[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 89383-89391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29515]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 17

RIN 2900-AP35


Tiered Pharmacy Copayments for Medications

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as a final 
rule, with changes, a proposal to amend its regulations concerning 
copayments charged to certain veterans for medication required on an 
outpatient basis to treat nonservice-connected conditions. Prior to 
this final rule, VA charged non-exempt veterans either $8 or $9 for 
each 30-day or less supply of medication, and that amount may have 
changed in future years. This rulemaking replaces those rates and 
establishes three classes of medications for copayment purposes, 
identified as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. These tiers are defined 
further in the rulemaking and are distinguished in part based on 
whether the medications are available from multiple sources or a single 
source, with some exceptions. Copayment amounts are fixed and would 
vary depending upon the class of medication. The following medication 
copayment amounts are applicable on the effective date of this final 
rule: $5 for a 30-day or less supply of a Tier 1 medication, $8 for a 
30-day or less supply of a Tier 2 medication, and $11 for a 30-day or 
less supply of a Tier 3 medication. For non-exempt veterans these 
copayment amounts will result in lower out-of-pocket costs, thereby 
encouraging greater adherence to taking prescribed medications and 
reducing the risk of fragmented care that results when veterans use 
non-VA pharmacies to fill their prescriptions. The proposed rule was 
published on January 5, 2016 and the public comment period closed on 
March 7, 2016. We received nine comments and respond to these comments 
here.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Souza, Office of Community 
Care (10D), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 382-2537. 
(This is not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a), VA must require 
veterans to pay at least a $2 copayment for each 30-day supply of 
medication furnished on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a non-
service-connected disability or condition, unless the veteran is exempt 
from having to pay a copayment because the veteran has a service-
connected disability rated 50 percent or more, is a former prisoner of 
war, or has an annual income at or below the maximum annual rate of VA 
pension that would be payable if the veteran were eligible for pension. 
VA has the authority under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(b) to increase that 
copayment amount and establish a maximum annual copayment amount (a 
``cap'') through regulation. We have implemented this statute in 38 CFR 
17.110. Both the copayment amount for certain priority groups, as well 
as an annual cap on those copayments, are addressed in 38 CFR 
17.110(b).
    On January 5, 2016, we proposed a new medication copayment formula, 
in order to address longstanding concerns that the regulatory formula 
VA had been using was not competitive with non-VA retail copayment 
structures, lacked parity, may result in decreased medication 
adherence, and increased the likelihood of fragmented care due to 
price-shopping. 81 FR 196. The public comment period closed March 7, 
2016, and we received nine comments, all of which were generally 
supportive. Several commenters expressed strong support for lowering 
the annual medication copayment amount. However, several commenters 
urged VA to make changes to different aspects of

[[Page 89384]]

the proposed rule. The majority of the comments focused on the 
definition of multi-source medication. We address those comments, and 
make changes to the rulemaking as noted below.
    The new regulatory formula established by this rule focuses on the 
type of medication being prescribed and would remove the automatic 
escalator provision, meaning that changes in copayments would only 
occur through subsequent rulemakings. Veterans exempt by law from 
copayments under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a)(3) continue to be exempt. This VA 
rulemaking includes a definition of ``medication'' and ``multi-source 
medication.'' We also establish three classes of medications for 
copayment purposes: Tier 1 medications, Tier 2 medications, and Tier 3 
medications. Tiers 1 and 2 includes multi-source medications, a term 
that is defined in Sec.  17.110(b)(1)(iv). Tier 3 includes medications 
that retain patent protection and exclusivity and are not multi-source 
medications. Copayment amounts vary depending upon the Tier in which 
the medication is classified. A 30-day or less supply of Tier 1 
medications has a copayment of $5. For Tier 2 medications, the 
copayment is $8, and for Tier 3 medications, the copayment is $11. The 
rule also changes the annual cap for medication copayments, lowering 
the cap to $700 for all veterans who are required to pay medication 
copayments.
    On September 16, 2015, VA published a final rule maintaining, 
through December 31, 2016, medication copayment amounts at the 2014 
rate for certain priority groups ($8 for veterans in priority groups 2-
6 and $9 for veterans in priority groups 7 and 8). See 80 FR 55544. VA 
anticipated at that time that necessary information technology (IT) 
structure changes would be in place by December 31, 2016, allowing the 
current rulemaking to have an effective date of January 1, 2017. 
However, those changes will not be ready for a full roll-out until 
February 27, 2017. The effective date of this final rule is February 
27, 2017. VA published a separate rulemaking that will extend the 
current copayment freeze until the effective date of the present 
rulemaking. The end result is that the higher annual copayment cap of 
$960 will be in effect through February 26, 2017, and the lower annual 
cap of $700 will apply the following day. We believe it is unlikely 
that a veteran will pay more than $700 in medication copayments during 
the short period of time before the lower annual cap goes into effect. 
However, in the event that any veteran exceeds the $700 cap in this 
final rule, before the rule takes effect, VA will refund the amount in 
excess of the $700 cap to the veteran.

