ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
Recent court ruling could increase the size and administrative complexity of the 340B program.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Legal challenges to the 340B drug pricing program: administration, regulation, and reform.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 340B program allows certain hospitals and clinics to use outpatient drugs purchased at substantial discounts on insured patients, generating profits to fund care. The size of these profits depends on the number of prescriptions filled by participating hospital or clinics' insured patients that also meet the Health Resources and Services Agency's definition of an eligible patient. A recent court case has challenged the Agency's longstanding definition of a patient, resulting in new definition that could significantly expand the size of the program and create conflicts when an insured patient satisfies the new definition for more than one hospital or clinic participating in the program. We use Medicare Part D data from 2018 to simulate the proportion of prescription drug fills eligible for 340B discounts and total program spending under both existing and new definitions. We found that the new definition could increase the share of 340B-eligible fills in Medicare Part D by 25%, from 12% of fills to 16%, and that the share of fills subject to a conflict could double, from 1% of fills to 1%-2%. Our results suggest that the new definition could increase covered entities' 340B profits by roughly a third.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.