Unveiling the flaws in the 340B Drug Pricing Program: Hospitals, medical debt, and consumer struggles

/in , , , , /by

Sally Greenberg

By Sally Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer

In 1992, Congress created the 340B Drug Pricing Program to help ensure vulnerable patients would be able to access medications they need but may not be able to afford. This program provides steeply discounted drugs to health care providers – mostly hospitals – serving low-income patients with the intent that the providers would pass those discounts along to patients. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. The National Consumers League (NCL) is increasingly concerned about this program, especially as it relates to hospitals’ abusive and aggressive debt collection practices, and how those practices lead to consumer medical debt. A recent letter from a bipartisan group of Senators underscores hospitals’ role in this growing problem.

We find it particularly troubling that many hospitals benefiting from 340B are not only nonprofit entities but are designated as charity hospitals – supposedly caring for low income and indigent patients. A 2022 report by the Alliance for Integrity and Reform of 340B found that charity care spending for nearly two-thirds of 340B hospitals was less than the national average for similar hospitals. Further, a December 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that “some nongovernmental hospitals that do not appear to meet the statutory requirements for program eligibility are participating in the 340B program and receiving discounted prices for drugs for which they may not be eligible.” One report found that 82% of nonprofit hospitals spent less on community programs than the value of their tax exemptions.

Consumers are not benefiting from the 340B program in the way Congress intended. A patient whose income is above 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is expected to pay full price for a drug they receive at the hospital, even though the care center from which they are “buying” the drug did not pay full price for it. Hospitals participating in the 340B program saved an average of $11.8 million per year, according to a 2019 report from Beckers Hospital Review, and multiple studies have found that a majority of hospitals markup medicines between 200-500 percent. Under the current program, an individual who makes $29,200 per year has to pay that price.

What is even more alarming is the fact that if a patient can’t pay, the hospitals that have benefited enormously from discounted drugs intended for vulnerable patients are aggressively suing these same patients. This illustrates a major disconnect between the intent of the 340B program and the way it is operating today.

While estimates differ, medical debt is believed to cause more than 60 percent of bankruptcies in America. Most consumers facing medical debt did not end up in that situation because of bad decisions or profligate spending. Most have had some kind of injury or unexpected illness and don’t have insurance – or don’t have sufficient insurance – to cover their medical and hospital costs. Patients who need financial assistance should be processed when entering the hospital for medical care. Many are not given the chance to do so and as a result, can be sued for debt after services are rendered. Medical debt collection practices are debilitating for low-income consumers and can destroy their credit ratings, subjecting them to subprime rates and a never-ending spiral of debt.

Even if patients don’t start out poor, because of excessive fees, penalties, and other costs added onto what may or may not be actual medical debt on the part of patients, aggressive debt-collection practices can leave them destitute. Many don’t have funds to hire a lawyer, and if summoned, they often don’t know they need to actually go to court; in fact, sometimes debt collectors advise them not to show up in court. As a result, default judgments are filed against them, leading to garnishments of wages, and liens on homes, cars, and other properties. In 2019, the Journal of the American Medical Association studied the garnishment of wages by hospitals in the state of Virginia and found that 71% of the hospitals were nonprofit and the gross mean annual revenue of hospitals engaged in garnishments was $806 million, with 8,399 patients having wages garnished.

Below are just a few stories illustrating hospitals’ medical debt collection practices playing out in communities throughout the nation.