Definition of the Term ``Medication''

    In paragraph (a) of proposed section 17.110, we proposed that for 
the purposes of this section, the term ``medication'' would mean 
prescription and over-the-counter medications as determined by FDA. One 
commenter noted that the term ``medication'' is not a regulatory term 
of art used by FDA and FDA does not determine whether an item is 
medication. The commenter stated that the rule should instead refer to 
the regulatory approval authorities for drugs and biologics, section 
505 of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for drugs, and section 351 
of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) for biologics. The commenter 
stated that citing these authorities would clarify that the term 
``medication'' does not include medical supplies, nutritional items, 
and devices.
    Section 505 of the FDCA is codified at 21 U.S.C. 355 (New drugs) 
and 355-1 (Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies). Citing the 
former would inappropriately limit the definition of ``medication'' to 
new drugs, and citing the latter would address only those instances 
where FDA determines that a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy is 
necessary to ensure that the benefits of a new drug outweigh the risks 
of the drug. While section 351 of the PHSA is applicable to the 
approval of all biologics, VA believes that it would be potentially 
confusing to the public if the rulemaking cited to statutory authority 
related to biologics but not for drugs. However, VA agrees with the 
commenter's concern that medical supplies and devices are not 
specifically excluded from the definition of ``medication.'' We have 
amended the definition accordingly to exclude medical supplies and 
devices. We also specifically excluded oral nutritional supplements 
from the definition of ``medication'' because they are exempt from 
copayments. Oral nutritional supplements are commercially prepared 
nutritionally enhanced products used to supplement the intake of 
individuals who cannot meet nutrient needs by diet alone.

Definition of ``Multi-Source Medication'': General Comments

    One commenter stated that the definition of multi-source medication 
in Sec.  17.110(b)(2)(A) is inappropriately broad, misaligned with the 
conventional use and understanding of the term, risks public confusion, 
and poses a potential risk to patient safety. The commenter stated that 
the term is typically used to describe only those drugs that FDA has 
determined to be therapeutically equivalent (i.e., pharmaceutically 
equivalent and bioequivalent), and that FDA's definition is also 
consistent with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' regulatory 
use of the term ``multiple source'' for purposes of the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs.
    Another commenter stated that the definition of ``multi-source 
medication'' ``includes multiple categories of drugs defined separately 
under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program in 42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(7)(A) as 
`multiple source drug,' `innovator multiple source drug,' `non-
innovator multiple source drug,' and `single source drug.''' The 
commenter asserts that VA's proposed definition of multi-source 
medication conflicts with these statutory definitions. Another 
commenter stated that the proposed definition of multi-source 
medication contributes to nonuniformity in federal regulations, noting 
that TRICARE regulations at 32 CFR 199.21(j) classify generic 
medications as multi-source products, and specifically define that 
term.
    In response to these commenters, we note that our definition of 
multi-source medication is intentionally broad to differentiate 
medication that would fall under Tiers 1 and 2 from those in Tier 3 in 
the regulation. We determined that the use of a single term to describe 
medications that do not retain patent protection and exclusivity is 
appropriate because veterans receiving care from VA, not drug 
manufacturers, are primarily affected by this rulemaking. VA considered 
several options on how to address the types of medications we include 
in the definition of multi-source medications in Sec.  
17.110(b)(1)(iv)(A). Our primary considerations were to ensure, first, 
that the types of medications were adequately defined and, second, that 
the rulemaking clearly states to which copayment tier each of these 
types of medications is assigned. It became evident during the drafting 
process that treating the types of medications currently described in 
Sec.  17.110(b)(1)(iv)(A) as separately-defined terms was problematic, 
because adding multiple definitions could lead to confusion. VA 
believes that using a single term to refer to types of medication with 
a shared major characteristic is less confusing than referring to 
multiple separate definitions. The characteristic shared by each type 
of medication in current Sec.  17.110(b)(1)(iv)(A) is that it is 
available from multiple sources. VA believes that using the term 
``multi-source medication'' has a lower risk of confusing the public 
than does the use

[[Page 89385]]

of separate terms like those suggested by the commenter. The various 
Medicaid definitions referred to by the commenters are necessary for 
administration of medication payments or reimbursement by Medicaid to 
states, retail or hospital pharmacies, other health care providers, and 
drug manufacturers. That degree of differentiation in definitions is 
unnecessary for tiered copayment purposes, and would lead to confusion 
in our veteran population. Likewise, adopting definitions of similar 
terms used by Medicaid would not be helpful to veterans, as the 
Medicaid definitions of terms were drafted to serve another purpose and 
were targeted to their specific audience. As one commenter stated, 
TRICARE regulations do classify generic drugs as multi-source products. 
However, as noted above, several classes of medications can properly be 
described as being multi-source. As the definition of multi-source 
medication in this rulemaking relates solely to determining whether a 
particular medication should be in one of three tiers for purposes of 
VA medication copayments, we do not anticipate that nonuniformity of VA 
and other agencies' terms will be a problem. We make no changes based 
on these comments.
    Two commenters stated that VA should clarify that the definition of 
``multi-source medication'' applies only to VA's copayment structure in 
order to avoid confusion given the use of similar terminology in other 
federal regulations. We specify in Sec.  17.110(b)(1)(iv) that the 
definition of ``multi-source medication'' is for purposes of that 
section only. We make no changes based on these comments.

