting may lead patients to purposely omit or skew their answers in an effort to avoid embarrassment or mask other behavioral risk factors.

The rural areas along the NRV are very likely to be hit with a greater explosion of HCV and HIV, and HEAL Blog will be monitoring the situation in the coming months.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Generational Stigmata and HCV

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

When it comes to Hepatitis C (HCV), people in America have long assumed that it was (and is) a Baby Boomer problem. Recent statistics, however, indicate that a rapidly increasing number of new HCV diagnoses are linked to Injection Drug Use (IDU), and that IDUs will likely lead to an exponential explosion of new infections compared to previous years. With that reporting, however, a stigma has arisen amongst the Baby Boomer population (the Birth Cohort), leading some in the cohort to avoid screening for the disease. Research published in March 2016 (Joy, 2016), however, indicates that HCV infections within the Birth Cohort is much more likely to have arisen from unsafe medical practices on behalf of doctors and hospitals, rather than any lifestyle choices made on the part of patients.

The research, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, was conducted by scouring over 45,000 documents and records, examining 45,316 sequences of HCV Genotype 1a – the most common strain – and then used a technique called “phylogentic analysis” to focus on five HCV genes and trace the dynamics of the HCV epidemic. The results suggest that the initial peak of the HCV epidemic – the time when initial infection and introduction of the disease in the Birth Cohort – occurred between 1948 and 1963, far earlier than many had suggested.

These infections are most likely related to the techniques and equipment that medical professionals used in the post-World War II (WWII) era, prior to the establishment of safer technologies, equipment, blood screening, and techniques that came about in the wake of the initial HIV crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. Strict blood screening techniques were not, in fact, common place until the U.S. government mandated the practice in 1992. As such, anyone who received a blood transfusion or underwent invasive medical procedures prior to that year may have been exposed to HCV, and should be screened for the virus.

Stigmata are nothing new, however, for the Birth Cohort. This is a group who helped to push the sexual revolution and drug use of the 1960s and 70s, and began having children in the 1980s. During this time, reports of sexually transmitted diseases and viruses, as well as transmission via IDU, began gaining more media exposure, both of which gained a level of ignominy in the 1980s in relation to HIV. We must remember that many media reports indicated that HIV only impacted those in the “4 ‘H’ Club” – Heroin users, Hookers, Haitians, and Homosexuals. When this type of branding in the media and in government conversations occurs, stigmata arise that leads to people avoiding testing and treatment.

Since that time, however, infectious diseases have undergone something of facelift, with multi-million-dollar ad campaigns and outreach programs on the part of pharmaceutical companies and governments trying to spread the word about getting tested. These efforts are part of a concerted effort to reduce the stigma associated with chronic illnesses and infectious diseases that are both costly to treat and incredibly harmful to those living with them if they go untreated.

For the Birth Cohort, however, to feel as if they should be lumped in with what many view as an unsavory crowd simply goes counter to the reality of the epidemic. Screening for HCV isn’t just something that applies to those who practice risky behavioral patterns; rather, it should be something that is routine within the Birth Cohort, so that they can cure HCV and live their waning years without the concern of HCV-related illnesses and co-morbidities.

References:

  • Joy, J., McCloskey, R., Nguyen, T., Liang, R., Khudyakov, Y., & Olmstead, A., et al. (2016, March 30). The spread of hepatitis C virus genotype 1a in North America: a retrospective phylogenetic study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases16(6), 698-702. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(16)00124-9. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00124-9

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What is WAC and is it Outdated?

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Every time we mention Hepatitis C (HCV) drugs, we talk about price; specifically, we speak about “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” (WACs), and how that company-designated measure sets the baseline for pricing throughout the healthcare landscape. But, the reality of pharmaceutical pricing is far messier than just the WAC cost. In response to last week’s HEAL Blog entry regarding HCV drugs and Medicare, one quite savvy worker within the public healthcare arena rightly noted that “nobody really pays that price,” which brings up a couple of equally (if not more important) questions: (1.) If nobody pays that price, why is it even used; and (2.) Why does no one actually pay those prices?

A WAC “…is, with respect to a pharmaceutical or biological, the manufacturer’s list price for the pharmaceutical or biological to wholesalers or direct purchasers in the United States, not including prompt pay or other discounts, rebates or reductions in price, for the most recent month for which the information is available, as reported in wholesale price guides or other publications of pharmaceutical or biological pricing data (PharmaLink, n.d.).” That definition is pretty loaded, because it really spells out the ingredients (and the problems) in the drug pricing sausage that is so frustrating to advocates and patients, alike. What one program, insurer, or individual pays for drugs may or may not be the same price paid by another, and that makes determining the actual cost of drugs problematic.

