Why Modifying Protected Drug Classes Creates a Slippery Slope for Patients Living with HIV

By: Scott Bertani, Director of Advocacy at HealthHIV

As a Person living with HIV who was diagnosed in Denver in the mid-1990s, during a period when treatment options were limited and access was fragile (to say the least), I relied on the Denver Blue Card for my care and access to medications and, during particularly precarious periods, on donation houses and informal community networks to stay alive when formal systems fell short. I lost many friends during those years, and I remember clearly what it meant to live before truly effective HIV antiretroviral therapy existed. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing’s (HCPF)  consideration of modifying protected drug classes and allowing the use of prior authorization for select drugs threatens to undermine that progress.

In 1996, when protease inhibitors first came online, they did more than change treatment guidelines—they saved people who would not have been alive the following month. The shift was so profound that one of our local bars, Proteus, was euphemistically renamed by many of us as “Protease,” reflecting how seismic that moment felt within the community. 

Back then, cherished friends and bar owners—many connected through BJ’s and the Carousel Ball—helped establish the Tavern Guild as a way to formalize what BJ’s, Mike’s on Broadway, Charlie’s, Blush & Blu, and similar LGBTQ-safe spaces had long done informally—strengthen access to community-based resources, collective buying power, mutual aid, and care. Their work reinforced what many of us already knew from lived experience: progress in HIV has never been driven by medicine alone, but by the constant interaction between clinical innovation, policy decisions, and community infrastructure. That history—contemporary with the Denver Principles—shapes how I read Policy Action 6: not as an abstract cost-containment proposal, but as a set of decisions that land on real people whose health, stability, and longevity depend on continuity of care. It’s why—I feel—that the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing’s (HCPF) consideration of modifying protected drug classes and allowing prior authorization for select HIV drugs risks reintroducing access barriers we have long since left behind.

(With that, I relinquish the soapbox and turn to Colorado’s HCPF proposed Policy Action 6—grounded in lived-experience and the principle that has guided HIV policy and advocacy for decades: “Nothing about us, without us”).

Across HIV prevention and care, we see the same pattern repeat: funding debates occur in one lane, policy design in another, implementation somewhere else, and the consequences show up downstream with patients, providers, and communities. The uncomfortable question is who ultimately absorbs the cost—both quantitatively and qualitatively—when that chain breaks. 

Cost growth is a legitimate concern. It has long been debated across ecosystems affecting HIV treatment—by Prescription Drug Affordability Boards; Medicaid and provider and therapeutics committees; Medicare benefit designers; AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); the Affordable Care Act Marketplace; employer-sponsored coverage; and others. In response, states and payers have operationalized those concerns through cost-containment mechanisms such as formulary redesign, eligibility adjustments, and increased scrutiny of high-cost antiretroviral therapies, particularly widely used single-tablet regimens that account for a significant share of HIV drug spending, as reflected in recent IPAY 2028 actions under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Policy Action 6 emerges from this same cost-growth context. However, reintroducing prior authorization and step therapy for communicable disease medications—especially HIV drugs—introduces predictable treatment delays and administrative barriers that undermine adherence and viral suppression. Any savings analysis, including evidence-based spending and utilization patterns, should therefore account for downstream clinical and system costs, not just pharmacy spending and rebate leverage.

In practice, utilization management often shifts costs out of the pharmacy benefit and into care coordination, emergency coverage, and re-engagement efforts. Those costs do not disappear; they reappear elsewhere in the system and are shouldered by Ryan White providers, safety-net clinics, and public health programs. In those settings, administrative delays, regimen uncertainty, and coverage churn undermine stability before it is ever achieved. That disruption is managed by Title XIX targeted case management, Ryan White medical case management and non-medical supportive services, and Part C clinic staff and administrators. This list is not exhaustive and is rarely reimbursed at a level that reflects improved health outcomes.

While Policy Action 6 is framed as a measured return to utilization management that would apply prospectively after July 2027 and preserve continuity for patients deemed “stable,” the greatest disruption from prior authorization and step therapy occurs upstream—during initiation or rapid starts, regimen switches and re-initiation, and early treatment.

As a result, these programs must devote—often divert—additional staff time to care coordination, enrollment troubleshooting, and compliance management. That operational burden adds strain through burnout, retention challenges, and reduced workforce readiness, particularly when churn occurs at both the reimbursement level and the policy level, including through federal and HRSA requirements.