Definition of ``Multi-Source Medication'': Biosimilarity and 
Interchangeability

    In paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) we proposed that the term 
``multi-source medication'' would include a medication that has been 
and remains approved by FDA under section 351(k) of PHSA (42 U.S.C. 
262), and has been granted an I or B rating in the current version of 
the FDA's Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product 
Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations (the 
Purple Book). We received multiple, highly technical comments on this 
issue, which are summarized below. After the summary, we respond to the 
comments.
    Several commenters stated that VA should clarify that it defers to 
FDA regarding both therapeutic equivalence for drugs and 
interchangeability for biological products. The commenters asserted 
that by defining multi-source medication to mean, in part, a medication 
that has been granted an I or B rating by FDA, VA would treat both 
biological products that FDA has determined to be interchangeable (I 
rated) and those deemed biosimilar (B rated) exactly the same. The 
commenters stated that the proposed rule erroneously conflates entirely 
the two very distinct approval standards for these two very distinct 
categories of biological products.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed rulemaking failed to 
recognize the significant differences between generic drugs and 
biosimilar products. The commenters noted that biosimilar products are 
not necessarily interchangeable. Whereas drugs typically have small 
molecule structures that can be completely defined and entirely 
reproduced, biologics are large-protein molecules that are generally 
more complex, and reproductions are unlikely to be shown to be 
structurally identical to the innovator product. In recognition of this 
difference, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 
(BPCIA) established separate approval standards for biosimilar and 
interchangeable biological products, distinct from standards for 
generic drugs. Generic drugs must be the same as a previously approved 
Reference Product, and are approved for the same indications. In 
contrast, to receive FDA approval, biosimilar products must be 
demonstrated to be ``highly similar,'' but not identical, to the 
innovator product. Approved B rated biosimilar products have not been 
determined by FDA to be safe for substitution with the Reference 
Product. Biologics must meet additional criteria established by the FDA 
to be interchangeable, or I rated. One commenter urged VA to exclude 
biosimilar products that FDA has not determined to be interchangeable 
from the definition of multi-source medication. In the alternative, the 
commenter stated that VA should clarify that a biological product 
licensed by FDA as a biosimilar is not interchangeable absent an FDA 
determination of such.
    Commenters noted that the BPCIA sets forth criteria for a biologic 
being rated as a biosimilar product, and two additional requirements 
for interchangeability. Only those biosimilar products that have met 
these two additional criteria are deemed by FDA to be interchangeable. 
Two commenters stated that FDA sets a higher standard for 
interchangeability of biological products and other related biosimilar 
products than it does for biosimilarity or therapeutic equivalence for 
smaller molecule drugs. The commenters stated that, in the absence of 
the robust data that FDA requires to make a determination regarding 
biosimilarity or interchangeability, VA could potentially place 
patients at significant risk.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rulemaking encourages the 
use of the lowest cost biosimilar regardless of interchangeability and 
whether the biosimilar has been tested for the indication for which it 
is prescribed.
    One commenter noted that there are some smaller molecule drugs that 
have not been determined by FDA to be therapeutically equivalent. The 
commenter stated that VA should consider the unique safety questions 
surrounding substitution of biological products, including those that 
have been determined to be biosimilar, especially with regard to 
immunogenicity.
    One commenter stated that VA should clarify that B rated biological 
products have not been approved as interchangeable with the reference 
Product. FDA approval as an interchangeable biological product (I 
rated) requires the successful demonstration of an entirely separate 
and more rigorous set of standards. The commenter states that VA should 
clarify that the inclusion of B rated biologics in the definition of 
multi-source medication does not imply that B rated biologics have been 
determined by FDA to be interchangeable.
    We appreciate the complete analyses provided by the commenters on 
the topic of biosimilarity and interchangeability, and we have made 
changes to the regulation responsive to their concerns. Our reasoning 
follows.
    The Purple Book lists biological products, including any biosimilar 
and interchangeable biological products licensed by FDA under the PHSA. 
The lists include the date a biological product was licensed under 
351(a) of the PHSA and whether FDA evaluated the biological product for 
reference product exclusivity under section 351(k)(7) of the PHSA. The 
Purple Book enables a user to see whether a biological product licensed 
under section 351(k) of the PHSA has been determined by FDA to be 
biosimilar to or interchangeable with a reference biological product 
(an already-licensed FDA biological product). Biosimilar and 
interchangeable biological products licensed under section 351(k) of 
the PHSA are listed under the reference

[[Page 89386]]