Flow chart demonstrating the confusing nature of the Wholesale Acquisition Costs

Photo Source: National Academy of Sciences

Pharmaceutical companies like to bandy about the phrase, “What the market will bear,” in relation to how they price their products, which isn’t really a fair statement, because they essentially have a captive market. They know that the products they manufacture are going to be purchased by government healthcare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Ryan White Part B, and the Veterans Affairs (V.A.), and that those programs are essentially (and sometimes literally) required to provide their products to their clients. Outside of the U.S., in more civilized First World healthcare climes, private insurers are essentially nonexistent, as Universal Healthcare Coverage is the norm, and they can set the price they’re willing to pay, manufacturer be damned. So, “what the market will bear” really ends up meaning, “How much we can get U.S. government programs to pay without kicking up too much of a fuss.”

When the aforementioned reader says that we know it to be the case that “nobody really pays that price,” he’s 100% correct. Medicare programs are Federally-funded, state-administered programs, meaning that all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the territories all have the ability to individually negotiate directly with manufacturers to get drug rebates and discounted prices, meaning that each individual program may pay entirely different prices, and those prices are not public information, due to existing Trade Secrets laws that prevent that data from being released from official sources. The V.A. automatically gets the “best price,” meaning that they’ll ostensibly pay the lowest price, so they’re not really in the equation. Medicare Part D, however, is a different kettle of fish, because it is essentially a market of private insurers who are reimbursed through the national Medicare program for their expenditures, and price negotiations are, for better or worse, left up to those private insurers’ employees. According to research, while having more insurers on the Part D marketplace lowers costs to consumers, the Medicaid approach of state employees doing the negotiating actually works out to be cheaper than those “Free Market” solutions.

Because the WAC is a baseline measure against which all discounts and rebate agreements are measured, it makes determining the actual end price of drugs very difficult to determine publicly, and frankly, it’s a terrible model for the U.S. to continue participating in if programs are expected to exist in perpetuity. At some point, “what the market will bear” will become “What tuned-in Americans are willing to tolerate.”

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hepatitis C and Medicare Part D

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

HEAL Blog has consistently covered the cost of new Direct Acting Agents (DAA) used to treat Hepatitis C (HCV), as well as the impact those prices have had on state Medicaid and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs). What we haven’t really covered is how those costs have impacted Medicare and the Medicare Part D program.

In addition to writing for HEAL Blog, I also serve as the Project Director for the HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch. Last year, we looked into expanding our reporting of HCV drug coverage to include Medicare Part D markets, and what we found was that it was simply too much data to fit into an already then-76-page report. In June, I went ahead and looked at coverage for the Part D Standalone drug plans, and wound up scouring 923 different plans across the country and in five territories. What I discovered was that 922 plans covered the two most expensive HCV drugs on the market at that time – Sovaldi and Harvoni (Gilead).

That translates into staggering figures for Medicare Part D expenditures, as outline in reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2014, spending on the three most-prescribed HCV drugs – Sovaldi, Harvoni, and Olysio (Janssen) – totaled $4.665 billion (CMS, 2016). Preliminary data obtained by the Associated Press (AP) from CMS estimate that the cost of HCV drugs to Medicare in 2015 nearly doubled, coming in at roughly $9.2 billion (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2015). This figure comes despite the introduction in 2015 of HCV therapies with lower Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WACs) than the $87,000 Sovaldi or $94,500 Harvoni.

Since the introduction of Sovaldi and Olysio in 2013, HCV drugs have consistently ranked in the top ten drug expenditures for Medicare Part D, as they have for Medicaid and the Veterans Administration (VA). The primary difference is that both Medicaid and the VA pay lower prices for the drugs as a result of state Medicaid negotiating power and the VA’s “Best-Price” rule that requires pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs at the lowest possible price. Medicare, however, is prohibited from negotiating drug prices as a result of the Medicaid Modernization Act (2003) that established Medicare Part D. One of the main provisions of the Act states that, “…in order to promote competition,” the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary “…may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plans.”

President Donald J. Trump

Photo Source: UPI

Democrats have long attempted to pass legislation that would amend this provision, and may have found a new, not-so-secret weapon – President Donald Trump (Tribble, 2017). He has repeatedly stated that he believes Medicare should have this power, much to the consternation of Tom Price, Trump’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Republicans, who have long held that Medicare negotiating drug prices amounts to Federal tyranny, Big Government, and anti-“Free Market” practices. But, even those Republicans are balking at the high cost of HCV drugs.

