IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i4p535-544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Grabowski, Henry
  • Mullins, C. Daniel

Abstract

Pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) have evolved over the past decade in response to the increased demand for health care cost containment. Their activities include the implementation of drug formularies and the negotiation of rebates from manufacturers. Our analysis of this industry is based on interviews and materials provided by the top five ranked PBM companies which account for over 80% of beneficiaries covered within formulary plans. The formularies of these companies are relatively inclusive, but they are becoming more restrictive over time. At present the use of cost-effectiveness (C-E) studies in the formulary decisions of PBMs has been limited. In this regard, the surveyed PBMs emphasized that most C-E studies have not compared therapeutic substitutes in populations with characteristics that are similar to those of their clients. Pharmacy benefit management companies also have had strong incentives to focus narrowly on drug costs because they typically manage drug benefits on a "carved-out" basis. However, PBMs anticipate a growing future role in the integrated management of patient care (disease management) for certain high cost chronic diseases and conditions. All of the leading firms we surveyed have disease management programs in development. The importance of C-E studies to PBM decisions is expected to increase significantly as disease management programs are implemented. The data infrastructure inherent to the PBM industry and the increasing number of employees with advanced training in pharmacoeconomics will permit firms to perform their own internal C-E studies. They are also establishing various alliances and joint ventures with drug manufacturers, health maintenance organizations, and academic institutions to perform these analyses. The leading PBMs tend to favor active participation in the development of methodological approaches to C-E studies over government regulations such as those proposed by the FDA in 1995.

Suggested Citation

  • Grabowski, Henry & Mullins, C. Daniel, 1997. "Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 535-544, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:535-544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00394-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hannah Kettler, 2001. "Consolidation and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Monograph 000468, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Panos Kouvelis & Yixuan Xiao & Nan Yang, 2015. "PBM Competition in Pharmaceutical Supply Chain: Formulary Design and Drug Pricing," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 511-526, October.
    3. Tetteh, Ebenezer kwabena, 2008. "Providing affordable essential medicines to African households: The missing policies and institutions for price containment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 569-581, February.
    4. Gregory S. Zaric & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2005. "Analysis of a pharmaceutical risk sharing agreement based on the purchaser's total budget," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 793-803, August.
    5. Atanu Saha & Henry Grabowski & Howard Birnbaum & Paul Greenberg & Oded Bizan, 2006. "Generic Competition in the US Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 15-38.
    6. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    7. Morgan, Steven G. & Vogler, Sabine & Wagner, Anita K., 2017. "Payers’ experiences with confidential pharmaceutical price discounts: A survey of public and statutory health systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 354-362.
    8. Glazer Jacob & Huskamp Haiden A. & McGuire Thomas G., 2012. "A Prescription for Drug Formulary Evaluation: An Application of Price Indexes," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 1-26, March.
    9. Rowan Iskandar & Carlo Federici & Cassandra Berns & Carl Rudolf Blankart, 2022. "An approach to quantify parameter uncertainty in early assessment of novel health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 116-134, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:535-544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.