Recently, the federal government Accountability Office issued an essential number of the 340B program. GAO interviewed 61 stakeholders within the program regarding ability to create revenue and distribute drugs. GAO also examined the adequacy of federal oversight within the program.
The primary thrust within the report is the fact 340B needs better federal oversight, identifies areas of this program that require clarification and warrant discussion. Nonetheless the federal government shouldn’t make a move tolerant of the findings since the review was problematic and undermined by sampling bias and size.
My first takeaway inside the report is the fact existing technological solutions would concurrently provide transparency inside the 340B program and make sure adherence inside it. These technologies might help entities make informed decisions while reassuring the federal government industry is meeting standards.
The report raises questions on how two organizations make use of the program. Regrettably, GAO never particularly cites among 340B being mistreated it truly insinuates problems within the prescriber area that produces much confusion, getting a few entities interpreting it too narrowly while some too broadly. The federal government could alleviate this problem by clarifying its intent.
GAO also raises concerns about access of covered entities for a lot of drugs introduced on by drug shortages, nonetheless the company offers no real means of address this problem.
Despite somewhat sample size along with a bias in interviewee selections, the report makes some valid observations. Many covered entities are choosing revenue acquired while using 340B program using the idea to supply usage of services, increase services available, subsidize take proper care of the uninsured or simply simply maintain their doorways open.
However, only 13 within the 20 entities interviewed — or roughly 60 percent — lead to revenue. That doesn’t fairly represent participants within the program.
GAO does not get outcomes of really saying there’s an authentic issue with diversion, duplication, discounting and overcharging by manufacturers. Rather, it’ll make rash generalizations without sufficient data to help the claims.
Programs like 340B aren’t perfect, nevertheless they produce an important plan to our under-insured and uninsured citizens. Hopefully future GAO studies includes bigger sample sizes and won’t operate from the perception the program is inherently problematic.