  • A woman in Knoxville, Tennessee, was diagnosed with cancer and underwent surgery and chemotherapy. Even though she had health insurance, she was left with almost $10,000 in medical bills that she couldn’t pay. Financial counselors told her she couldn’t schedule cancer checkup appointments with her doctor until she has a plan to pay her bills, according to a December 2022 story by NPR.
  • As reported by the Washington Post in May 2019, an investigation by the Baltimore Sun found that 46 hospitals in Maryland filed more than 132,000 lawsuits for unpaid medical bills from 2003 to 2008 and won at least $100 million in judgments. In some cases, hospitals added annual interest at twice the rate permitted for other types of debts or placed liens against patients’ homes.
  • The Washington Post reported in 2019 that the University of Virginia (UVA) Health System sued former patients more than 36,000 times for over $106 million over a six-year period. During that time, UVA’s Medical Center earned a $554 million profit and held stocks and other investments worth $1 billion. One of the patients the UVA Health System sued was Heather Waldron. Following emergency surgery and other treatment in 2017 to address an intestinal malformation, Waldron received a bill from the University of Virginia Health System for $164,000, more than twice what a commercial insurer would have paid for the care. When she was unable to pay, the UVA Health System pursued her with a lawsuit and a lien on the home she shared with her then-husband and five children. In the fall of 2019, the family lost their home, and the “financial disaster” contributed to Waldron and her husband divorcing earlier that year.

We support the critical role hospitals play in communities across the country and understand many dutifully provide charity care to those who cannot pay. However, we believe that if hospitals are designated charity entities and are receiving 340B discounts, they should be required to prove that those discounts have been passed along to patients. The current situation is unacceptable and merits an in-depth investigation and tightening up of the 340B rules. Charity hospitals should not be able to both claim 340B status and drag the very populations they are pledged to serve into debt collection proceedings, taking their homes, their cars, and their possessions in the process. Changes need to be made to ensure that only eligible hospitals are allowed to participate in the 340B program and that the deep discounts for medicines are passed along to patients, as Congress intended.

NCL statement on PBMs and new GAO report

/in , , , , /by

September 18, 2023

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Consumers League (NCL) today released a statement following a recently released U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) report on Medicare Part D rebates.

The following statement is attributable to NCL Chief Executive Officer, Sally Greenberg:

“Investigation after investigation, report after report, and study after study prove that pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs’) do not provide benefits to consumers. To the contrary, we believe PBMs, who are middlemen, drain billions of dollars that should be going into the pockets of patients and consumers and help them defray their healthcare costs. The evidence mounts that PBMs, which once had a noble purpose, have lost their way and become profit centers unto themselves, adding costs to our drug supply system at the expense of patients. This latest report by GAO underscores that our nation’s seniors – often our most vulnerable patients who rely most on medications – pay the highest price for PBM practices.

“In just one year, GAO found that the PBMs collected almost $50 billion in rebates from prescription drug manufacturers under the Medicare Part D program alone. These savings should go directly to Medicare beneficiaries, but for the nearly 80 of the highest rebated drugs analyzed, GAO found that seniors paid more than $20 billion, while their plan sponsors — often vertically integrated with PBMs — paid only $5.3 billion. PBMs are able to enrich themselves because they control access to prescription drugs, block competition, conduct business in the shadows, and pocket discounts meant for patients. PBMs simply driving up out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries to the tune of millions of dollars.

“Congress has an opportunity to enact meaningful PBM reforms to prevent such behavior. We urge our leaders in Congress to closely examine the findings of the GAO report, and put a stop to the practices of PBMs to profit off of vulnerable patients. In doing so, our elected representatives will put money back in the pockets of patients and help them to better afford the medications they need.”

Learn more about NCL’s work to address the PBM problem at nclnet.org/pbms.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)
The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

NCL applauds FDA for its latest decision to approve an updated COVID-19 vaccine

/in , , , , , , , , /by

September 11, 2023

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

Washington, DC – The NCL applauds the FDA’s announcement approving the latest COVID vaccine, which will be available to many Americans immediately or very soon to patients who are eligible.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 9,000 COVID-19 hospital admissions in the week ending July 29, a 12.5-percent increase from the week before. While that’s far below the nearly 45,000 admissions recorded the same week a year ago, the new vaccine is nevertheless is welcome and much needed to keep COVID and its new variants in check. The percentage of emergency department patients diagnosed with COVID-19 has risen gradually in July.

