Tag Archives: Medicaid

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.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hepatitis C Death Rate High Among Uninsured and Medicaid Recipients

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

Researchers presenting at Digestive Disease Week found that, between 2000-2010, adult who were infected with Hepatitis C (HCV) were more likely to die if they were either uninsured, or recipients of Medicaid benefits (Basen, 2018). Being HCV-Positive correlated with higher mortality rates (10.4% compared to 3.1% for HCV-Negative patients).

The limitations of these data are several – (a.) the data are nearly a decade old; (b.) these HCV mortality rates are from an era where the only curative treatments for the disease had a treatment abandonment rate of between 40-80%, because the Pegylated-Interferon treatments were almost impossible to tolerate; (c.) an artifact of those older treatments was that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were not proactive about pushing HCV testing beyond the Birth Cohort (1945-1965).

While these data are nearing ten-years-old, they do reveal some interesting patterns that HEAL Blog has been contending for some time: (1.) Medicaid recipients were more likely to be infected with HCV than those with insurance; (2.) HCV infection rates were highest among the uninsured; (3.) HCV-Positive Medicaid recipients had higher rates of extra-hepatic (illnesses other than those affecting the liver) comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, and stroke.

Outpatient Medicaid Office

Photo Source: VinNews.com

Essentially, much like HIV, although neither disease discriminates against any class, color, or education level, those who are poorer, less educated, and minorities are disproportionately impacted by these fatal diseases. More to the point, there is no single rightway to deal with these issues; none of these issues exist in isolation:

  • less education correlates with and contributes to poverty, as well as leaving people less able to understand health risks and how to deal with any diseases they contract;
  • people who are impoverished tend to have less access to comprehensive (or even basic) healthcare services, and if they are poorly educated, they are less likely to utilize healthcare services, because they often don’t recognize symptoms of disease;
  • people who are have less access to healthcare services are likelier to develop chronic illnesses that prevent them from working, thereby increasing their likelihood of remaining in poverty.

Because these problems are interconnected, dealing with just one aspect is an ineffective approach – we cannot just address access to healthcare, because we’re not also addressing how people will pay for healthcare and treatment, nor are we considering the impact that accessing healthcare can have for people who have to miss hourly-wage jobs in order to access said care, and thus lose money, only to have to spend more money.

And, honestly, I don’t know what the answers in today’s America are. In a perfect world, we would have Universal Healthcare paid for by tax dollars that would low- to no-cost out-of-pocket, as well as expanded and affordable public transportation, higher wages, rent control, and free college and university paid for by taxes (like most of the rest of the modernized world). But, we don’t have those things, and it’s not likely we’re going to get those things any time soon.

In the meantime, looking at these data are a great way for us to craft policies to address these issues, particularly as new HCV infections are trending younger and younger, and younger people are less likely to be insured. Food for thought.

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

Trump’s War on the Poor is a War Against Us

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

On April 10th, current President, Donald J. Trump, fired the latest Republican salvo against the poor and social welfare programs by signing an executive order intended to force recipients of food assistance, Medicaid, and low-income housing subsidies to “get a job” or lose their benefits. A question that has yet to be answered is whether or not this edict will apply to recipients of Ryan White benefits, which provide low- or no-cost HIV medications, medical and dental treatment coverage, and other ancillary, yet vital services to an estimated 52% of people diagnosed with HIV in the United States (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2016). Those co-infected with Hepatitis C (HCV), whose cure requires treatment with some of the most expensive drugs on the market, are likely to be harmed, as well.

Make no mistake – this latest royal decr…executive order – unironically titled, “Reducing Poverty in America” – is specifically designed notto actuallypull people up out of poverty, but to force the “undeserving” off of the public dole. The order is directed at “any program that provides means-tested assistance or other assistance that provides benefits to people, households, or families that have low incomes” (Thrush, 2018). This is concerning for healthcare advocates, because the qualification for Ryan White services is predicated upon “means-tested assistance.” Essentially, how much money you make determines if you’re eligible for coverage.

