[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Invited Commentary
Health Care Policy and Law
August 2018

Reforming the 340B Drug Pricing Program: Tradeoffs Between Hospital and Manufacturer Revenues

Author Affiliations
  • 1The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC
JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(8):1127-1128. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2007

The maligned and ardently defended 340B drug pricing program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics (those serving a disproportionate share of low-income patients or receiving federal grants to provide specific services) to generate revenue by purchasing prescription drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at discounted prices while being reimbursed by Medicare and other payers at standard levels.1 The discounted price available to 340B purchasers has 2 components: a fixed base discount (23.1% for brand drugs) and an additional discount triggered by manufacturer price increases greater than inflation (termed the inflation penalty). This inflation penalty accounts for more than one-half of the 340B discount.2

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×