HEAL Blog will continue to watch in the coming months how this situation plays out, but we can be certain that, like every Trump initiative, the path will be fraught with confusion, disarray, and uncertainty.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Data Analyses Indicate HCV Treatment for All Saves Money; Part 2

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Last week, HEAL Blog discussed some of the thinking behind a “Treatment for All” paradigm for dealing with America’s burgeoning Hepatitis C (HCV) problem. The argument put forth in the study released in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC; Younossi et al, 2017) suggests that adopting a policy of treating every HCV-infected client on government-funded healthcare rosters will ultimately lead to long-term cost savings by reducing the incidence of multiple co-morbidities, such as cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and the number of liver transplants. This is a position that advocates (including HEAL Blog) have been arguing for years – since the release of Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen) in 2013. The pharmaceutical companies who manufacture Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat HCV have been arguing this position, as well.

Read Part 1, “Data Analyses Indicate HCV Treatment for All Saves Money

All of these parties are coming up against the stark reality of the budgetary process. Rather than being calculated based on long-term expenditures, they are calculated using estimated yearly expenditures using the amount of money given to them by the Federal and state governments – resources that are limited, and unlikely to increase without significant increases in tax revenues generated by tax hikes (business, corporate, and personal) or some unexpected increase in profits that comes out of nowhere. Medicaid directors and drug purchasing officials have repeatedly made the claim that treating everyone on their rosters infected with HCV will outstrip their pharmacy budgets several times over. Tom Burns, head of drug purchase for the Oregon Health Authority in 2014, said in an interview that “…Oregon can afford to wait” to see how other HCV drugs develop, and that “…the vast majority [of the 5,600 clients infected with HCV] could wait while we figure out a policy that doesn’t bankrupt this state” (Millman, 2014).

Image of a stethoscope wrapped around a $20 bill , laying next to an open medication bottle

Affordable Healthcare

This line of thinking has been echoed by virtually every state’s Medicaid program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), however, didn’t buy that line, and in 2015 issued an official guidance that reminded Medicaid programs that they are required by law to cover these drugs under section 1927(b) of the Social Security Act (CMS, 2015). Furthermore, states facing litigation related to treating HCV patients have found little sympathy from the Judicial Branch. In May 2016, Federal U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour ordered Washington state’s Medicaid provider to cover HCV drugs for all patients by granting a preliminary injunction that forced the state Health Care Authority (HCA) to halt a 2015 policy that restricted access to the drugs based on a fibrosis score (Aleccia, 2016). This injunction was in response to a class action lawsuit against Apple Health, Washington’s Medicaid program, on behalf of two clients and 28,000 other enrollees. Another Federal U.S. District Judge, Robert Mariani, ordered the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide HCV treatment to well-known inmate, Mumia Abu-Jamal (Moran, 2017). While his ruling applied only to Abu-Jamal, the judge went on record, stating that the DOC’s interim protocol for treating HCV “…presents deliberate indifference to the known risks which follow from untreated chronic Hepatitis C.”

The report in the AJCM found that if Medicaid in the U.S. continues its use of restrictions to treatment, the estimated total cost of treating the HCV cohort will come to $9.7 billion, with the majority of costs (50.4%) attributable to downstream costs of care (i.e. – hospitalization costs, outpatient costs, and non-Harvoni pharmacy costs). Conversely, treating all Medicaid patients with Chronic HCV using Harvoni led to a 39.4% savings – $3.8 billion – over the model time horizon and decreased the relative proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3% (Younossi).

While most of the cost savings were related to downstream medical cost offsets, even the pharmacy costs attributed to Harvoni treatment over non-Harvoni treatment decreased 2%, from $4.84 billion to $4.75 billion. This is due in part to the 9,618 patients in the cohort potentially eligible for an 8-week regimen of Harvoni to achieve a Sustained Virologic Response (SVR), rather than the traditional 12-week regimen. Treating all Medicaid patients with Harvoni led to a 19.8% savings per SVR, given that earlier treatment of HCV resulted in better health and cost outcomes (Younossi).

Though this analysis is a fantastic tool, another harsh reality is the [potential] repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It was announced, last week, that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution has been put on hold, pending the repeal of the ACA (Shutt, 2017). This means that any type of Federal budgeting process for Medicaid (as well as the Centers for Disease Control, and other domestic spending programs) has stalled for the foreseeable future, leaving virtually everyone involved in those organizations in the lurch, waiting for their fates to be handed down to them. Most HIV and HCV advocates, however, are heartened by Tom Cole (R-OK) saying, “We thought it was wrong when Democrats said for every increased dollar on defense, you had to increase domestic. It’s just as wrong to say for every increase on defense you have to cut domestic.” He finished that statement, however, by saying that he believes those increases should be offset on “…the entitlement side of the ledger.” That statement is considerably LESS heartening.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized