Hospitals in the 340B drug discount program spent more on drugs for prostate and lung cancers compared to facilities not in the program, a new analysis found.
But the preliminary analysis from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) couldn’t find that the controversial program incentivizes hospitals to pursue higher-priced drugs. The analysis, released Friday as part of MedPAC’s monthly meeting, was requested by Congress on the program, which has faced major cuts by the Trump administration.
Some lawmakers have argued that 340B, which offers safety-net hospitals discounts on drugs, has not worked as intended and led to hospitals specifically choosing higher-priced drugs to get a big discount.
So MedPAC looked at the spending from 2013 to 2017 of 340B and non-340B hospitals as well as physicians’ offices for five types of cancers: breast, colorectal, prostate, lung and leukemia and lymphoma.
MedPAC’s analysis found that 340B hospitals spent between 2% and 5% higher on average on cancer drugs than non-340B hospitals. But there were mixed results when 340B hospitals were compared to physicians’ offices, with 340B facilities spending 1% lower to 7% higher than physicians’ offices on cancer drugs.
The reason 340B hospitals spent more on cancer drugs than hospitals not in the program was linked to two types of cancer: lung and prostate.
For lung cancer, a possible reason for the higher spending is that a larger share of patients in 340B hospitals received new immuno-oncology therapies that are more expensive, MedPAC said. Prostate cancer also had higher drug prices per unit for both drugs in Medicare Part B, which reimburses for physician-administered drugs, and Part D.
However, MedPAC staff cautioned they couldn’t conclude 340B is incentivizing the spikes in spending.
The reason is “we lack access to the discount data,” said MedPAC staffer Shinobu Suzuki at the commission’s meeting Friday in Washington, D.C.
MedPAC also didn’t find that gaining 340B status led to a spike in average cancer drug spending, suggesting that 340B discounts “may not have had any effects on them,” the report said.
The analysis also found that the higher cancer spending would likely have a small, if any, impact on cost sharing for Medicare patients depending on the type of cancer and supplemental coverage.
The study will be finalized and likely included in MedPAC’s March report to Congress. It comes with some caveats, including a small sample size and that it did not examine the impact of a 22.5% cut to 340B payments that went into effect in 2018.
The hospital industry has been fighting the Trump administration in court over the cuts, which the industry claims are unlawful.
Despite the caveats, MedPAC’s findings could play a major part in lawmaker deliberations on the program, which some Republicans claim has gotten too big and led to hospitals bilking the federal government.
The pharmaceutical industry has also led an extensive campaign to shed more light on the program. 340B requires pharmaceutical companies to provide discounts to safety-net hospitals in exchange for participating in Medicaid.
The Government Accountability Office has also called for greater oversight of 340B.
340B industry group 340B Health praised the findings.
“The thoughtful analysis MedPAC presented today sheds important light on the role 340B hospitals play in treating people living with cancer,” said Maureen Testoni, 340B Health president, in a statement.