National Consumers League response to the Request for Information regarding FDA regulation of CBD

/in , , , , , , , , /by

August 25, 2023

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, 202-823-8442

Washington, D.C. – On August 17, the National Consumers League responded to the Request for Information regarding FDA-Regulation of CBD.

“In 2019, in response to the proliferation of unreviewed and untested CBD products, NCL identified the need for greater education among consumers about CBD and better enforcement of regulations in the CBD marketplace. NCL created Consumers for Safe CBD to address the need, champion the rights of consumers, and call on government and industry to do better – to ensure safety and promote a pathway for new products through clinically tested scientific research. Since then, action has been taken on the state and federal levels to increase access to cannabinoids beyond CBD. In response, NCL expanded our educational campaign and established Cannabis Consumer Watch.” 

The full letter can be found here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)
The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

New insurance schemes to carve out specialty drugs deserve skepticism and scrutiny

/in , , /by

Sally Greenberg

By Sally Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer

Employers seeking to cut healthcare costs should remember this simple rule of thumb: If an offer to save money seems too good to be true, it usually is. That seems to be the case with offers to try “Alternative Funding Programs” or AFPs.  This is a devious but growing cottage industry, which promises to cut employer costs for specialty medicines.

Specialty medicines are used to treat complex, chronic conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis; they are drugs often offered to some of the sickest patients. While they represent a mere 2 percent of prescriptions, they add up to half of the estimated $500 billion spent each year in the U.S. on drugs. Thus, specialty drugs are hefty contributors to self-funded employers’ health plan costs. (Source: optum.com)

One “solution” offered by third party vendors peddling AFPs is to remove coverage of specialty drugs from the employer’s formulary. This immediately renders those employees “uninsured” as far as coverage for their needed drugs goes. The AFP vendor then matches the newly uninsured employee with a patient assistance program offered by drug manufacturers and other charitable foundations. The patient’s co-pay is fully covered by the assistance program, the employer saves money, and the vendor takes a cut of the savings.

We think this so-called solution is underhanded and dangerous for patients.  It is also unethical and possibly illegal.

First, the charitable programs being mined by the AFP vendors are meant for the truly needy—those who are uninsured or underinsured. If these sources of funding are being drained by the AFPs, they won’t be available for patients who really need the assistance.

These programs are having a predictable effect:  drug manufacturers are starting to tighten the eligibility criteria for their charitable programs, limiting them to patients who are truly uninsured. That means the AFPs won’t be able to fulfill their promise to find alternative sources to pay for the medicine. The inevitable will happen:  patients will be forced to go back to their employers’ insurance, causing dangerous delays in treatment and eliminating any savings.

Critically, the AFP process interrupts and delays care for patients. One of the AFP vendors, aptly named SHARx, with a logo shaped like the predatory creature its name invokes, admits the process can take 2 to 6 weeks. While trying to enroll the previously insured patient in an assistance plan, they’ll “do as much as they can” to help a patient access their medicine, sometimes demanding they sign over power-of-attorney to their company. In practice, that means patients can be left in limbo with no coverage for a period of time.

How can an employer ethically expose their employees with serious health conditions to that risk? (Source: sharxplan.com)

There are also ERISA and IRS legal and compliance risks to self-insured employers, too, according to an analysis by Vivio, a Public Benefits Corporation (Source: viviohealth.com)

And by some accounts, the AFP vendors are taking a huge cut of any savings, as much as 25 percent, on top of the administrative costs employers must pay to implement the program. (Source: drugchannels.net)

Nonetheless, according to a 2022 survey, 10 percent of self-insured employers with at least 5,000 U.S. employees are using alternative funding vendors. Some 8 percent said they were planning to use them within two years and 19 percent are considering their use in three to five years. (Source: optum.com)

It is easy to initially discount AFP critics as defenders of unfettered drug pricing. However, even Optum, a subsidiary of leading health plan provider United Health Care, has sounded the alarm. They advise their clients “to look past the short-term sales pitch and consider longer-term financial implications, compliance risk and ethics of alternative funding programs.” (Source: optum.com)

We are raising the voice of consumers in support of efforts in Congress to rein in other dubious co-pay assistance schemes deployed by Pharmacy Benefit Managers such as co-pay maximizers and accumulators.  In this case, employers should take the lead in standing up for their employees’ health by refusing to open the door when third party AFP vendors come calling.

