Literature DB >> 29047143

Rising Drug Costs Drives the Growth of Pharmacy Benefit Managers Exclusion Lists: Are Exclusion Decisions Value-Based?

Joshua P Cohen1, Christelle El Khoury2, Christopher-Paul Milne1, Sandra M Peters1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We examine whether drugs' excluded versus recommended status on pharmacy benefit manager exclusion lists corresponds to evidence from cost-effectiveness analyses, lack of evidence, or rebates. DATA SOURCES: To find cost-effectiveness data for drugs on 2016 exclusion lists of CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, we searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the peer-reviewed literature. STUDY
DESIGN: For each excluded and recommended drug, we compared the mean cost-per-QALY, and we calculated the difference between the numbers of excluded and recommended drugs for which we could find no cost-effectiveness evidence. DATA COLLECTION: As keywords in our searches, we used the brand and generic drug name and "cost-effectiveness" and "cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year." Of 240 retrieved studies, 110 were selected for analysis. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The mean cost-per-QALY for excluded drugs was higher ($51,611) than the cost-per-QALY for recommended drugs ($49,474), but not statistically significant. We could find no cost-effectiveness evidence in the Registry or peer-reviewed literature for 23 of the excluded drugs, and no evidence for 5 of the recommended drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness does not correlate with a drug's excluded or recommended status. Lack of cost-effectiveness evidence favors a drug's excluded status. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Keywords:  Pharmacy benefit manager exclusion lists; cost-effectiveness; cost-per-QALY; formulary management; prescription drug costs; rebates; reimbursement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29047143      PMCID: PMC6056588          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  7 in total

1.  PBMs and a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Authors:  J P Cohen
Journal:  Food Drug Law J       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 0.619

Review 2.  Liraglutide: from clinical trials to clinical practice.

Authors:  S C L Gough
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.577

3.  New Therapies in the Treatment of High Cholesterol: An Argument to Return to Goal-Based Lipid Guidelines.

Authors:  William H Shrank; Jane F Barlow; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Rebates and spreads: pharmacy benefit management practices and corporate citizenship.

Authors:  Christy A Rentmeester; Robert I Garis
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.265

5.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Do changes in drug coverage policy point to an increased role for cost-effectiveness analysis in the USA?

Authors:  James D Chambers
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study.

Authors:  Michael Nauck; Anders Frid; Kjeld Hermansen; Nalini S Shah; Tsvetalina Tankova; Ismail H Mitha; Milan Zdravkovic; Maria Düring; David R Matthews
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-10-17       Impact factor: 17.152

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Adoption of Cost Effectiveness-Driven Value-Based Formularies in Private Health Insurance from 2010 to 2013.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Brouwer; Anirban Basu; Kai Yeung
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.981

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.