October 7, 2026
This is a lightly edited and condensed description of the podcast episode. It is intended to summarize the substance of the discussion, but it is not a verbatim transcription. Language may have been edited, reorganized, or summarized for clarity and readability. For exact wording and the full context of the discussion, please refer to the original audio recording.
Welcome to Perspectives, a signature podcast series from The Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics. Hosted by Dr. Mel Whittington, a health economist and Head of the Center for Pharmacoeconomics, we will be hearing from individuals across the industry to better understand and appreciate the societal impact of healthcare innovations.
Mel Whittington: First, thank you all for listening to our episode last month, where we had a Drug Pricing 101 with Dr. Inma Hernandez. When Inma and I were preparing for the episode, we were nervous that we were going to bore you with the level of detail required. But it turns out you loved it. I loved hearing that it was informative and helpful. The topic is complex, so the episode was complex.
Today, we have another drug pricing lesson for you. This time, it’s all about 340B. We could spend an entire podcast series on 340B, and I promise we’re not going to do that. We’re going to stick to three things.
First is a 340B 101. This isn’t a 201, a 301, or a 401. We’re going to keep this foundational to the intent and evolution of the program. Part two, probably the most important part for this audience, is why 340B matters for biotech executives and investors and how it impacts the economics of a pharmaceutical product. Then we’ll end with a discussion of what’s changing with 340B, or what might change in the future.
I’m so glad to be joined by Sabrina Aery, an expert in 340B and someone who is able to keep track of all of this. Sabrina, can you give us a brief background and tell us what led you to become an expert in 340B?
Sabrina Aery: Thank you so much for having me on the podcast. Following a presenter like Dr. Hernandez, whom you had last month, is incredibly intimidating, so I’ll do my best. I really enjoyed that podcast, and hopefully this builds on some of that foundation.
I’ve been in and around the industry for over 30 years, which means I was working when 340B was created. I actually used to work for a 340B hospital. I’ve worked for a health plan, focused on managed Medicaid, and then worked for pharmaceutical companies for 26 years.
In those years, I worked a lot on 340B, both in terms of agency interface in Washington, D.C., where I live, and 340B strategies inside a manufacturer. As of one year ago today, I launched my own consultancy.
Mel Whittington: Congratulations.
Sabrina Aery: Thank you. I advise a lot of advisors of pharmaceutical companies, VC investors, and other trade associations working with manufacturers. I also have several small biotech clients myself, so I’m very entrenched in all things drug pricing. A lot of the things I get tapped into are around understanding 340B and its impacts.
Interestingly, for some of my VC clients, the most frequent questions I get are around 340B. I’m happy to be here discussing this very impactful and complex topic. Honestly, that complexity is why I got into it and why I continue to find it fascinating.
It touches everything in U.S. drug pricing for a pharmaceutical manufacturer. When you’re in the manufacturer’s shoes, every stakeholder you touch, from end to end, that works with or is impacted by 340B is a client or customer. To work on any kind of 340B transparency or reforms, you’re going to touch your customers and clients in one way or another. Sometimes that perspective gets lost when people think about 340B.
Mel Whittington: I want to say again, congratulations on the one-year anniversary of the consultancy. I didn’t know all of that about your background. I knew you were at a large pharmaceutical company doing 340B work, but you’ve touched so many areas. Hearing that you’re working with VC firms and biotech now, I can’t think of somebody more perfect to be on this episode. Thank you again.
Let’s get into a little 340B 101. For someone investing in or working in biotech who knows 340B exists but doesn’t live and breathe it like you do, what’s the simplest way to understand this program?
Sabrina Aery: That’s a challenging question. Over the years, I’ve done a lot of 340B 101 trainings inside manufacturers. One of the biggest surprises I hear reflected is that people think the program is very black and white.
I’m not a lawyer, so everything I’m going to say is my view. There’s the foundational law that created the program, and that law has had some tweaks, such as with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But it really hasn’t had a foundational change or interpretation since it was created 34 years ago.
You have this 34-year-old program, and it’s governed by only two rules. Think of how many rules are in the Medicaid or Medicare programs.
Mel Whittington: More than two.
Sabrina Aery: More than two, right. 340B is governed by two main rules, and everything else is guidance. Guidance can be interpretive. There have been several lawsuits in the space, and sometimes those court decisions govern that interpretation as well.
When you talk about 340B, it’s important to understand what underpins it. What does compliance mean? What do these definitions mean? How much is gray and interpretive versus black and white? I’ll try to address that and give you some examples.