Safety in question: The alarming disparities between cannabis product health claims and research, and the magnified risks for women

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Health Policy Intern Grace Lassila

July 27, 2023

When I started my National Consumers League (NCL) internship in May 2023, I quickly dove into NCL’s health policy work. NCL is leading on several efforts to protect consumers –one area of focus that stood out to me is their work in the cannabis policy space. NCL is a founding member of Cannabis Consumer Watch (CCW), which educates consumers on cannabinoids, their effects, the risks related to the unregulated marketplace, and the ways policymakers and regulators can help protect consumers. NCL is also a part of the Collaborative for Cannabinoid Science and Safety (CCSS), which also works to educate people about cannabinoids and policy in the interest of public health.

CCW’s “test your cannabis knowledge” quiz was shocking for me. Going into the quiz, I was fairly confident about my knowledge, but as I started getting wrong answer after wrong answer, I realized I had no idea that not only are these products under-researched, but they may pose serious public health risks for consumers. Products can be sold, without having gained FDA approval, making false claims about their medicinal abilities.  And side effects are not adequately researched or revealed to consumers.

One particularly concerning aspect of the cannabis marketplace is that while CBD or Delta-8 or other cannabis products are often marketed to women, there is a concerning lack of research into the safety of these products for women. Historically, misogyny and sex discrimination have made women’s health severely under-researched and underfunded. More research on diseases, disorders, and medication is conducted on men, not women. Women are misdiagnosed far greater than men are, and experience dangerous health outcomes because of it (Greenhalgh). And without sufficient research and data on women’s health, it is incredibly difficult for legislators to write policy (Adams). Overall, for women’s health to improve, more resources need to be devoted to this issue.

Despite cannabis companies’ marketing efforts that claim their products can help with anything from menstrual cycle-related pain to morning sickness, there is little insight into the effects of cannabis or cannabis derivatives on women, pregnant people, nursing parents, and newborns. What we do know is that the risks are very real – a recent study found that THC use during pregnancy was linked to changes in fetal development and several studies have shown that CBD can be transferred to a baby via breast milk. The FDA strongly advises against THC or CBD usage while pregnant or breastfeeding. And, given the evidence currently available, I would caution any women from using these products for medical benefit.

The lack of regulation, as well as research, is very concerning. Because the FDA currently does not regulate these products, consumers have no way of knowing whether the dosage, ingredients, or claims on the label are accurate and no way of knowing whether or not they are contaminated. Though some products may acknowledge they are ‘Not Approved by FDA,’ many consumers may not see this fine print – and assume that anything they can buy at their local grocery store must be safe for consumption. While the risks of an unregulated cannabis marketplace affects all consumers, women who need medical health and relief and turn to cannabis products may be more at risk.

The good news is that in January of this year, the FDA recognized this grey area for regulation – particularly for CBD – and stated that CBD would not be regulated as a food and dietary supplement anymore, because of the unknown safety risks, and requesting that Congress act quickly to protect public health and the consumers involved.

While cannabis products are often marketed as a miracle drug, they are not. While there may be some health benefits, without comprehensive research and regulation of these products, the risks outweigh the potential good. Consumers remain responsible for making their health decisions, and women in particular should be vigilant. The FDA is heading in the right direction but more must be done to protect consumers – and women in particular. I encourage you to learn more about a safe path forward here and help NCL raise awareness of this important issue.

Sources:

Adams, Katie. “Women’s Health Is Suffering Due to Lack of Research and Funding, Experts Say.” MedCity News, 9 Dec. 2022, medcitynews.com/2022/12/womens-health-is-suffering-due-to-lack-of-research-and-funding-experts-say/#:~:text=Women’s%20health%20has%20been%20historically,healthcare%20conference%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.