Recent HCV incidence and prevalence reports indicate that an increasing number of new infectious occur in rural and suburban areas of the country, with higher rates of infection occurring in Injection Drug Users, particularly in people aged 18-45, and in areas where unemployment is high, educational achievement is lower, and access to healthcare services often faces several barriers. Essentially, HCV is prevalent among people and in places that are poor; people who often rely upon means-tested assistance to pay for healthcare.

As with virtually every Republican-initiated attempt to “reform” social services programs, this is a solution looking for a problem. Roughly 60% of working age, non-elderly Medicaid enrollees are working; plus, nearly 8 in 10 –  recipients (78%) live in families where at least one person works (Garfield, et al, 2018). The statistics are similar for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)…  And for WIC…  And for virtually every other social safety net program.

76% of Louisiana's Medicaid expansion enrollees are working, caring for family members, or in school.

Photo Source: Louisiana Budget Project

Ryan White recipients, in particular, face an undue burden, as income requirements – particularly in more conservative states – are so low that working virtually any job will make them ineligible to receive coverage for medications that are prohibitively expensive. This will apply to both those mono-infected with HIV and co-infected with HCV.  For those receiving Medicaid, the burden will be just as high.

All of this stems from the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), a percentage of which determines eligibility for these means-tested programs. For an individual, the FPL is $12,140 per year in 2018. This means that an individual must make that amount, or less, to be considered “in poverty” in the United States. In states that expanded their Medicaid programs, most raised that qualification limit to 138% percent of the FPL ($16,753). The FPL percentage for Ryan White varies wildly from state to state.

This places potential recipients in a terrible position: At the current Federal Minimum Wage ($7.50/hour), an individual working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks will have an annual income of $15,080. If they cross this threshold by even a few hundred dollars, it makes them ineligible for the program, but still leaves them unable to afford the basic cost of living, much less any insurance premiums or medications they may have added to their monthly expenditures. Even with a second income, which would likely make them ineligible for services because they make “too much money,” the cost of living is so far removed from how the FPL is set, no person can reasonably expect to subsist off of that amount for any extended period of time in a First World country.

Adding work requirements to social programs also poses a logistical reality: simply demanding that “able-bodied” people “get jobs” doesn’t magically create jobs for there to be gotten. Nor are these requirements bolstered by any additional wraparound services, such as increased infrastructure spending to extend public transportation services out to far-flung locales, transportation assistance funds to cover the cost of fuel or low-cost public transportation passes.

The reality is that these “cost-saving” measures (ultimately designed to purge these programs of ‘undeserving’ recipients) will result in immeasurable costs that will be paid in human lives.

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

We Have a Cure for HCV; Few People Can Get It

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

Numerous films and novels have predicted this fate: there’s a fatal disease and someone invents a cure, but nobody can get it, and people die because of it. It’s a metaphor about the dangers of unchecked capitalism – the greedy owner of the cure who holds the rest of the world hostage until his demands are met.

And here it is – 2018, and we’ve had a cure for Hepatitis C (HCV) that’s easily tolerated since 2013, but it’s so prohibitively expensive that private and public payors, alike, have strictly limited access to it. They make patients, physicians, and pharmacists jump through as many hoops as possible to get the cure, from the strictest prerequisite abstinence guidelines, to allowing the disease to progress until it’s “bad enough” to cover it.

Medical Benefits Claim Form with the word, "REJECTED"

Photo Source: NPR

Sure, the cost of the newest drugs to cure HCV have dropped to ¼ of the introductory price of Sovaldi (Gilead), but, still – $30k for eight weeks of treatment? That’s still prohibitively expensive, even with the deep discounts and rebates given to many payors by manufacturers during the negotiation process. Those expenditures are only going to increase.