Another thing that often surprises people—even commercial executives in pharmaceutical companies or people in the C-suite—is that the patient doesn’t have to be uninsured or low-income. A patient who receives a 340B drug can have any type of insurance. It could be you or me, depending on where we’re getting care and the affiliation with the eligible hospital: whether the providers are owned by, contracted with, or employed by that hospital.
The patient definition has a lot of interpretations. There isn’t really a rule governing it; it’s one of those gray zones. That’s usually one of the biggest misconceptions.
The eligible site locations are more concrete. HRSA’s Office of Pharmacy Affairs maintains a database of entities eligible for the program. That’s very helpful as manufacturers are effectuating the pricing. As Inma discussed in the last episode, the ceiling price is well-defined. That’s very concrete.
Mel Whittington: The ceiling price?
Sabrina Aery: Yes, the 340B ceiling price. As a reminder, how that dollar amount is created follows the calculation of the Medicaid rebate, and it’s on a two-quarter lag. The manufacturer calculates its quarterly Medicaid rebate amount and sends that to CMS. Two quarters later, that’s in the marketplace for 340B. Those two pricing calculations are tied together and reference each other. That’s very concrete.
Mel Whittington: The 340B ceiling price is concrete and similar to the Medicaid rebate formula. What does “ceiling price” mean? Could the 340B price be lower than the ceiling price?
Sabrina Aery: That’s a great question. It’s up to a manufacturer whether it wants to offer below the 340B ceiling price. We call that sub-340B pricing, just as manufacturers in Medicaid have the ability to offer supplemental rebates.
Probably the most famous supplemental rebate out there right now is through GENEROUS. That’s a supplemental Medicaid rebate contract. In the 340B world, manufacturers could elect to offer sub-340B pricing if they wanted to.
Mel Whittington: You said that who a covered entity is is relatively black and white. Is that a true statement?
Sabrina Aery: Yes. There’s a lot defined in statute about how disproportionate share hospitals qualify. There were new entity types created through the Affordable Care Act, such as sole community hospitals, rural referral centers, and freestanding cancer centers. Children’s hospitals finally were able to qualify for the program.
Then you have HRSA grantees, such as federally qualified health centers. Think of the safety net that HRSA funds through its grants: STD clinics, Ryan White programs, and so on. They’re also eligible 340B entities.
That’s why the Office of Pharmacy Affairs database is incredibly helpful for all parties and stakeholders. It’s the source of truth for which site locations are eligible.
What I haven’t touched on is contract pharmacy. Contract pharmacy was allowed by HRSA through guidance. Eligible entity sites can contract with retail, specialty, or mail-order pharmacies. HRSA allows them to have unlimited contract pharmacy arrangements, under guidance dating back to 2010. Many hospitals could have over 100—or thousands of—contract pharmacy relationships, depending on the size of the entity.
Patients are treated through the hospital system, which maintains their medical records, and receive care that involves more than just being administered or prescribed the medication. If they go into the community to fill that medicine, the contract pharmacy relationship allows the 340B covered entity to claim it as 340B-eligible.
With the growth in contract pharmacy, the program has evolved. When I mentioned that I was around when the program was created and was working at a hospital, we would keep separate stock. Very few 340B hospitals do that today. Everything is managed through a virtual inventory system, and they contract with third-party administrators to help manage it.
340B is now replenished and determined after the fact. If you think of a patient at the pharmacy counter filling a prescription, it won’t actually be determined that it was 340B until days or weeks later.
Mel Whittington: I didn’t realize that. What does it mean if that prescription becomes a 340B prescription for that covered entity? What does it mean for the patient, payer, hospital, and manufacturer? What does this all mean?
Sabrina Aery: What just happened, right?
Sabrina Aery: 340B covered entities have different types of accounts with their wholesalers or distributors. The distributor often sits between the manufacturer and the receiving pharmacy.
Hospitals will have a WAC account. They may have a GPO account for inpatient drug orders, because 340B is an outpatient drug program, not inpatient. They could have an account for their inpatient side and then an account for 340B orders.
Usually, their initial purchase is at WAC. Let’s use that as an example. After the dispensing—or administration, if it’s a physician-administered drug—they determine that the patient definition was met and that they’ve accumulated enough to make an order. They go into their 340B account to replenish it and tell the wholesaler, “Bill to me and ship to this location.”
That’s how 340B works through this virtual inventory and replenishment model.