Eversheds Sutherland. “FDA Says ‘No’ to CBD: Now What?” FDA Says “No” to CBD: Now What? – Eversheds Sutherland, us.eversheds-sutherland.com/mobile/NewsCommentary/Legal-Alerts/256713/FDA-says-no-to-CBD-Now-what#:~:text=Since%202018%2C%20the%20FDA%20has,%2Dapproved%20drug%20(Epidiolex). Accessed 6 July 2023.

Greenhalgh, Ally. “Medicine and Misogyny: The Misdiagnosis of Women.” Confluence, 5 Dec. 2022, confluence.gallatin.nyu.edu/sections/research/medicine-and-misogyny-the-misdiagnosis-of-women.

Grinspoon, Peter. “Cannabidiol (CBD): What We Know and What We Don’t.” Harvard Health, 24 Sept. 2021, www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cannabidiol-cbd-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-2018082414476.

“What You Should Know about Using CBD When Pregnant or Breastfeeding.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/what-you-should-know-about-using-cannabis-including-cbd-when-pregnant-or-breastfeeding#:~:text=FDA%20strongly%20advises%20against%20the,during%20pregnancy%20or%20while%20breastfeeding.&text=Cannabis%20and%20Cannabis-derived%20products,products%20appearing%20all%20the%20time. Accessed 6 July 2023.

The National Consumers League applauds the reintroduction of bipartisan legislation to give millions of Medicare beneficiaries access to safe and effective obesity treatments

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

July 21, 2023

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, 202-823-8442

Washington, D.C. – The National Consumers League (NCL) welcomes the reintroduction  of the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA) as a needed step to end outdated Medicare rules that leave millions of seniors with diagnosed obesity – particularly members of Black and Latino communities – vulnerable to disability, disease and premature death due to lack of access to the full range of treatment options.

Introduced by Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Representatives Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) and Gwen Moore (D-WI), TROA will end this regulatory logjam by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D to new FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, which are currently excluded under a policy dating back to 2003. TROA will also end Medicare Part B restrictions on intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) that limit the delivery of IBT to primary care providers and restrict the physical locations where this care can occur. Through TROA, clinical psychologists, registered dietitians and nutrition professionals will be able to provide IBT if an individual with obesity is referred by a physician.

At a time when the obesity rate among adult Americans exceeds 40 percent and is even higher among communities of color – virtually half of African Americans (49.6 percent) and 44.8 percent of Hispanics are living with obesity – passage of TROA could be a critical step in changing the trajectory of a disease that for too long has been overlooked and undertreated. The National Consumers League applauds TROA’s reintroduction in the 118th Congress and pledges our support to gain passage of this important legislation on an expedited basis.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)
The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization.  Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.  For more information, visit nclnet.org.

Financing the healthcare of tomorrow playlist: Tracks for consumers and policymakers

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Robin Strongin, Health Policy Director

July 12, 2023

My husband has advanced Lewy Body Dementia and one of the few things we can still enjoy together is listening to music. We used to curate playlists for all kinds of music. We even put together playlists to mark special occasions (like our daughter’s wedding). Really, any topic became fair game for a playlist.

I was invited to speak at the Patients Rising Disrupting Healthcare Summit summer conference in Washington DC. My panel topic was Financing the Healthcare of Tomorrow. As I was preparing my presentation, I spoke with Michael Capaldi, Executive Director, the Institute for Gene Therapies. Mike is an expert on gene and cell therapies, and these therapies are definitely the healthcare of tomorrow, although thankfully, we are beginning to see the promise of these therapies today. When we talked about my presentation, he said, “you know, Robin, patients are really at a crossroads:  on the one hand, they are much more educated and empowered about their care, but some of the new therapies on the horizon are so complex, the cost and time commitments to innovate in these areas are so high, that groups like the National Consumers League [i]are in position to help patients and caregivers understand these complexities.”