product to which biosimilarity or interchangeability was demonstrated.
    The BPCIA was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 
23, 2010. The BPCIA amends the PHSA and other statutes to create an 
abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products shown to be 
biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed biological 
reference product (see sections 7001 through 7003 of the Affordable 
Care Act). Section 351(k) of the PHSA, added by the BPCIA, sets forth 
the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product 
and an application or a supplement for a proposed interchangeable 
product. There are three relevant definitions in this statute.
    Section 351(i) defines biosimilarity to mean that the biological 
product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding 
minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are 
no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and 
the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of 
the product.
    To meet the standard for interchangeability, an applicant must 
provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the biological 
product is biosimilar to the reference product and can be expected to 
produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given 
patient. Additionally, if the biological product is administered more 
than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished 
efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological 
product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using 
the reference product without such alternation or switch (see section 
351(k)(4) of the PHSA). Interchangeable products may be substituted for 
the reference product by a pharmacist without the intervention of the 
prescribing health care provider (see section 351(i)(3) of the PHSA).
    Reference product means the single biological product licensed 
under section 351(a) of the PHSA against which a biological product is 
evaluated in a 351(k) application (section 351(i)(4) of the PHSA).
    The definition of multi-source medication in this rulemaking was 
crafted for only one purpose--to differentiate several classes of 
medication (including drugs and biologics) that can be termed either 
Tier 1 or 2 for medication copayment purposes. This definition does not 
equate an I rated product with one that is B rated by FDA. Nor does it 
conflict with or supersede a determination by FDA that a particular 
drug is the therapeutic equivalent of another, or that two biologics 
are biosimilar. The Purple Book lists biological products, including 
any biosimilar and interchangeable biological products licensed by FDA, 
and the definition of multi-source medication at paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(ii) recognizes that fact and categorizes those 
already-licensed products for VA's purposes. We have added clarifying 
language to indicate that VA defers to FDA regarding both therapeutic 
equivalence for drugs and interchangeability for biological products.
    We do not agree with the commenter concerned that the rulemaking 
encourages the use of the lowest cost biosimilar regardless of 
interchangeability and whether it has been tested for the indication 
for which it is prescribed. A VA health care provider makes decisions 
on prescribing specific medications based on the clinical need of the 
individual patient being treated for a given illness or condition. 
Prescribing decisions are generally limited to those medications 
included in the VA National Formulary, which is discussed in greater 
detail below. If a particular medication is not available, sound 
clinical practice is for the health care provider to select an 
alternate medication that is interchangeable or otherwise approved by 
the FDA for treatment of the illness or medical condition. Cost is only 
one of several factors considered when VA determines which medications 
are on the National Formulary. In general, individual prescribing 
choices are influenced by medication copayment charges only when the 
issue is raised by the veteran, and only in those instances where a 
clinically justifiable alternative is available. We make no changes 
based on this comment.

Definition of ``Multi-Source Medication'': Substitutability

    In paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(3) we proposed that the term ``multi-
source medication'' would include a medication that has been and 
remains approved by the FDA pursuant to FDCA section 505(b)(1) or PHSA 
section 351(a); and has the same active ingredient or active 
ingredients, works in the same way and in a comparable amount of time, 
and is determined by VA to be substitutable for another medication that 
has been and remains approved by the FDA pursuant to FDCA section 
505(b)(1) or PHSA section 351(a).
    One commenter expressed concerns that the proposed rule gives VA 
total discretion to determine whether two approved drugs or biological 
products are ``substitutable.'' The commenter stated that VA should 
defer to FDA's determination of therapeutic equivalence and 
interchangeability when making decisions regarding substitutability of 
products.
    The commenter also expressed concern that VA's determination that 
products are substitutable may be misconstrued by the public as 
indicating that the products have been determined by FDA to be 
interchangeable or therapeutically equivalent when they are not.
    One commenter stated that the portion of the proposed rulemaking 
addressing substitutability is written in a manner to suggest that 
there may be more treatment options, and thus there are competitive 
forces at play, when certain drugs and biologics have the ``same active 
ingredient or ingredients, work . . . in the same way, and in a 
comparable amount of time.'' The commenter argued that it is outside 
VA's authority to determine when products are ``substitutable'' with 
one another. The commenter stated that it is FDA's scientific 
determinations about therapeutic equivalence (for small molecule drugs) 
and interchangeability (for biologic products) that impact 
substitutability determinations.
    VA agrees that FDA determinations regarding therapeutic equivalence 
and interchangeability are important considerations. However, 
substitutability is not the same as therapeutic equivalence or 
interchangeability. Whether one medication can be substituted for 
another is a clinical decision made by a health care provider, based on 
sound clinical judgment, and the decision should be evidence-based. A 
health care provider may decide to substitute one medication for 
another to treat a given medical condition for several reasons 
including, but not limited to, a comparison of relative side effects, 
contraindications, and potential adverse reactions; patient tolerance 
of one medication over another; a request by the patient; or an effort 
to decrease costs for the patient while achieving the same or similar 
benefits. Therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability may play a 
part in the decision-making process, dependent upon the range of 
treatment options available to the health care provider. When 
therapeutic equivalence and interchangeability are considerations, FDA 
determinations on these issues are highly relevant. We make no changes 
based on this comment.

[[Page 89387]]