Mel Whittington: I think this is probably clear to the audience, but I want to make it explicit. Inma said last month that Medicaid gets some of the lowest prices in the United States. Because the 340B formula is so closely tied to the Medicaid price, the 340B price is much lower than a typical net price to a commercial insurer. Is that fair?
Sabrina Aery: Yes.
Mel Whittington: Anything else we should discuss about the interconnectedness of 340B with the broader pharmaceutical pricing scheme? Inma talked last month about the four major insurance markets and how a net price to the innovator is established for each. She then talked about how 340B adds another layer and results in a different net price in those insurance markets. Anything else we should emphasize?
Sabrina Aery: Let’s go back to what’s happening at the pharmacy counter or in the physician’s office at the point of infusion or administration. If you’re the patient receiving the medication, because they don’t know at the point of sale that it’s 340B, you’re going to pay whatever your insurance dictates: your copay or whatever is allowed, whether you have commercial insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or are uninsured.
The exception I’ll mention is grantees. Those HRSA grantee types, by the nature of their grants, are the only ones required to pass some of the discount they receive on the 340B price to patients. They’re required by their grants to apply a sliding scale. That doesn’t apply to any hospital types, and hospitals make up over 87% of 340B purchases.
Going back to that example, you could be a 340B patient, and I could be a 340B patient. We’ll never know that the drug was replenished at 340B, and we won’t benefit from that discount or price. That’s important to keep in mind.
The second piece is that after the administration or dispensing, the claim is immediately sent to the payer. When that claim goes out the door, they don’t know it’s 340B, because that’s determined after the fact through the replenishment model and virtual inventory system. Commercial payers, Medicare, and so on are paying what the insurance allows on the prescription.
There are some exceptions. Many state Medicaid programs may require 340B hospitals to bill at actual acquisition cost, so they have to make workarounds to ensure compliance. In a general sense, commercial and employer-based insurance reimburse whatever the network allows.
Mel Whittington: The 340B price is the price the entity pays—or what the manufacturer receives from that covered entity—but the payer would be paying a higher price than that?
Sabrina Aery: Correct.
Mel Whittington: And not all patients have their coinsurance based on that 340B price?
Sabrina Aery: That’s exactly right.
Mel Whittington: I want to bring this back to investors and biotech companies that might be working earlier on, before commercialization may or may not happen. Before we get there, I want to ask about growth. You talked about the growth and trend we’re seeing with contract pharmacies. What does that growth mean for developers of prescription drugs? Does it change anything, or is that too large a question?
Sabrina Aery: Let’s start with that growth and what it looks like today. HRSA this year published numbers from 2025 340B data, and the program size is now $100 billion. That’s $100 billion at the discounted 340B price.
Mel Whittington: That’s billion with a B?
Sabrina Aery: With a B.
Mel Whittington: Okay.
Sabrina Aery: It’s on its way to being bigger than the Medicare drug program. This isn’t a backwater program anymore. If you’re a biotech investor or manufacturer, this isn’t just something going on over here. It dramatically impacts your business.
The program has grown 22% year over year, so I don’t even think it’s peaked. We’ve seen these growth rates over the last five years in terms of 340B purchases and volumes. To put that 22% in perspective, overall manufacturer sales last year grew 7.3%, yet 340B volumes grew 22%. These growth rates are demanding attention from pharmaceutical executives and investors.
The last thing I’ll say is that one-fifth of a manufacturer’s gross-to-net outlays are now represented by 340B discounts. Gross-to-net outlays could include commercial discounts, discounts to Medicare Part D plans, and the mandated rebates to Medicaid that we discussed.
Mel Whittington: That was my next question, and the one I was most excited about for this episode. Where does 340B actually show up in the economics of a pharmaceutical product? Is it net price, gross-to-net, channel strategy, or launch strategy? How does it impact the business?
Sabrina Aery: I mentioned that I currently advise VC investors. Because of these gross-to-net impacts and growth rates, I think it’s one of the more challenging things for a manufacturer to forecast.
What I haven’t addressed yet is whether a manufacturer is paying twice or three times in discounts and rebates. That’s incredibly challenging to forecast, because hopefully you’re catching it and disallowing what you catch.
Mel Whittington: Through contracting and things like that?
Sabrina Aery: Absolutely. Inma did such a great job last month explaining how a manufacturer could pay a Medicaid rebate and then still have 340B happen if it doesn’t have enough data to catch and dispute it. That’s a tough situation.
Beyond the one-fifth of gross-to-net outlays and the growth rates we discussed, another fact is that Berkeley Research Group released something yesterday saying that 340B prescriptions represent 27% of the total prescription market.