And that’s when it hit me. A playlist. My colleague had me at Crossroads. If you’re a fan of delta blues, like my husband and me, then you know Robert Johnson and his classic, Crossroads.  The rest of my remarks rounded out my Financing the Healthcare of Tomorrow Playlist: Tracks for Consumers and Policymakers, which include:

Crossroads (Robert Johnson)—Robert Johnson’s haunting work reminds me of the difficult choices health policymakers have to make when it comes to healthcare financing—of course research and innovation are expensive—the diseases for which there are no cures, the conditions crying out for prevention, are complex and require decades of research, a deep understanding of basic science, and navigating an unpredictable regulatory path. Too many diseases and too few resources lead to heartbreaking trade-offs. Patients also have difficult choices to make when it comes to paying for their care. We shouldn’t have to be making deals with the devil—as Robert Johnson sings about in Crossroads. Instead, we need to reframe the questions we ask, review how we prioritize funding streams, and think creatively about financing mechanisms. Rather than question if society spends too much on healthcare, we should be asking how can we spend it more efficiently? How do we adequately incentivize all involved in funding transformational innovation? How do we make sure patients can afford and access the treatment they need?

I Am Woman (Helen Redding)—it gets really old but here we are, still talking about, and working on, closing the gender gap—in raising capital for venture funding for women-lead innovation teams; and in awarding grants to women lead research teams. Did you know, that according to the NIH Database monitoring NIH grants, grants awarded to women lead teams in 2022 numbered 19,028 and in the same year men won 31, 560 NIH grants? Progress yes, but not good enough. Not even close. Why is this important?  Because the teams with funding ask the research questions. The more diverse the research teams, the broader the array of diseases that are studied. More cures for more people.

Your Cheatin’ Heart (Hank Williams, Jr.)—I want to be careful and not paint all hospitals with the same brush but I would be remiss not to point out that too many hospitals are behaving badly: taking huge advantage of their nonprofit status, aggressively placing liens on patients who can’t afford their care, engaging in abusive debt collection activities, and worse, denying care; manipulating the 340B program designed 30 years ago to enable true safety-net providers to help low-income and other vulnerable patients access more affordable medicines and healthcare services. Some entities participating in the 340B program have taken advantage of the program’s current lack of clarity at the expense of the patients that the program is meant to serve.

Bad to the Bone (George Thorogood) – When it comes to taking advantage of our healthcare system, one major player in the drug pricing process might be considered “bad to the bone” – pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. PBMs continue to find ways to increase their profits while consumers are forced to pay high out-of-pocket costs for the prescription medicines they need. Although they were intended to help negotiate savings on medicines (which would be good), they are not passing along discounts to patients and are actually incentivized to steer patients to higher cost medicines – b-b-b-b-bad to the bone if you ask me!

Party Like It’s 1999 (Prince)—Shakespeare asked, What’s in a name? Fair question. Reminds me to also ask, what’s in a definition and when is it time to update it? How we defined value, quality (as in value of care, quality of care) and other terms in 1999, needs to be reevaluated on an ongoing basis. New innovations, insights, and understandings necessitate we revisit how we define, measure, and update the terms and metrics used to make decisions that affect healthcare financing. A great example comes from another colleague[ii]  who has co-authored and published compelling work on a “paradigm shift in managing high blood pressure.” He and his colleagues make the case that “Abandoning the view that hypertension is a disease in favor of regarding it as a cause of a disease and hence, adopting a population-based preventive approach would encourage the development of simpler guidelines.” Refreshed decades old thinking that could yield the elusive results the status quo has not achieved seems worthy of a party, like its 2023.

I Will Survive (Gloria Gaynor) and Stayin’ Alive (The Bee Gees)—Really, isn’t this what we are all trying to do?

A Change Is Gonna Come (Sam Cooke)—for patients like my husband, for our family, and for all the other patients and caregivers, change cannot come soon enough.  I pledge to do everything possible to advocate for meaningful change and help Patients Rising.

[i] I direct health policy for National Consumers League

[ii] Wald, Nicholas J., Wald, David S., Kellermann, Arthur L., “When Guidelines Cause Hypertension,” Commentary, The American Journal of Medicine, 2018, pp. 1402-4.

