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

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.