Forecasting this truly is a challenge for manufacturers because of the size and complexity. Even if a manufacturer is trying to get more access to data, it’s not trying to shrink the program. It’s trying to avoid paying two or three times on the same utilization.
I would call that trying to clean up revenue leakage: trying to pay once and pay the right price where it’s warranted.
Mel Whittington: That sounds like it might not be easy with the data available. In theory, it sounds great to say this shouldn’t be happening, but operationally it might be more challenging.
Sabrina Aery: Absolutely. It depends on the level of detail the manufacturer receives in rebate invoices, regardless of where the invoice comes from: CMS for the Medicare inflation rebates now in place, state Medicaid programs, commercial insurers, Part D plans, or Medicare Advantage plans.
Then there’s the information a manufacturer gets from the wholesaler when the 340B order comes in. There has to be enough data to match those two things. As an economist, you know those data elements matter. Trying to match the prescription, dispensing, and eventual replenishment can be quite challenging for manufacturers.
Mel Whittington: Is it fair to say it becomes a forecasting challenge for a variety of reasons: one, data; and two, growth, which you said might not be at its peak yet? How do you forecast growth when we might not fully understand it or have great data to support what it might be?
Sabrina Aery: The last thing I’ll close with is that this has been a busy week for pharmaceutical manufacturers and drug pricing policy. We saw GLOBE released this week, which is the CMMI MFN demonstration for Medicare Part B drugs.
With all these new requirements coming out, 340B touches them as well. Manufacturers are trying to get their hands around what exists: “If I have a maximum fair price I’m trying to effectuate—or when will I have one—how will that interplay with 340B?”
They’re trying to deal with current gross-to-net challenges and have clean payments, meaning they’re not paying two or three times. Alongside those challenges and getting the forecasting right, there are evolving new policies that 340B will touch as well.
Mel Whittington: My biggest personal takeaway from the episode with Inma was that I felt like I was beginning to grasp this, and then it was, “But wait, there’s more.” You have to layer in this and this, and more keeps coming out.
I was reading a piece in Health Affairs Scholar looking at the evolution of U.S. drug pricing policy from 1960 to today. The policies being proposed or discussed today are added onto ones that already exist, which were added onto earlier policies. It continuously makes this complicated system more complicated, and there are always other things to think about.
We talked a little about how a 340B drug could be provider-administered or dispensed at a pharmacy. Are there certain products, drugs, indications, or sites of care where it’s more likely to be a 340B drug? What makes a 340B drug a 340B drug? Is this specialty versus non-specialty, or could anything be a 340B drug?
Sabrina Aery: Any covered outpatient drug can be a 340B drug.
Mel Whittington: Any covered outpatient drug can be a 340B drug?
Sabrina Aery: Yes, and that’s a legal term. Backing up a little, if manufacturers want their medications covered by Medicare Part B, they must sign an agreement with CMS to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. It’s called their MDRP Agreement.
Then things become dominoes. When you sign that agreement, you must sign a pharmaceutical pricing agreement with HRSA, which administers 340B. That says you’ll offer 340B pricing to eligible entities. Then, when you sign that agreement, you agree to participate in the Federal Supply Schedule.
You have this domino effect. When you sign those agreements, any drug you distribute and sell into the channel has to be offered at those 340B ceiling prices. You don’t get to pick which drug as a manufacturer. You’re saying you’ll do this for all of your medications, now and in the future.
Mel Whittington: Would it be fair to say that if I were a biotech investor or executive hoping to have a covered outpatient drug, I need 340B on my radar?
Sabrina Aery: Yes.
Mel Whittington: And this largely impacts gross-to-net and net price, and more than 20% of drugs are 340B.
Sabrina Aery: Another statistic in the Berkeley Research Group report released yesterday was that the average discount was 57% from list price. These are significant discounts.
Coming back to your question, a Congressional Budget Office report that came out last year identified the therapeutic areas with the highest volume of 340B purchases. It’s predominantly cancer drugs, followed closely by immunology drugs. Those could be Part B or Part D: physician-administered or pharmacy drugs. Anti-infectives round out the top three therapeutic areas.
Honestly, if you’re that manufacturer and you’ve signed those agreements—if you’re participating with Medicaid and your drugs are reimbursed by Medicare Part B—you’ll have 340B exposure.
Mel Whittington: You’ve convinced me that one should attempt to assess 340B exposure. One of my goals for these podcasts is to come up with something pragmatic and easy to implement in practice.