We must never forget the importance of vaccines

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Sally Greenberg

By Sally Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer

I have written before about being born into a family that experienced the agony of the polio epidemic. My uncle Roger Joseph’s battle with the disease—including his diagnosis in 1951 by my father, a practicing internist—devastated our entire family. My uncle, a golden boy, popular, handsome, brilliant, and kind, graduated from the University of Minnesota and Harvard Law School; he also won a silver star for his military service in WW2. Married with three daughters, he had a thriving law practice when he fell ill.

His case was severe and rendered him paralyzed. Confined to an Iron Lung for two years, the device was designed to stimulate breathing in patients whose lungs no longer functioned. With a great deal of therapy, my Uncle Roger, by then quadriplegic, moved to a motorized wheelchair that he ended up using for the rest of his life. He doted on his children, moved in with my grandmother, slept in a rocking bed to facilitate his breathing, and had an attendant on duty 24 hours a day. When we visited my grandmother, we visited our uncle too. He also came to our home for Sunday dinners, and I recall him taking breaths carefully before speaking, and when he did, he was wry and funny. He also had to learn to write again with his non-dominant hand. My mother, who had always idolized him, marveled at how his handwriting never changed.

My uncle lived 16 years with polio, thanks to a loving family, modern medicine, financial wherewithal, his wheelchair, and his attendant. Paralyzed from the neck down, he nonetheless spent these years productively, doting on his daughters, going to work every day, and attending baseball games, and even traveling abroad.

In 1954, U.S. physician Jonas Salk developed a vaccine to prevent the disease. The polio vaccine was first tested on 1.6 million children in Canada, Finland, and the United States before it was used more broadly. By 1957, annual cases had dropped from 58,000 to 5,600, and by 1961, only 161 cases remained. Had my uncle had access to the vaccine, he never would have gotten sick.

The powerful lessons about vaccines weren’t lost on anyone in my family. This explains why I feel obligated to confront head-on the dishonesty and lies of the anti-vaxxers. I have traveled to the CDC and the FDA numerous times to testify in support of childhood and adult vaccinations, and each time have been confronted by vaccine deniers.

Here’s the problem: Those of us with memories of family members with devastating diseases like polio are aging out. We are victims of our own success in wiping out childhood diseases. Younger generations have now been vaccinated for polio, measles, rubella, mumps, influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough so they do not know the trauma these illnesses caused to millions of families. Come to think of it, I’m in that category myself.

Florence Kelley, who in 1899 launched the National Consumers League, wrote in the 1880s about the dark days of “diphtheria”; she lost three young siblings to the disease, which sent her mother into lifelong depression. But I have never known anyone with diphtheria, thanks to vaccines.

My 27-year-old son never had measles—nor any of his friends. But my siblings and I all did, along with rubella, chicken pox, and the mumps. Measles alone is far more serious than often understood. In 2021 alone it killed nearly 128,000 unvaccinated children under age 5 around the world.

All of which leads me to the reason I have written this blog. Each year, Uncle Roger’s daughters proudly award the Roger E. Joseph Prize, (created by my Uncle Burton Joseph, in honor of his brother and their dad) and for this year’s prize, my cousin Linda produced a video; it tells a compelling story of her experience with her father’s illness. Hebrew Union College, which graduates reform rabbis, hosts the awards. Honorees have included Rosa Parks, Henry Louis Gates, Morris Dees, Sara Bloomfield, and the Center for Reproductive Rights. A complete list is at the link below.

Indeed, the Roger E. Joseph Prize is a point of immense pride for our family, but it also gives us the opportunity to talk about diseases like polio and, now Covid, and the critical importance of the vaccines developed to prevent them.

How truly fortunate we are to have a medical establishment that has helped to prevent families from suffering, the way ours did, when a loved one falls ill from an infectious disease.

