Tag Archives: Medicaid

The State of Hepatitis C Coverage in America – Part 2: Medicaid

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 our final HEAL Blog post of 2018, we will be continuing from last week our analysis of Hepatitis C (HCV) coverage in the United States. While this was originally designed to be Part 2 of a three-part series, the decision was made to cut this month short by whittling that down to just two posts for the month of December.  As such, this final HEAL Blog will focus on the state of Medicaid coverage for HCV Direct Acting Antivirals (DAAs). Read Part 1, The State of Hepatitis C Coverage in America – Part 1: ADAP.

HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch

HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch

At the time of our inaugural report in January 2015, only 38 state Medicaid programs offered coverage for HCV DAAs. Even then, access to these treatments was severely limited by numerous onerous Prior Authorization pre-requisites, primarily those which required patients to suffer moderate-to-extreme liver decomposition and scarring – scores of F3 or F4 – before even being considered for treatment approval. Other pre-requisites include(d) sobriety requirements, drug use prohibitions, enrollment in recovery treatment programs, and numerous appeals.

In addition to these pre-requisites, both the states that ostensibly offered coverage and those that did not openly argued that made no bones about restricting or refusing coverage based on cost. So overt was their argument and pervasive the problem that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a guidance letter to every state Medicaid program specifically stating that cost considerations “…should not result in the denial of access to effective, clinically appropriate, and medically necessary treatments using DAA drugs for beneficiaries with chronic HCV infections” (Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, 2015).

With the CMS guidance was announced in November 2015, by August 2016, every state Medicaid program had expanded their coverage to include HCV DAAs. Since August 2016, every state has continued to offer coverage…again, ostensibly. Over time, several states have either reduced or eliminated the F-score requirements for treatment consideration, as well as removing other pre-requisites, the most recent of which was Oregon (this has not been officially announced, yet, so the citation is forthcoming).

As we have covered numerous times since Mavyret’s (AbbVie) August 2017 debut (including in last week’s HEAL Blog), the introduction of the drug at a remarkably lower Wholesale Acquisition Cost relative to other available DAAs allowed many programs to begin reducing or eliminating restrictions altogether. And, again, looking forward to the January 2019 release of Gilead’s authorized generic versions of their breakthrough drugs, Harvoni and Epclusa, the cost of HCV treatment continues to decline in part because of innovation, but mostly, because of AbbVie’s 2017 salvo with the lowest priced DAA on the market.

There are, however, newer DAAs in the pipeline. 2018 was the first year since 2013 in which a new HCV DAA was not released into the U.S. market. With prices demonstrably lower than the initially unconscionably high prices in 2013, it is unclear whether pharmaceutical companies will stay in the HCV game – Janssen, makers of the now-discontinued Olysio, the once-companion drug to Gilead’s Sovaldi – bowed out of game at the end of 2017, pulling Olysio from the shelves in May of this year. Companies that once assumed that their HCV drugs would enter into a highly competitive, high-priced market are coming up against incredibly popular and effective drugs that cost roughly 1/3 of the original DAAs. That difference in entry price does not bode well for newcomers or new drugs hoping to gain a foothold in the market.

The Community Access National Network will continue to monitor the state of HCV coverage in the U.S. Until next year, we wish you and yours the Happiest of Holidays and an even Happier New Year.

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.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Shorter Treatment Durations Prove Both Effective and Cheaper

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

Whenever I begin conversations about Hepatitis C (HCV) pharmaceutical costs, I use the following spiel:

The new drugs that treat Hepatitis C are phenomenal and have amazing success rates in the 90-100% range across all genotypes. That said, the first of these drugs was only introduced to the market in 2013 – Sovaldi – and it came out at a cost of $84,000 for only twelve weeks of treatment. In 2014, the next big drug – Harvoni – came out at $94,500 for twelve weeks of treatment. Since that time, newer, better drugs have been released after significantly lower prices. The cheapest, right now, is Mavyret, at $26,400 for eight weeks of treatment and $39,600 for twelve. While that is a significant reduction in the list price of these drugs, it is stillnot comparable to other conditions, like HIV. One of the newest HIV drugs, Biktarvy, is $35,839 per YEAR– for twelve MONTHS of treatment. It is essentially ¼ the cost of Hepatitis C medications per month, and what is worse is that exponentially more people are living with Hepatitis C than HIV.

When I give them this spiel, the response I consistently receive is, “FOR TWELVE WEEKS?!” “Yes,” I tell them.