If you were a biotech investor or executive and could ask only three questions to assess 340B exposure, which three would you prioritize?
Sabrina Aery: I have so many things I would look at. First, if I can negotiate to have it in my data, I want to see the prescribing location and the dispensing location.
I want to see where the drug is dispensed and match that to what I’m seeing through the wholesaler in the bill-to and ship-to data. That doesn’t always come through for manufacturers. I would ask: what data am I getting, and what else can I negotiate for or try to get transparency and line of sight into?
I would look at the data I have coming in and whether I can improve it. You certainly start with what you’re seeing from wholesalers in purchase volumes. Who are the purchasing entities at 340B? Am I seeing any disparities in those purchasing patterns that might make me ask questions about what’s going on?
I would also look at long-term forecasts and the forecasted growth rate for 340B. You have a pin in what you see today in your chargeback data, but what do your annual forecasts look like year over year? What growth rate are you factoring in? Based on the statistics we discussed, does that match? What assumptions are driving those growth rates?
Then, the really difficult thing manufacturers need to do is overlay all their rebate invoices with 340B as much as possible, identify instances of duplicate payments, and dispute them.
Mel Whittington: Interesting. I hear forecasting and data and to figure out where discounts and rebates are going and whether there’s any unintended overlap.
Sabrina Aery: Yes.
Mel Whittington: That was great. I want to end by talking about what’s changing. At the beginning of my career, I thought I could avoid 340B. Now, you can’t open LinkedIn or the news without hearing about 340B.
Why has it been in the news so much? Is anything changing? If so, what’s changing? What should we take away from the last month or two?
Sabrina Aery: Let’s go back to the beginning of this discussion: what’s in law, what’s black and white, and what isn’t. With so much administered through guidance and interpretation—on both the manufacturer side and the receiving end, with hospitals and pharmacies receiving the 340B ceiling price—and intermediaries in the middle, there are a lot of interested parties with very different views and interpretations of those gray areas.
Because of that, many stakeholders are trying to run bills through Congress. There’s a lot of pressure from manufacturers to get more transparency into the data. That becomes even more critical as manufacturers make new payment types, whether through MFN models or effectuating a maximum fair price through Medicare negotiations. Who knows what’s coming in the future?
For manufacturers, that demand for data and transparency is critical so they can get clean gross-to-net numbers and not pay two or three times. That’s driving things for manufacturers.
The other thing happening is a lot of questions about where all those savings are going. Commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers don’t want to overpay for healthcare services. Not all hospital types are required to pass savings to patients. Some do apply sliding scales and help patients with out-of-pocket costs, but not all patients receive that.
Politically, on both the Republican and Democratic sides, the focus on drug pricing is largely about payer and patient affordability. Those pressures aren’t going away. Given the program’s size, you have to look at 340B, which is why it continues to be part of the conversation.
We talked about a program of $100 billion in one year. These are financial transactions between a manufacturer and a hospital. The money isn’t flowing through the government. Can you imagine if it were? It would have a lot of different oversight.
Manufacturers want line of sight and transparency into those dollars. They don’t want to pay twice when they have growing obligations coming toward them.
On the hospital side, there are a lot of for-profit third parties involved in 340B now. Those pharmacy arrangements have third-party administrators and different contractors that take pieces and percentages of the 340B discount. They have pressures as well.
There are many competing forces. Looking ahead, I don’t think this is going away. It will continue to be a topic of conversation as long as drug pricing remains a topic of conversation.
Mel Whittington: That’s why I appreciate you starting by explaining what’s black and white, what’s gray, and what’s interpretive. That’s carried through this conversation. A lot is interpretive, and that helped me understand why I’m seeing so much about 340B.
Is there anything this audience of biotech investors and executives should have on its radar coming up?
Sabrina Aery: A couple of things have been happening. Just last week, HRSA approved 10 manufacturer plans to effectuate the 340B ceiling price as a rebate instead of a discount.
Mel Whittington: Inma and I talked about that a little. She said 340B is unique because it’s effectuated as a discount—a price up front—not a rebate. So that might be changing?
Sabrina Aery: Correct, at least for 10 manufacturers. Those manufacturers have maximum fair price drugs, where they have to differentiate and pay the lower of the maximum fair price or the 340B price. That’s in law, and it’s up to manufacturers to get it right. HRSA approved those rebate models to allow manufacturers to effectuate that correctly.
This just came out yesterday, and I haven’t read the details of every manufacturer’s plan, but I’m going to guess it goes live around January 1. You have the next wave of 15 drugs that have to effectuate their maximum fair prices on January 1, and the wave of drugs doing it this year.