Now, there is evidence suggesting that undiagnosed HCV is more prevalent than undiagnosed HIV (Torian et al, 2018). Since the 1990s, hospitals and emergency departments have actively touted “routine HIV” screening, but have failed to deliver on those promises:

Lessons from HIV are both instructive and sobering: routine HIV screening is not truly routine; linkage continues to challenge even experienced providers; and linkage and treatment initiation vary widely across sites (Torian et al, 2018).

The findings from this study indicate not only a need to increase screening and linkages to care for HIV, but that this increase needs to be spread to HCV, as well. The latter argument, while correct, is unlikely to occur, in no small part because states and patients simply don’t have the resources to successfully implement this type of public health initiative.

Beyond just testing, minorities and Medicaid recipients – a significant portion of those infected with HCV – enjoy some of the lowest treatment rates in the nation (Wong et al, 2018). Hispanic patients were siginifantly less likely to receive treatment for HCV than white patients, and those on Medicaid, state insurance, or indigent care or no insurance were significantly less like to receive treatment than those with commercial insurance.

That last part comes to a head in rural America, where patients are far likelier to rely upon Medicaid as their primary payor for medical services, and where Injection Drug Use (IDU) of prescription opioids and/or heroin is high. In states like Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, IDU and rates of overdose go hand in hand with increased rates of both Hepatitis B and HCV.

The sad reality is that, given the existing political makeup of both state and Federal legislatures, it’s highly unlikely that the significant resources needed to effectively combat the spread of HCV will be allocated. At a time when budgets are being slashed in order to accommodate tax cuts for corporation and the wealthy, to suggest that conservative lawmakers are suddenly going to provide an exponential (or even incremental) increase in funding is unrealistic.

References:

  • Torian, L.V., Felsen, U.R., Qiang, X., Laraque, F., Rude, E.J., Rose, H., Cole, A., et al. (2018, April 04). Undiagnosed HIV and HCV Infection in a New York City Emergency Department, 2015. American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 5 (May 1, 2018): pp. 652-658. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304321 Retrieved from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304321
  • Wong, R.J., Jain, M.K., Therapondos, G., Shiffman, M.L., Kshirsagar, O., Clark, C., & Thamer, M. (2018, March 09). Race/ethnicity and insurance status disparities in access to direct acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus treatment. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0033-8. Retrieved from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41395-018-0033-8

 __________

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

Is it Time for a Rethink on Hepatitis C Care?

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 state of West Virginia, any Medicaid beneficiary who is diagnosed with Hepatitis C must personally or through their prescribing doctor consult with either an Infectious Disease specialist or a doctor whose specialty includes Hepatitis C (e.g. – a Hepatologist) in order to have their prescription for Hepatitis C (HCV) Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) approved. In addition, the patient must have a Metavir fibrosis score of F2 or higher as a prerequisite, as well as abstain from illicit drug and alcohol use for a period of 3 months.

These additional barriers to treatment are not only time consuming, but potentially costly. The consultation requirement, alone, exponentially increases the amount of money Medicaid must reimburse just in order to fill a prescription that can now be obtained for potentially $10k per patient (this, according to hearsay, since actual prices paid are forbidden from being made public by existing Trade Secrets laws). Beyond that, even current screening practices tend to require patients to see a specialist, just to get screened for the disease. This is both problematic, and relatively easily remedied.

Barriers to seeing out health care. About 1 in 2 Americans admit they have put off needed health care and have avoided going to a doctor when necessary.

Photo Source: VeraQuest

With the introduction of HCV DAAs in 2013, HCV patients gained access to what was once thought improbable – a relatively easily tolerated “cure” with a high level of efficacy and considerably fewer and less serious side effects. Since that time, an additional nine HCV DAAs have been brought to the market, with newer drugs coming down the pike. The most recent release, AbbVie’s Mavyret, is a potential game changer, offering curative treatment in 8-to-12 weeks for roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the most popular drugs on the market, while sharing essentially identical cure rates. In fact, Mavyret has become the Preferred Drug for several Medicaid Fee-for-Service and Managed Care Organization (MCO) plans since its approval in August of last year.