Rx medicines on $100 bills

Photo Source: Consumer Reports

The argument against using these numbers – the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) – is that, in the complicated and clandestine world of pharmaceutical pricing, WAC prices are essentially “suggestions.” The actual prices paid for these medications by insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, the V.A., prisons, or patients is entirely subject to very secretive, entirely confidential pricing negotiations, rebates, purchasing agreements, and other arrangements that mean everyone EXCEPT for patients paying out-of-pocket with no insurance coverage wind up paying anywhere from 15%-90% of the WAC.

Even with these steep discounts, payors have used the high costs of these medications to deny or delay treatment for patients until they are “sick enough” to merit treatment, a practice that is both highly unethical, and can result in dire long-term health consequences. But, in the U.S. healthcare system, cash is king, and profits are more important that people, both to the pharmaceutical companies who make these overpriced drugs, and the insurers who refuse to pay for them.

New research, however, has the potential to benefit patients and payors, alike: shortening treatment time maintains efficacy and decreases cost associated with treatment in 50% of patients (DiGrande, 2018). For this 50% of patients, regimen length can be reduced to just six weeks of treatment without compromising the efficacy of the drug; essentially, we can achieve roughly identical results whether treatment lasts six weeks or twelve. The resultant savings could be as much as 20%, according to the first co-author, Harel Dahari, PhD (DiGrande).

Another potential benefit of these findings is that reduced treatment durations may result in more incarcerated persons living with HCV receiving treatment. One of the (several) “tricks” state prisons and county/city jails use to deny treatment to inmates is refusing treatment based upon the time they will remain incarcerated. So, when the treatment norm was twelve weeks, if a prisoner had only six months left to serve on their sentence, they would deny treatment, because they argue that the inmate will not be able to properly initiate and complete the three-month regimen before their release. See? They won’t be able to finish it, so…I mean, GOSH…we just can’t pay for that!” Unfortunately, few Federal judges are finding that argument convincing and are consistently ruling against state Departments of Corrections, demanding that all inmates (or, in certain cases, only the specified plaintiffs) receive treatment immediately. While there is little evidence to suggest that the “time-remaining” excuse will disappear, there is always the likelihood that these findings can be used in court to successfully argue that these excuses are fallacious, at best, and illegal, at worst.

As new drugs continue to be introduced onto the market, along with the introduction of Gilead’s authorized generic versions of Epclusa and Harvoni hitting the market in January at $24,000 for twelve weeks of treatment, the potential exists that the WAC of six weeks of treatment could be $12,000 – 1/7 of the cost of Sovaldi when it hit the market. Moreover, as the drugs improve, that 50% of patients may increase, meaning that even more patients could achieve Sustained Virologic Response in half the time, for even morecost savings.

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

Opioids Drive Hepatitis C Infections in New CDC Data

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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released new data that estimate that approximately 2.4 million adults are living with Hepatitis C (HCV) in the United States (Hofmeister, et al., 2018). This estimate was reached by analyzing 2013-2016 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate the prevalence of HCV in the non-institutionalized population in combination with literature reviews and population size estimation approaches to estimate the HCV prevalence and population sizes for incarcerated people, unsheltered homeless people, active-duty military personnel, and nursing home residents (Hofmeister).

Photo of the CDC Headquarters

Source: George Mason University

These data represent the latest effort by the CDC to more accurately reflect the severity of the HCV epidemic in the United States. The accuracy of this estimate has been significantly hampered by the failure of the CDC to classify HCV as a mandatorily reportable condition (like HIV). Instead, the CDC has left up to individual states whether or not they consider HCV a reportable condition, which has led to a range of wildly varying approaches from no reporting whatsoever, to incredibly detailed reporting that goes down to the county and/or jurisdictional level. These variations have led to certain states providing no functional data about the incidence or prevalence of this deadly virus in their states.

One of the primary drivers of new HCV infections has been the prescription opioid and heroin epidemic that extends into virtually every corner of the U.S.:

Earlier CDC research found that new hepatitis C cases tripled between 2010 and 2016. Most were traced to injection-drug use among younger adults addicted to heroin and other opioids. Adults under 40 have the highest rate of new infections (Norton, 2018).

In states where Injection Drug Use (IDU) is highly prevalent (suburban and rural areas of New England, the Midwest, and Appalachia), IDU accounts for a significant percentage of new HCV infections – in West Virginia and Massachusetts – the states with the second- and first-highest rates of HCV infection respectively – evidence suggests that it is the leading risk factor identified in HCV incidence reporting.