Definition of ``Multi-Source Medication'': Authorized Generics

    In paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(4) we state that the term ``multi-source 
medication'' would also include a medication that is a listed drug, as 
defined in 21 CFR 314.3, that has been approved under FDCA section 
505(c) and is marketed, sold, or distributed directly or indirectly to 
retail class of trade with either labeling, packaging (other than 
repackaging as the listed drug in blister packs, unit doses, or similar 
packaging for use in institutions), product code, labeler code, trade 
name, or trademark that differs from that of the listed drug. The 
definition in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(4) is substantively identical to 
the definition of ``authorized generic drug'' found in FDA regulations 
at 21 CFR 314.3.
    One commenter stated that this definition unfairly precludes drugs 
approved as brand drugs and marketed as generics (authorized generics) 
from being included as a multiple-source medication at the Tier 1 or 2 
copayment amount if there is no generic source rated in the Orange Book 
or if a drug approved as a brand drug is not lower in cost than other 
generic sources.
    For clarification, the FDA publication ``Approved Drug Products 
with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations'' is commonly known as the 
Orange Book. The Orange Book identifies drug products approved on the 
basis of safety and effectiveness by the FDA under the FDCA. The 
publication does not include drugs on the market approved only on the 
basis of safety covered by the ongoing Drug Efficacy Study 
Implementation review or pre-1938 drugs. The main criterion for the 
inclusion of any product is that the product is the subject of an 
application with an effective approval that has not been withdrawn for 
safety or efficacy reasons. In addition, the Orange Book contains 
therapeutic equivalence evaluations for approved generic drugs. 
Finally, the Orange Book lists patents that are purported to protect 
each drug.
    The commenter stated that it is unfair to charge veterans more for 
an authorized generic drug simply because there is no marketed generic 
drug approved under section 505(j), or when VA's cost for a drug 
approved as a brand drug is only slightly higher than another generic 
source.
    Nothing in this rulemaking precludes an authorized generic drug 
from inclusion in either Tier 1 or 2. Authorized generics are 
prescription drugs produced by brand pharmaceutical companies and 
marketed under a private label, at generic prices. Authorized generics 
compete with generic products in that they are identical to their brand 
counterpart in both active and inactive ingredients, while generic 
drugs are required to contain only the same active ingredient as the 
brand name. Pharmaceutical manufacturers typically launch an authorized 
generic when patent protection and exclusivity have expired, and the 
authorized generic competes in the marketplace against any generic 
equivalents approved by FDA.
    The three classes of medications defined for copayment purposes, 
Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3, are found in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B)-(D). 
Multi-source medications generally fall under either Tier 1 or 2; 
placement in either tier being governed by whether the medication meets 
all the criteria found at paragraph (b)(2) for Tier 1 placement. The 
only medications that would fall under Tier 3 are those approved by the 
FDA under a New Drug Application (NDA) or a biological product approved 
by the FDA pursuant to a biologics license agreement (BLA) that retains 
its patent protection and exclusivity. The definition of multi-source 
medication specifically includes authorized generic drugs at paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv)(A)(4). There is nothing in the criteria for inclusion in 
Tier 1 or 2 that would disqualify an authorized generic because no 
other generic equivalent had yet been approved by FDA.
    The comment does highlight two elements of the Tier 3 definition 
that may cause confusion: Patent protection and exclusivity. Tier 3 
medication includes medications approved by FDA under a NDA that 
retains exclusivity. An authorized generic medication is manufactured 
by the original patent holder under a NDA, but is not marketed under 
the brand name. While an authorized generic medication may not retain 
exclusivity for patent purposes, the term ``exclusivity'' does come 
into play. Authorized generic medications are typically brought to the 
market during the 180-day exclusivity period during which a first filer 
of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) under the Drug Price 
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 98-417) can bring 
to market a generic version of the brand name drug. During this 180 day 
period no other manufacturer may market a generic version of the 
medication, other than the original patent holder who can market the 
authorized generic. To clarify the scope of Tier 3, we will amend the 
definition of Tier 3 to explicitly state that Tier 3 does not include 
authorized generic medications defined in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(4).
    The commenter further stated that if the concern is that multiple 
source drug prices be competitive, the requirement should be that a 
drug approved as a brand drug be equivalent in cost to a generic 
version not lower in cost, particularly given generic drug pricing 
volatility. As noted above, the comment is based on an incorrect 
analysis of the definition of multi-source medication and what is 
included in each tier for copayment purposes. Authorized generic 
medications (which are generic versions of a medication that is 
marketed by the brand drug manufacturer) are not included in Tier 3. By 
definition, authorized generic medications are considered multi-source 
medication at paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(4). A drug approved by the FDA as 
a brand drug is considered under this rule in one of two ways, 
dependent on whether the drug is marketed as both a brand drug and 
authorized generic medication, or solely as a brand drug. In the latter 
case, the brand drug would be considered a Tier 3 medication, while in 
the former case the authorized generic medication would be either a 
Tier 1 or 2, and the brand drug would be Tier 3. This differentiation 
between an authorized generic medication and a brand drug is consistent 
with how many non-VA health insurers categorize these products. The 
commenter correctly states that generic drug pricing can be volatile. 
However, VA has been successful at stabilizing generic drug acquisition 
prices through a variety of government contract vehicles and therefore 
has minimized generic price volatility. Generic price volatility is not 
the primary determining factor in whether an authorized generic 
medication is Tier 1 or 2. We do not agree with the commenter that VA 
should require brand drug to be equivalent to either the authorized 
generic version of that drug, or other generic versions of that drug. 
Finally, the description of authorized generic medication in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iv)(A)(4) does not include a requirement that the medication be 
lower in cost; that requirement is in (b)(1)(iv)(A)(2)(iii) and is not 
applicable to authorized generic medication. We make no change based on 
this comment.

