RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Analysis of Drug Formulary Exclusions from the Patient’s Perspective: 2023 Update
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.11.01.23297921
DO 10.1101/2023.11.01.23297921
A1 Chea, Sara
A1 Sydor, Anne M.
A1 Popovian, Robert
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/06/2023.11.01.23297921.abstract
AB Objective Pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) often determine medication reimbursement, out-of-pocket costs, and access through formularies. Formularies were initially intended to ensure the use of cost-effective medication. Today, formularies are designed to maximize concessions (i.e., rebates, discounts, fees, and other concessions) to PBMs from the biopharmaceutical industry. Formulary exclusions enhance the ability to drive profits through rebate contracting for PBMs. Our 2022 research analyzed whether formulary exclusions benefit patients medically or economically. This update provides an analysis of exclusions based on the 2023 Express Scripts (ESI) national formulary.Methods We analyzed ESI’s 2023 national preferred formulary exclusions. ESI is the second-largest PBM in the U.S. and makes its national preferred formulary exclusions list publicly available. We categorized substitutions as equivalent (same active agent used) vs. therapeutic (different active agent). From a patient perspective, we evaluated each exclusion by potential clinical or economic outcomes and compared it to the results from the 2022 analysis.Results More than half (57.4%) of the formulary exclusions had questionable economic or medical benefits or both for patients. The results demonstrate a 9% increase in questionable patient benefits compared with 48.4% in 2022.Conclusions Because patient co-pays and deductibles are based on retail prices, some formulary exclusions force patients to pay substantially more for a preferred drug or use a medication with questionable medical benefits for their condition. Exclusions also force prescribers to choose treatments that may have adverse financial or medical outcomes for their patients.Competing Interest StatementRobert Popovian is the founder of Conquest Advisors, LLC, owns stocks of biopharmaceutical companies, and was an employee of Pfizer for over two decades. He is a member of the Board of Councilors, University of Southern California, School of Pharmacy, Board of Directors, for University Pharmaco, LLC, Adjunct Clinical Faculty at Rutgers University, School of Pharmacy and serves as a consultant for the biopharmaceutical industry. The authors declare no other relevant conflicts of interest or financial relationships.Funding StatementThis study was funded by an unrestricted educational grant from Amgen.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors