We recently released a comprehensive 27-page report that corrects misunderstandings about the 340B drug discount program promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. That report addresses misconceptions and unfounded accusations of the program. It also calls for a number of ways to modernize the 340B program. Now, as a follow-up, we are focusing narrowly on the unfounded accusations and outright fictions in the drug industry white paper on 340B, “The 340B Discount Drug Program: A Review and Analysis of the 340B Program.” Despite its dubious assertions and conclusions, industry lobbyists and PR execs keep pitching this flawed analysis.
In its paper, the industry and its allies profess to support 340B and say it is “important.” They temper their criticisms of 340B with innocuous expressions such as “unintended consequences,” “evidence suggests,” “may not align,” “may not be experiencing,” and “potential deviations,” to name a few.
Their surrogates (almost all of them paid consultants) pull no punches when they criticize 340B, however. And when they do attack, they often cite the industry white paper directly or repeat its conclusions.
To separate the myths from the facts about 340B, click here for our second paper, “Response to the Pharmaceutical Industry Report: Setting the Record Straight on 340B.”
Safety Net Hospitals for Pharmaceutical Access (SNHPA) is both interested and ready to work with sensible critics of the 340B program. The pharmaceutical industry is an important 340B stakeholder that, like hospitals, has both a right and an obligation to provide input and commentary on how the program is operated. Such collaboration is difficult when both the purpose of the program and how it is being used by hospitals are being distorted. Hopefully, by continuing to set the record straight, we can help clear the way for meaningful discussion among stakeholders on how to make the 340B program more effective.