But, still, issues remain. In West Virginia, the rate of HCV more than doubled from 3.4 (per 100,000 persons) in 2015 (CDC, 2017) to a staggering 7.2 in 2016 (West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 2018). While increased screening may account for this considerable increase, 68% of new Acute HCV infections listed Injection Drug Use (IDU) as the primary risk factor (WV DHHR, 2018), which indicates that increased screening of this community needs to be a priority.

Some of the ways that this can be accomplished is at the regulatory level – requiring screening of all adults in virtually every healthcare setting (e.g. – emergency rooms, primary care, community health centers, urgent care clinics, and correctional settings). In fact, in a simulation model, researchers from Boston Medical Center, Mass. General Hospital, and Stanford University found that this expanded screening protocol would increase life expectancy and quality of life, while also remaining cost effective (Legasse, 2018).

The strategy would also identify an estimated 250,000 more HCV cases than the current U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)-recommended strategy of focusing screening efforts on the Birth Cohort – individuals born between 1945-1965 (Green, 2018). This would have a projected benefit of increasing cure rates from 41% to 61%, while also reducing the risk of death from HCV-linked conditions by more than 20% compared to the current CDC guidelines (Toich, 2018).

It is clear that expanding screening to include all adults, rather than focusing efforts on the Birth Cohort and those whose doctors are aware of any other risk factors (because, let’s be honest – few people who inject drugs are open about that with most doctors, unless they’re there for an IDU-related condition or because of an overdose, at which point, it’s pretty obvious). Once we achieve THAT measure, we can move on to allowing Primary Care Physicians and Registered Nurses begin to administer and monitor HCV DAA therapy, because, it’s just not that difficult to do.

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

Presidential Council Offers Uniquely American Take on Lowering Drug Prices

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

Within the office of the President exists the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) – a group of three advisors who, due to their unique training and expertise, are deemed qualified to analyze and interpret economic developments and advise the President of matters within that scope. The council consists of a chairman and two additional members, only the first of which must be confirmed by the Senate. The CEA, this month, released a White Paper (a government or authoritative report giving information or proposals on an issue) related to the topic of reducing prescription drug prices, and I have to say, as a patient advocate and someone who is pretty knowledgeable about prescription drugs and pricing, their response is entirely American in its analysis.

When it comes to pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical drugs, Americans pay the highest prices in the world. The CEA report says that’s because the U.S. is paying the “market price” for drugs. Other developed countries who have the dreaded “single-payer” healthcare disease of which Republicans and Libertarians are so derisive institute government controls on pricing, forcing the poor, defenseless pharmaceutical giants (whose profits are measured in the billions) to comply with those controls in order to gain access to the market. The solution, the paper concludes, is to reduce “free-riding” abroad.

Did you get that? The key to reducing drug prices for Americans is to force other countries’ citizens to pay more for their drugs. Yes – rather than look at the American model of healthcare delivery and pricing (which virtually any person who’s ever looked at an itemized bill can attest is completely jacked), the CEA instead all but openly states, “Well, those other countries are just doing it wrong! Those silly Socialists and their insistence that healthcare be affordable just don’t know what they’re missing!”

The paper, which can be found here, contains lots of uniquely American concepts: the “Free Market” should dictate drug prices; because the rest of the world doesn’t have a Free Market, drug prices are artificially high; Medicaid and Medicare should stop requiring “best prices” and rebate minimums; we need more Pharmacy Benefit Mangers (PBMs) to enhance competition; make innovation more attractive through incentives.

Report Cover for the "Reforming Biopharmaceutical Pricing at Home and Abroad"

Photo Source: The Council of Economic Advisors

These “solutions,” while certainly things that could reduce the cost of pharmaceutical products, rely almost entirely upon the cooperation of private companies whose main incentives are profits – profits that are already obscene. Moreover, Americans pay for 70% of patented biopharmaceutical profits, despite being only 34% of the Organization for Economic Co-Operations and Development (OECD) market. So, rather than look at our own system and say, “Jesus – we’ve got to follow the leads of these other, healthier countries,” the solutions provided by the CEA instead insist that we not only double-down on our Free Market Madness, but that we attempt to force smarter countries to comply with our lunacy.

