ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Modernize drug discount program

| Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

There are countless examples of good government gone wrong, and the 340B drug discount program may be another.

Created in 1992, it states that if drug manufacturers participate in Medicaid, they are required to give discounts to safety-net health-care providers that serve low-income or uninsured patients. The thinking was that by subsidizing the cost of medicines for the organizations providing care, these safety-net facilities would be able to enhance and increase access to services for needy patients.

But that's not what studies conducted on the program have shown. Recent studies show there is both a lack of transparency and accountability in the program. For instance, in 2015, the 340B program was estimated to have generated $6 billion in savings for covered entities. Where do those savings really go? Is there evidence that shows the money increases access for needy patients?

I applaud Congressman Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, and the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee spearheading the examination of the 340B program and how hospitals are using savings to truly benefit patients.

It's time to modernize the 340B program to empower the true safety-net health-care facilities it is meant to help, as well as how participants use the savings to actually help vulnerable patients. This program is important and Congress must change it to be sure the funds are used appropriately.

Chad A. McCutcheon

Washington Township,

Westmoreland County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me