There’s been frustration among the hospital community that manufacturers were overestimating what was 340B and that hospitals weren’t getting the right pricing. The rebate model is certainly a step in the direction of manufacturers trying to get the pricing right.
What will happen with that in the future? It’s a pilot that HRSA will study and evaluate next year. Whether it expands is an open question.
Other things are happening with CMS. In Medicare Part D, they were proposing a 340B repository and data collection. What happens with that? Does it continue?
Regardless of those other developments, I think manufacturers will continue doing what many have already been doing: requiring hospital systems and contract pharmacies to send data so they can have clean transactions in their other rebate payments. Over 40 manufacturers are doing that now. I think that trend will continue because there aren’t universal, broader data requirements.
Mel Whittington: The HRSA pilot seems like an example of a new policy—maximum fair price through Medicare drug price negotiation—being layered onto an existing policy, 340B. We have to figure out how to make it all work cohesively.
The second part seems to come down to data. How can we get better data to make sure things work as expected and money goes where it’s supposed to, with more traceability and transparency?
Sabrina Aery: That transparency is really for the manufacturer. Manufacturers aren’t asking for data because they’re trying to shrink 340B. They’re asking because they don’t want to pay two or three times.
“I’m paying the 340B price. Now I want to look at my other rebate invoices and make sure I’m not going to pay two or three times.” That’s what’s driving the push for transparency.
Overall, I think manufacturers would also like to see more patients benefiting from these deep discounts. I mentioned the average discount of 57%. I think manufacturers would like to see more of that passed to patients and less going to for-profit partners in the system, such as pharmacies and third-party administrators.
Mel Whittington: I’ve already taken up too much of your time on the one-year anniversary of launching your consultancy. I was going to ask a different closing question, but I’ll pivot. Is there anything I didn’t ask that you think this audience should know? You’re a wealth of information on this, and I’m not. Is there anything we didn’t get to that we really need to leave the audience with?
Sabrina Aery: I’ll come back to where I started: every stakeholder in 340B—the wholesaler, pharmacy, hospital, health plan, PBM, and patient—is a customer of manufacturers. Manufacturers don’t hate their customers. They understand that they have 340B pricing obligations. They’re not trying to make the program go away; they understand their obligations.
What’s really driving this is more pricing obligations coming at manufacturers and the need for transparency in the data and pricing transactions. Yes, it would be great if patients could save at the pharmacy counter from that pricing.
Mel Whittington: Sabrina, I can’t thank you enough. I learned so much. Now I have another episode I’ll have to listen to multiple times and pick out new pieces of information each time. Thank you for sharing your brilliance and perspective with us.
I knew this conversation would be informative, but somehow you also made it fun and interesting, and I appreciate that.
To the audience, thank you for sticking with us through another deep, detailed, policy-wonky topic. I hope you liked it, learned something, and can pull out something relevant to your day-to-day work.
I’d love to hear from you if there’s another topic you’d like us to tackle. If you want to come on and share your brilliance, we’d love that. Thank you.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Perspectives. If you’re interested in participating in future podcasts or would like to learn more about the Leerink Center for Pharmacoeconomics, please email cpe@medacorp.com.
Show links:
Report – BRG – The Size of the 340B Program – October 2026_20260928012221.pdf
Drug Channels: The 340B Program Hit $100 Billion in 2025: Has It Become Too Big to Reform?
Growth in the 340B Drug Pricing Program
Analysis of 340B modifier usage in Medicare Part B claims – ADVI
The Center for Pharmacoeconomics (“CPE”) is a division of MEDACorp LLC (“MEDACorp”). CPE is committed to advancing the understanding and evaluating the economic and societal benefits of healthcare treatments in the United States. Through its thought leadership, evaluations, and advisory services, CPE supports decisions intended to improve societal outcomes. MEDACorp, an affiliate of Leerink Partners LLC (“Leerink Partners”), maintains a global network of independent healthcare professionals providing industry and market insights to Leerink Partners and its clients. The information provided by the Center for Pharmacoeconomics is intended for the sole use of the recipient, is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment or other advice or a recommendation or offer to buy or sell any security, product, or service. The information has been obtained from sources that we believe reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice, and any opinions and information contained herein are as of the date of this material, and MEDACorp does not undertake any obligation to update them. This document may not be reproduced, edited, or circulated without the express written consent of MEDACorp.
© 2026 MEDACorp LLC. All Rights Reserved.