Obviously, this is my take on the issue, which is informed by my experience as a healthcare consumer for life (thanks, AIDS) and as someone who has closely tracked pharmaceutical development and pricing for the past five years. While virtually every other developed nation in the world, and even developing nations, pay reasonable prices for pharmaceutical products, Americans get screwed, all in the name of the “Free Market.”

How is it that America went from the government developing some of the most effective vaccines and medicines in the entire world from the 1950s through the 1970s, and then, we just handed over the reins to private companies, while funding at least half of their R&D costs, only to have the drugs sold back to us at exponentially higher prices?

The answer isn’t that other countries are doing it wrong; it’s that we are idiots, when it comes to healthcare, and before long, we’re either going to be completely priced out of the market, or intelligent people will ditch our hackneyed healthcare system, and join the rest of the Modern World and go with Universal Healthcare.

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

Colorado Takes Big Step Towards Eradicating 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

The state of Colorado took the enormous first step towards eradicating Hepatitis C (HCV) in the U.S. by lifting HCV treatment requirements for citizens who receive health benefits from the state’s Medicaid program. The move comes after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado filed a class-action lawsuit against the state for continuing to ration HCV care for Medicaid patients, and after health officials in the state asked for those restrictions to be removed (Brown, 2017).

ACLU logo

Photo Source: ACLU

The ACLU has been instrumental in winning treatment for patients living with HCV in the country’s incarcerated populations, filing suits against several states’ Departments of Corrections for failing to adequately supply HCV treatment to inmates whose HCV status is known. Inmates are the only Americans who are guaranteed healthcare coverage under the Constitution after a 1976 Supreme Court ruling found that “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s medical needs constitution “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976).

In both incarceration settings and state Medicaid programs, various hurdles have been put in place that require patients to do extra legwork to gain access to treatment that the programs must offer in order to save money on what were extremely expensive revolutionary HCV Direct Acting Antivirals (DAAs) that effectively cure patients of HCV. The most expensive of these medications, Harvoni (Gilead), has a Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $94,500 ($1,125 per pill) for 12 weeks of treatment – the standard regimen length used to achieve Sustained Virologic Response (SVR – “cure”). Since Harvoni’s 2014 release, several new DAAs have come on the market, and after much outcry from patients, advocates, and the U.S. Congress, prices have been driven down. The most recent DAA therapies – Vosevi (Gilead) and Mavyret (AbbVie) – entered the market at $74,760 ($890 per pill for 12 weeks) and $26,400 ($471.42 per pill for 8 weeks) respectively.

Mavyret, AbbVie’s most recent HCV therapy, has the potential to be a financial game changer for state-run healthcare programs that have struggled to ensure that patients receive the treatment they need while not simultaneously destroying their pharmacy budgets to pay for it. That said, WAC costs serve only as a baseline price for any drug that enters the market, after which the various programs and insurers (payors) begin a negotiation process with the drug manufacturers to determine the final cost paid after rebates, pricing agreements, and deductions. The conventional wisdom is, “Well, nobody pays the WAC price.” Unfortunately, these final prices are not readily available to the public, as they fall under existing Trade Secrets laws that prevent the programs from publicly stating the final cost they pay for the drugs.

AbbVie's Mavyret medication

Photo Source: AbbVie

State Medicaid programs have been under considerable fire from HCV advocates, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), who have long stated that Medicaid programs should remove barriers to treatment that have included fibrosis score requirements (“Is the patient’s liver damaged badly enough?”) and abstinence from drugs or alcohol. Colorado’s removal of these barrier to care is a phenomenal first step that should be followed by other state Medicaid programs.

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