Tier Structure

    One commenter stated that, while the proposed rule is intended to 
align medication copayments charged by VA with commercial practice, the 
three-tiered system deviates further from established commercial 
practice than

[[Page 89388]]

the current two-tiered system. The commenter stated that the proposed 
three-tiered model will lead to confusion, and veterans may be less 
likely to fill needed prescriptions.
    The primary purpose of this rulemaking is not to strictly align 
VA's medication copayment structure with commercial practice. Rather, 
it is to make medication copayments more affordable to the greatest 
number of affected veterans, while recognizing differences in costs of 
those medications to VA and the effect of that differential for 
veterans who may exercise a non-VA retail option. The previously 
utilized two-tiered system was inflexible and nonresponsive to changing 
conditions, and resulted in some veterans bearing a heavy financial 
burden to obtain necessary medication. We make no changes based on this 
comment.
    One commenter was concerned that a single source drug or biologic 
for which there is no generic version is precluded from Tier 2, even 
where there is a therapeutic alternative that is also a single source 
drug or biologic. The commenter noted that single source drugs on the 
VA National Formulary may be clinically effective and cost effective 
compared to alternative treatments. The VA National Formulary is a 
listing of products (drugs and supplies) that must be available for 
prescription at all VA facilities. Only those products that actually 
have been approved by FDA under a NDA, ANDA, or biologics license, may 
be added to the National Formulary.
    The commenter stated that many high use medications, such as 
oncology drugs and biologics, are for conditions for which no drug is 
available under another tier and which may not be on the VA formulary. 
The commenter asserted that the proposed tier structure will increase 
costs of these medications for veterans.
    One commenter did not support the tiered copayment model, 
specifically Tier 3. The commenter argued that requiring higher 
copayments for Tier 3 medication penalizes veterans who benefit from 
newer medication, those who have no other option than using medication 
that retain patent protection and exclusivity to treat their medical 
condition. The commenter further stated that raising copayment amounts 
may force veterans to pick and choose which of several medications they 
will fill.
    A medication is considered a therapeutic alternative if that 
medication differs chemically from the medication prescribed, but has 
the same therapeutic effect as the prescribed medication. An example is 
the various classes of calcium channel blockers that are prescribed to 
treat hypertension. One calcium channel blocking medication could be 
considered a therapeutic alternative to another, dependent upon case-
specific factors. Placement of a medication into any of the three 
copayment tiers is not dependent on whether a therapeutic alternative 
exists. Rather, the issue is whether a particular medication is a 
multi-source or single source medication, and whether (in the case of a 
multi-source medication) the medication qualifies for Tier 1. The 
primary criteria for determining whether a medication is single source 
or multi-source is if it is a medication approved by the FDA under a 
New Drug Application (NDA) or a biological product approved by the FDA 
pursuant to a biologics license agreement (BLA) that retains its patent 
protection and exclusivity and is not a multi-source medication 
identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(3) or (4). Using ``therapeutic 
alternative'' as the touchstone to determine whether a medication is 
single source would not be consistent with the common usage of that 
term, and would be difficult to administer since medications may 
sometimes be prescribed to treat several different medical conditions. 
For one indication, medication X may be the therapeutic alternative to 
medication Y, and for another indication would be the therapeutic 
alternative to medication B.
    Medication copayment amounts paid in non-VA pharmacies vary 
dependent upon whether the prescription is for a generic or brand name 
medication. The tiered copayment structure in this rulemaking follows 
the same pattern. What is commonly referred to as a brand name 
medication is equivalent to a medication that would fall under Tier 3. 
VA estimates that approximately 15 percent of billable prescriptions 
dispensed in a year will be in Tier 3, and that the total copayments 
for veterans prescribed Tier 3 medications will remain the same for 
many veterans and will decrease for a sizable portion. A reduction in 
the copayment cap provides a unique benefit to veterans who exclusively 
use Tier 3 medications. The total annual copayment costs for these 
veterans will not exceed $700, whereas under the prior regulations the 
costs would be $960, or more for those veterans in priority groups 7 or 
8 that are not currently subject to a cap. So, while some veterans may 
still decide not to fill all of their prescriptions, we estimate that 
fewer will do so for financial reasons as a result of these changes.
    We note that a veteran may request a waiver of medication copayment 
charges, as provided for in 38 CFR 17.105(c). That section states that 
the veterans must submit a form requesting a waiver, and that a hearing 
may be requested. We make no changes based on these comments.

Copayment Amounts

    Two commenters stated that this rule will still result in veterans 
being subject to copayments higher than they would have to pay in a 
non-VA pharmacy. One commenter argued that VA should offer the same 
copayment rates available in non-VA pharmacies.
    In the impact analysis published concurrently with the proposed 
rule, VA considered the potential costs or savings to veterans as a 
result of this rulemaking. Based on a comparison of the current and 
proposed copayment amounts, we anticipate that most veterans would 
realize between a 10 and 50 percent reduction in their overall pharmacy 
copayment liability each year based on historic utilization patterns. 
By our estimates, 94 percent of copayment eligible veterans would 
experience no cost increase, and 80 percent would realize a savings of 
between $1 and $5 per 30-day equivalent of medications. While a small 
percentage of veterans may experience a small increase in medication 
copayments, a large majority will encounter no cost increase, or will 
realize savings, as a result of this rulemaking.
    Medication copayment amounts vary widely between different non-VA 
pharmacies and under commercial health insurer policies, due to many 
factors. There is no standard non-VA medication copayment rate 
structure that can be used as a model for creating a copayment 
structure in VA. Uniformly adopting the lowest level of copayments 
found outside of VA would result in a copayment system that is not 
sustainable in the long term, and could possibly violate statutory 
requirements in 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a), which requires VA to charge a 
minimum copayment, with certain limited exceptions. VA believes that 
this rulemaking will result in copayment amounts that will benefit the 
greatest number of veterans. We make no changes based on these 
comments.
    One commenter stated that manufacturers may be providing VA with 
competitive prices to increase market share of a single source drug 
within a therapeutic class, and the lower cost to VA should be passed 
along to veterans through a lower tier copayment amount. Given the 
number of pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers VA contracts with, 
and the varying terms and lengths of these