The recent news that Medicaid was expanded by voter ballot initiatives in Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah brings some hope that people living with HCV in those states will gain access to curative treatment. That said, even with Medicaid programs paying for treatment, it is both far cheaper, and more effective to prevent infection, rather than to play “Recovery Medic.” This can be effectively accomplished by establishing (and adequately funding) Syringe Services Programs (SSPs) which have been shown to reduce the number of new infectious disease infections and increase access to and utilization of drug abuse recovery services. Unfortunately, according to a 2017 CDC study, only three U.S. states have laws that “support full access” to both SSPs and HCV treatment (Norton).

For those of us in the HCV data game, these data are of little surprise. While this latest CDC estimate is down from the previous one, there are factors to consider when looking at this decrease: the introduction of HCV Direct-Acting Antivirals has decreased the number of people living with HCV as access to these medications has increase and people who wereliving with HCV have died in greater number as their disease ravaged their livers and other bodily organs. Essentially, people either got cured, or they died (Norton).

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

Lower-Priced HCV Drugs Haven’t Improved Treatment Approvals

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 Free Market will work! Competition in the Hepatitis C drug market will force prices down, and everything will be okay!”

This has been the mantra of pharmaceutical companies and market watchers since the 2013 introduction of the highly-effective, but extremely expensive Direct-Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat and cure Hepatitis C (HCV). And, in point of fact, prices for treatment have decreased significantly since Sovaldi hit the market with a Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $84,000 for twelve weeks of treatment. The latest (and cheapest) drug to hit the market – AbbVie’s Mavyret – sells for “just” $39,600 for twelve weeks of treatment. But, that twelve-week treatment period is for the most aggressive HCV cases; the recommended treatment for most patients is eight weeks, for which Mavyret goes for $26,400.

Curiously enough, however, healthcare payors have done their damnedest to not cover these drugs for patients. A study published in June of this year (2018), insurance companies deny coverage in 35.5% of cases (over 1/3 of the time); for patients with commercial insurance, the denial rates are even higher (Kaltwasser, 2018).

$100 bill with prescription medicine on it

Photo Source: Consumer Reports

As Kaltwasser points out in his MD Magazine article, previous studies published in 2016 indicated that the approval rate was much higher, and that Medicaid denial rates were higher. While Medicaid approval rates have improved (after a 2015 letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to state Medicaid directors informing that denials based on the cost of treatment violated Federal law), that does little to help the 56% of Americans with commercial insurance.

When patients are denied coverage, there are options – Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) are designed to aid patients who are either underinsured or whose insurance plans deny coverage of certain drugs. Manufacturer-provided PAPs, like those offered by Gilead Sciences and AbbVie, pay for most (if not all) of the out-of-pocket expenses for purchasing the drug, whereas private PAPs, such as the PAN Foundation, provide assistance for patients whose insurance company agrees to pay for treatment and patients need assistance with the out-of-pocket costs.

Another, more common route is the appeals process, which can take weeks, if not months, and requires a lot of extra groundwork from all parties. Some patients have gone through numerous rounds of appeals and denials, just to get an approval. This process is exhausting, and frankly, it’s not good for the health of patients who go through unnecessary stress just to get the treatment they need (and pay).

Worse, still, is that, while the cost to payors has decreased along with WAC prices, the price to consumers has not.  In fact, for many patients, those costs have increased as insurers place HCV DAA drugs in “Specialty Tiers” or the highest payment tiers in their policy, meaning that patients will pay $100+ out-of-pocket for co-pays.

HIV medications – the newer ones, at least – often fall into this “Specialty Tier” as well. My monthly co-pay for my HIV medications, for example, sets me back $250/month on top of the $285+ monthly premium, for a total of over $500/month. Were these costs not covered by West Virginia’s Ryan White program, nearly ¼ of my monthly income would be dedicated solely to treating my HIV, and that leaves out the up to $500 that each of my biannual doctor visits cost me, including the $75 co-pay, plus the cost of the bloodwork, any X-Rays, or procedures I need done.

HCV patients get to go through all that, and worse, without the benefit of a Ryan White-style program that helps to cover the cost of treatment. And the cost of treatment is higher for HCV on an annual basis.

I know I’ve beaten this drum, before, but the fact is this: until such time as the U.S. joins the rest of the modern world and begins offering Universal Healthcare, patients are going to be the ones getting screwed at every turn, in addition to being nickeled and dimed for every cost a provider can cobble together every time they visit a doctor. Insurance company, pharmaceutical company, and for-profit hospital profits will soar, while patients will continue to struggle to afford even poor-quality healthcare that would be unacceptable in every other First World nation, never mind quality, comprehensive healthcare.