Cost containment is vital to the implementation of a healthy Colorado, including for people enrolled in public assistance programs, as the Department of Health affirms. However, rebate strategies that rely on utilization management function by introducing administrative hurdles—not by changing clinical care—and those hurdles directly affect whether people remain on treatment and stay virally suppressed.

In many ways, this is a Palisade peaches–to–Rocky Ford cantaloupe comparison: both are nutritious, but the differences are wide, not narrow—much like lifelong HIV medication management in the real world. Short-term utilization metrics do not account for resistance history, hepatitis B co-infection, or clinically meaningful differences across integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) classes, including the higher resistance barriers and durability of second-generation INSTIs compared with earlier agents. Nor do they reflect the realities of aging with HIV, including low CD4 nadirs and the long-term durability of immune recovery. When treatment decisions intersect with comorbidities and acute stressors—such as COVID-19, influenza, or measles—disruptions over decades of care can compound treatment fatigue, adherence challenges, and cumulative harm in ways utilization controls are not designed to absorb.

Colorado’s statutory framework already reflects this concern. Section 10-16-152 paused prior authorization and step therapy for HIV medications and required a study—explicitly including qualitative patient and provider experience—before any policy reversal. That structure recognizes that access, treatment stability, and adherence are central to cost-effective HIV care, and that utilization management assumptions should be tested rather than presumed.

Washington’s experience provides a relevant real-world test of the same assumptions underlying Policy Action 6, including the expectation that utilization management can be reintroduced without destabilizing treatment or shifting costs downstream. Through a legislatively directed budget proviso, Washington required the Health Care Authority (HCA) to remove prior authorization for all FDA-approved HIV antiviral drugs under Apple Health beginning January 1, 2023, and to report annually on utilization, expenditures, and regimen switching. That proviso—adopted in SB 5092, section 118.6.a—also prompted the convening of the HIV Medication Access Workgroup (HMAW).

Through the HMAW process, stakeholders consistently documented that prior authorization, step therapy, and regimen disruption introduced administrative friction that delayed access, destabilized effective treatment, and increased churn within Medicaid HIV care. Participants emphasized that utilization management strategies intended to favor lower-cost or multi-tablet regimens did not operate in isolation, but shifted costs downstream to Ryan White providers, safety-net clinics, and public health systems tasked with mitigating treatment interruptions and re-engaging patients. In this context, “continued access” often existed on paper while continuity of care eroded in practice.

As required by the proviso, HCA published its 2024 legislative report on HIV antiviral drugs, analyzing utilization, expenditures, and available health outcomes data following the removal of prior authorization. Viral load data were available for approximately 42 percent of Apple Health clients receiving HIV treatment in 2022—more than 3,000 individuals—representing a substantial real-world Medicaid population. While HCA appropriately cautioned that this subset cannot be assumed to represent all clients, it did not characterize the data as unreliable or dismiss observed differences across regimen types.

Within this cohort, patients initiating treatment on single-tablet regimens demonstrated higher rates of viral suppression than those starting on multi-tablet regimens or switching regimens. Although insufficient to establish causality, these findings establish directionality and challenge the assumption that regimen form and administrative disruption are clinically neutral—particularly in Medicaid settings shaped by utilization management, coverage churn, and administrative delay.

Preventing a single HIV infection avoids hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime medical costs, with some estimates exceeding one million dollars depending on treatment scenarios. Given these well-established costs, policy decisions that risk even modest reductions in adherence or viral suppression should not be evaluated solely on short-term pharmacy spending or rebate leverage.

Notably, Washington ultimately codified the policy direction reflected in the proviso and stakeholder findings. In 2025, the Legislature enacted SB 5577, requiring Medicaid coverage of all FDA-approved HIV antiviral drugs without prior authorization or step therapy for both fee-for-service and managed care enrollees, effective July 1, 2025. This statutory action reflects a legislative determination that, for HIV treatment, utilization management introduces unacceptable risk to treatment stability and system sustainability.

The lack of complete outcomes data argues for caution, not for reinstating prior authorization and step therapy based on projected savings alone. Policy Action 6 assumes these controls can be reintroduced for HIV drugs without disrupting care or shifting costs outside the pharmacy benefit—an assumption that has not been supported by real-world experience. That assumption is not only incorrect, but—I feel—potentially harmful for Persons living with HIV in Colorado.