[[Page 89389]]

contracts, determining copayments amounts on an individual contract 
basis would be difficult from an administrative standpoint and could 
lead to uncertainty as to the amount an individual veteran would pay 
for a medication copayment. In addition, this could result in different 
copayments for the same medication where more than one manufacturer or 
supplier provides that medication. Under this rulemaking, VA does 
include acquisition cost as an element considered in determining 
whether a medication will be included in Tier 1. See paragraph (b)(2). 
We make no changes based on this comment.

Exemption From Copayments

    One commenter stated that if a large number of veterans are 
diagnosed with any one medical condition such as hypertension, 
medication to treat that condition should be considered service-
connected and exempt from copayments. Another commenter stated that any 
veteran who has served in the military over 20 years, or served in a 
war or conflict, should be exempt from medication copayments. The 
commenter also stated that a pool of emergency funds should be set 
aside for use by veterans who are unable to afford medication 
copayments.
    Exemptions from the medication copayment are controlled by statute. 
Under 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a)(3), the following veterans are exempt from the 
medication copayment: A veteran with a service-connected disability 
rated 50 percent or more; a veteran who is a former prisoner of war; 
and, a veteran whose annual income (as determined under 38 U.S.C. 1503) 
does not exceed the maximum annual rate of pension which would be 
payable to such veteran if such veteran were eligible for a VA pension. 
VA does not have the statutory authority to exempt other veterans from 
the medication copayment. While VA does not have the statutory 
authority to exempt other veterans from medication copayment charges, 
as noted above a veteran may request a waiver of such charges under 38 
CFR 17.105(c). Service connection is not determined by whether a 
certain number of veterans have been diagnosed with a particular 
disease or condition. ``Service-connected'' means that the disability 
was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while in active 
military, naval, or air service. 38 CFR 3.1(k). A finding that a 
disability is service connected means that the facts, shown by 
evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in 
disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or 
if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 CFR 3.303(a). 
Likewise, VA does not have the statutory authority to set aside 
appropriated funds for the use of individual veterans. We make no 
changes based on these comments.

Miscellaneous

    One commenter stated that, unlike the Department of Defense, VA 
provides no opportunity for veterans, manufacturers, or the public to 
address the comparative clinical benefits, and cost benefits or 
effectiveness of a drug or biologic under consideration for addition to 
the National Formulary. The commenter stated that VA should make the 
formulary decision-making process more transparent. The process VA 
utilizes to consider changes to the National Formulary is beyond the 
scope of the rulemaking, and we make no changes based on this comment.
    One commenter asked for a clarification on how this rulemaking will 
impact contracting decisions for the National Contract covering short 
acting and human insulins, along with future contracting processes. 
Although changes in the prices of certain medications may affect 
certain future contracting actions, VA will continue to follow all 
federal contracting requirements and will make purchases accordingly.
    Finally, we make a technical edit to paragraph (b)(1). This 
paragraph establishes the medication copayment amounts for each tier of 
medication. As drafted, each clause in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through 
(iii) reads ``[f]or a 30-day supply or less of . . . medication, the 
copayment amount is . . .'' This language could be misinterpreted to 
mean that no medication copayment is charged for medication amounts 
greater than 30 days. This would be inconsistent with the statutory 
mandate at 38 U.S.C. 1722A(a), that VA must require certain veterans to 
pay at least a $2 copayment for each 30-day supply of medication 
furnished on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a non-service-
connected disability or condition. In prior rulemakings we used the 
phrase ``for each 30-day or less supply of medication'' when 
establishing copayment amounts. Paragraph (b)(1) is edited to reflect 
that same language.
    Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this 
document, VA is adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final 
rule with changes as noted above.

Effect of Rulemaking

    Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this 
final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority 
on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or 
governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. 
All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with 
this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is 
superseded by this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of 
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612). This final rule will generally be small business neutral. The 
rule will not affect pharmaceutical manufacturers, as it does not 
change the amount VA pays for medications to supply its pharmaceutical 
benefits program, only the amount VA collects from veterans as 
copayments. To the extent there are effects on pharmaceutical 
companies, we believe it will most likely have a positive affect if VA 
is purchasing more medications and supplies from them. Similarly, VA 
does not believe that this rule will have a significant economic impact 
on small pharmacies. It is possible that some veterans will choose to 
fill their prescriptions within VA rather than from a community 
pharmacist, but we anticipate such a shift will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities. 
Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the 
initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 
sections 603 and 604.

Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; 
and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a 
``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by

[[Page 89390]]

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such 
review, as ``any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule 
that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive 
Order.''
    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 
implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been 
determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866 because it is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities. VA's impact analysis can 
be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, 
usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. 
Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are 
available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the 
link for ``VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to 
Date.''

Congressional Review Act

    This final rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act 
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), which specifies that before a rule can 
take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to 
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General a report 
containing a copy of the rule along with other specified information. 
The required report and this rule have been submitted to Congress and 
the Comptroller General for review.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and 
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for 
the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation 
Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical 
Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans 
Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans 
Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, 
Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical 
Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 
64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless 
Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.

Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this 
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document 
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as 
an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. 
Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, 
approved this document on October 3, 2016, for publication.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, 
Grant programs--health, Grant programs--veterans, Health care, Health 
facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and 
Dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health 
programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.

    Dated: December 2, 2016.
Michael Shores,
Acting Director, Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the 
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 
as follows:

PART 17--MEDICAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.110 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii).
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), and adding a heading to 
paragraph (b)(4).
0
e. Adding paragraph (b)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  17.110  Copayments for medications.

    (a) General. This section sets forth requirements regarding 
copayments for medications provided to veterans by VA. For purposes of 
this section, the term ``medication'' means prescription and over-the-
counter medications, as determined by the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), but does not mean medical supplies, oral nutritional 
supplements, or medical devices. Oral nutritional supplements are 
commercially prepared nutritionally enhanced products used to 
supplement the intake of individuals who cannot meet nutrient needs by 
diet alone.
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) For each 30-day or less supply of Tier 1 medications, the 
copayment amount is $5.
    (ii) For each 30-day or less supply of Tier 2 medications, the 
copayment amount is $8.
    (iii) For each 30-day or less supply of Tier 3 medications, the 
copayment amount is $11.
    (iv) For purposes of this section:
    (A) Multi-source medication is any one of the following:
    (1) A medication that has been and remains approved by the FDA--
    (i) Under sections 505(b)(2) or 505(j) of the Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355), and that has been granted an A-
rating in the current version of the FDA's Approved Drug Products with 
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book); or
    (ii) Under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA, 
42 U.S.C. 262), and that has been granted an I or B rating in the 
current version of the FDA's Lists of Licensed Biological Products with 
Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability 
Evaluations (the Purple Book). FDA determines both therapeutic 
equivalence for drugs and interchangeability for biological products.

[[Page 89391]]

    (2) A medication that--
    (i) Has been and remains approved by the FDA pursuant to FDCA 
section 505(b)(1) or PHSA section 351(a);
    (ii) Which is referenced by at least one FDA-approved product that 
meets the criteria of paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(1) of this section; and
    (iii) Which is covered by a contracting strategy in place with 
pricing such that it is lower in cost than other generic sources.
    (3) A medication that--
    (i) Has been and remains approved by the FDA pursuant to FDCA 
section 505(b)(1) or PHSA section 351(a); and
    (ii) Has the same active ingredient or active ingredients, works in 
the same way and in a comparable amount of time, and is determined by 
VA to be substitutable for another medication that has been and remains 
approved by the FDA pursuant to FDCA section 505(b)(1) or PHSA section 
351(a). This may include but is not limited to insulin and 
levothyroxine.
    (4) A listed drug, as defined in 21 CFR 314.3, that has been 
approved under FDCA section 505(c) and is marketed, sold, or 
distributed directly or indirectly to retail class of trade with either 
labeling, packaging (other than repackaging as the listed drug in 
blister packs, unit doses, or similar packaging for use in 
institutions), product code, labeler code, trade name, or trademark 
that differs from that of the listed drug.
    (B) Tier 1 medication means a multi-source medication that has been 
identified using the process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (C) Tier 2 medication means a multi-source medication that is not 
identified using the process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (D) Tier 3 medication means a medication approved by the FDA under 
a New Drug Application (NDA) or a biological product approved by the 
FDA pursuant to a biologics license agreement (BLA) that retains its 
patent protection and exclusivity and is not a multi-source medication 
identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)(3) or (4) of this section.
    (2) Determining Tier 1 medications. Not less than once per year, VA 
will identify a subset of multi-source medications as Tier 1 
medications using the criteria below. Only medications that meet all of 
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) will be eligible 
to be considered Tier 1 medications, and only those medications that 
meet all of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section will be 
assessed using the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii).
    (i) A medication must meet all of the following criteria:
    (A) The VA acquisition cost for the medication is less than or 
equal to $10 for a 30-day supply of medication;
    (B) The medication is not a topical cream, a product used to treat 
musculoskeletal conditions, an antihistamine, or a steroid-containing 
medication;
    (C) The medication is available on the VA National Formulary;
    (D) The medication is not an antibiotic that is primarily used for 
short periods of time to treat infections; and
    (E) The medication primarily is used to either treat or manage a 
chronic condition, or to reduce the risk of adverse health outcomes 
secondary to the chronic condition, for example, medications used to 
treat high blood pressure to reduce the risks of heart attack, stroke, 
and kidney failure. For purposes of this section, conditions that 
typically are known to persist for 3 months or more will be considered 
chronic.
    (ii) The medication must be among the top 75 most commonly 
prescribed multi-source medications that meet the criteria in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) of this section, based on the number of prescriptions issued 
for a 30-day or less supply on an outpatient basis during a fixed 
period of time.
    (iii) VA must determine that the medication identified provides 
maximum clinical value consistent with budgetary resources.
    (3) Information on Tier 1 medications. Not less than once per year, 
VA will publish a list of Tier 1 medications in the Federal Register 
and on VA's Web site at www.va.gov/health.
    (4) Veterans Choice Program. * * *
    (5) Copayment cap. The total amount of copayments for medications 
in a calendar year for an enrolled veteran will not exceed $700.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-29515 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P