In the meantime, patients living with chronic illnesses are just going to have to suffer through denials, appeals, and ever-mounting medical debt that will leave us scraping by from month to month, just to make ends meet. But, hey! At least we won’t have to suffer the indignities of “Socialized Medicine,” where Conservatives insist that, as David Sedaris once put it, “…patients [will] lie dirty cots waiting for aspirin to be invented.”

Lucky. Us.

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

Three States Expand Access to Hepatitis C Treatment

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 the past two months, three states – California, New Jersey (Hester, 2018), and Rhode Island (Miller, 2018) – have moved or plan to move to drastically reduce the number of prerequisites to gain access to Direct-Acting Agents (DAAs)to treat and cure Hepatitis C (HCV). Here, at HEAL Blog, we have been advocating for such a change since our inception, though it would be hubristic to suggest that a single blog post could account for any change to state Medicaid policies.

As discussed in the previous blog linked above, California’s efforts to expand access likely relate to a couple of Class-Action lawsuits they’ve been facing over the past few years, both from Medicaid clients and incarcerated citizens. Rather than wait to end up paying exponentially more by way of settling or outright losing in court, the state wisely chose to expand access by providing more money through the budgeting process. This additional $176 million will allow the state to open treatment to more lower-income Medi-Cal recipients, as well as those incarcerated.

New Jersey has also broadened coverage for HCV DAAs to cover all Medicaid enrollees in the state once someone is diagnosed with the virus. This policy change was also facilitated by increased funding in the FY2019 budget to the tune of $10m. (Stainton, 2018).

New Jersey’s Medicaid program, however, is run a bit differently. Since 1995, the state’s Medicaid program has been administered by way of Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) – private companies who are contracted to provide and disburse benefits and payments to Medicaid recipients in exchange for a per member per month capitation payment. Currently, there are five private insurers who offer these services: Aetna, Amerigroup NJ, Horizon NJ Health, UnitedHealthcare Community Plan NJ, and WellCare. MCOs are designed to save state’s money by outsourcing the work to private companies for cheaper than the state itself would spend on salaries, pensions, and benefits to administer the program. Of the five MCOs in New Jersey, all but oneplan (Amerigroup NJ) provide drug coverage only for Mavyret (AbbVie), the newest pangenotpyic DAA drug on the market (which is conveniently also the cheapest). Amerigroup alone provides coverage to virtually every other DAA still on the market.

The problem with MCOs is that, because they are private companies providing this service, they are not always quick to adapt to new rules and regulations. There are several states which employ MCOs alongside traditional Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicaid programs. The rub is that MCOs are required by law to provide the same coverage for clients as the FFS program, meaning that, if the FFS Program covers all available DAA drugs, the MCOs must also offer the same drug coverage. This is rarely the case, and few people, either from the state governments, or individuals who enroll in these plans, ever really push the point hard enough to ensure that MCOs are meeting this requirement. In the case of New Jersey, there is no FFS Medicaid programs; it’s entirely operated via MCOs, which essentially means that it will be difficult for New Jersey’s government to ensure that clients in all five MCOs are receiving access to this expanded treatment.

Finally, Rhode Island has also broadened coverage for HCV treatments. This was accomplished as a result of persistent lobbying by the Rhode Island Center for Justice, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School, and community activists and lawyers (Miller).

The ball got rolling on this change when a state resident receiving legal representation after being denied treatment by the state’s Medicaid program. The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation has been tireless in its efforts to expand access to treatment of chronic illnesses both by government-funded programs, and by private insurers. Over the past three years, the Center has repeatedly stepped in on behalf of Medicaid recipients and privately insured individuals to use public pressure and threat of legal action to ensure that patients receive the coverage to which they are entitled, either by Federal law, or by state mandate. They have worked with several states to create HCV medication pilot programs that allow state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) to offer coverage for HCV drugs that they might otherwise never receive.

All three of these states are moving in the right direction. Hopefully, we will see more forward momentum from other states 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

California Plans to Allocate $176 Million to 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 state of California has revised its 2018-2019 state budget to include $176 million to expand Hepatitis C (HCV) treatment to low-income citizens (Bartolone, 2018).

For low-income recipients of Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) and inmates in state prisons, access to the Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) that cure HCV by allowing a patient to achieve Sustained Virologic Response – SVR – has been extremely limited. For recipients of Medi-Cal, there were several prior authorization requirements that served as barriers to treatment (Department of Health Care Services, 2015). For patients incarcerated in California state prisons, access has been so difficult that inmates have had to file a Class-Action lawsuit in an effort to force the state to provide the Constitutionally guaranteed access to treatment they should be receiving (Bayse, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.).