As the anti-vaccine movement grows each year—a = movement that traffics in conspiracy theories and junk medicine—note Robert Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine crusade, which his own family has denounced in this article published by Politico.

Now more than ever we need to have conversations about the critical importance of vaccines.

http://www.rogerejosephprize.org/about-the-prize

NCL and 36 leading patient organizations urge Congress to protect access to essential laboratory tests

/in , , , /by

June 7, 2023

Media contact: National Consumers League – Melody Merin, melodym@nclnet.org, 202-207-2831

Washington, D.C.— June 7, 2023 —The National Consumers League (NCL) today sent a letter signed by 37 leading advocacy organizations, including groups that represent patients with common and chronic conditions who depend on laboratory testing to manage their health, urging Senate and House leaders to protect access to clinical laboratory services by enacting the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA / H.R. 2377 / S. 1000) this year.

“Without congressional action this year, Medicare reimbursement cuts scheduled for January 2024 could limit access to essential tests that 65 million American seniors rely on to diagnose and manage disease,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL Chief Executive Officer. “The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act would help ensure robust access to laboratory services that improve patient health.”

Highlights from the letter include:

  • “Without congressional action, Medicare reimbursement cuts – a fourth round scheduled to begin January 1, 2024 – could jeopardize access to many clinical laboratory tests that are used to diagnose, monitor, prevent, and manage common diseases for Medicare beneficiaries.”
  • “Clinical diagnostic tests play a critical role in health care by informing 70 percent of medical decisions doctors and other health care providers make to care for patients. For example, in 2020 care for Medicare beneficiaries was supported by more than 17 million hemoglobin A1C tests that assessed diabetes risk, 28 million tests that diagnosed and monitored heart disease, and 90,000 tests that diagnosed leukemia and hereditary breast and colon cancer.”
  • “A strong, national laboratory infrastructure is critical to ensuring that testing can be rapidly developed and made widely available when pathogens of concern are identified. Simply put, clinical laboratories strive to be prepared for whatever the next infectious disease outbreak may be and in times of emergency are part of the nation’s critical infrastructure.”
  • “Between 2017 and 2022, payment for some common tests for diseases like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease were cut by 27 percent. The next round of Medicare cuts would lower reimbursement up to another 15 percent for about 800 laboratory tests widely used to screen and manage many serious diseases. It is essential that Congress protect patients by acting this year to fix the Medicare payment model for clinical diagnostic tests.”
  • “Because of the serious implications for patients who rely on routine as well as advanced diagnostic laboratory services, Congress has acted three times to delay these cuts in recent years, but permanent reform is needed now. Fortunately, the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act would update Medicare’s payment system, which would help protect access to clinical laboratory testing, support investment in innovation, and strengthen America’s clinical laboratory infrastructure.”

Below is the list of signatories:

  • A Breath of Hope Lung Foundation
  • AliveAndKickn
  • Alliance for Aging Research
  • Alliance for Women’s Health and Prevention
  • American Association of Kidney Patients
  • American Sexual Health Association
  • AnCan
  • Black Women’s Health Imperative
  • CancerCare
  • Cancer Support Community
  • Caregiver Action Network
  • Caring Across Generations
  • Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation
  • Chronic Disease Coalition
  • Community Liver Alliance
  • Down Syndrome Association of Orange County
  • FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered
  • Global Liver Institute
  • GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer
  • HealthCare Institute of New Jersey (HINJ)
  • Healthcare Leadership Council
  • Healthy Men Inc.
  • HealthyWomen
  • ICAN, International Cancer Advocacy Network
  • International Foundation for Autoimmune & Autoinflammatory Arthritis
  • The Latino Coalition
  • LUNGevity Foundation
  • Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, Inc.
  • Men’s Health Network
  • Minority Health Institute
  • The National Association of Directors of Nursing Administration
  • National Alliance of State Prostate Cancer Coalitions
  • National Consumers League
  • The National Grange
  • RetireSafe
  • Triage Cancer
  • Vasculitis Foundation

Click here to view the full letter.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL)
The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.