Medi-Cal

Photo Source: Kaiser Health News

The newly allocated funds – $106m – will primarily go to the correctional system, as the rate of HCV infection is much higher in correctional settings than in the general population (Holzer, 2018). In speaking with colleagues at the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, the scuttlebutt around California is that this revision to increase HCV funding is a preemptive step to resolve the pending Class-Action suit against the state. The thinking seems to be that it will be cheaper to pony up the money to treat inmates, now, rather than to wind up paying a potentially much higher amount to accomplish the same goal, as well as potential damages awarded for failing to provide access to treatment.

While these funds are a fantastic development, history has shown that, even when the money is there, changing course is often difficult to implement with any immediacy. We’ve seen, before, that there will always be bugs in the system. Though Medi-Cal hasn’t yet moved to alter the existing prior authorization restrictions, it is highly anticipated that the agency will do so within the coming months (Bartolone). The $70m in additional funds designated to pay for treatment of approximately 2,090 patients. Let’s see if that comes to fruition.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Absolute Denial of HCV DAA Treatment Not Only Common, But Rising

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 high cost of curing Hepatitis C (HCV) with newer Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) drugs has been the fodder of many an article since their introduction into the commercial market in 2013 with Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen). When Harvoni (Gilead) entered the market in 2014, its Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $94,500 for 12 weeks of treatment, it was dubbed “The $1,000-a-Day Pill” by the media and a Congressional investigation was launched in the U.S. State Medicaid programs insisted that treating everyone with HCV on their rolls would not only obliterate their pharmacy budgets, but do so exponentially.

Gilead Sciences tried to do their part by offering a manufacturer Patient Assistance Program (PAP) that offered drastically reduced or free fills on these prescriptions if patients were denied coverage by Medicaid, Medicare, or their private insurer. That program was quickly inundated by patients whose payors instructed them to “…go and get it for free from Gilead.” By 2015, Gilead was forced to restrict the PAP to only the uninsured and those whose insurance denied coverage.

Now, new research published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases has found that, between 2014-2017, 52.4% patients with private insurance who were prescribed DAAs to treat their HCV infection were absolutely denied treatment (defined as “a lack of fill approval by the insurer”). In addition 34.5% of patients on Medicaid were denied, and a paltry 14.7% of patients with Medicare insurance were denied (Gowda, et al, 2018). These findings are compounded by similar research conducted regarding HCV treatment in correctional settings that found less than 1% of inmates infected with HCV in state correctional facilities were receiving treatment (Paukstis, 2018).

denied square red grunge stamp

Photo Source: emdlaw.com

This appalling record of absolute denials of treatment are a large part of why the U.S. has fallen behind comparable nations in achieving the elimination goals set forth by the World Health Organization in 2016, calling for the elimination of HCV as a public health crisis by the year 2030. Worse, these denials have come as the cost of treatment has dropped dramatically, from its high point with Harvoni, to its lowest point with AbbVie’s Mavyret, which has a WAC of $26,400 for 8 weeks of treatment ($39,600 for 12 weeks). Moreover, Mavyret sports comparable Sustained Virologic Response (SVR – “cure”) rates to Sovaldi, Harvoni, and Epclusa (Gilead). Worse still is that the WAC is largely a useless price point, as the vast majority of payors enter into pricing negotiations with the drug manufacturers and receive discounts and rebates that reduce that cost to a mere percentage of the WAC.

And, yet…

America’s healthcare problems are all solvable…in we are willing to go on the offensive against the corporate interests that we’ve allowed to run roughshod over our nation’s healthcare system since the late 1970s. We have allowed private insurers, drug manufacturers, and other private entities to turn healthcare away from being a profession designed to cure people – a system that we, as a nation, helped to flourish and turned into the best in the world in the mid-1900s – and into a for-profit industry whose main priorities revolve around further enriching the already rich.

We can combat diseases like HCV; hell, we managed to eradicate polio in the U.S. by 1979 with a vaccine that was created in 1953 and came into commercial use in 1955, with an oral vaccine following in 1961.

Jonas Salk, the creator of the first polio vaccine, once told Edward R. Murrow, when asked who owned the patent for the vaccine, “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

Since that time, countless business writers and corporate shills have derided Salk’s statement, going so far as to call it “Communist propaganda.” And, yet, it is because of Salk’s vaccine that we managed to eradicate polio in much of the modernized world.

We need to get back to this way of thinking, as it relates to healthcare. It’s time to pull the profits out of healthcare, altogether, and if that means dismantling the private insurance market, then so be it.

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