How Does Drug Coverage Vary by Insurance Type? Analysis of Drug Formularies in the United States | Page 5

Published Online: April 21, 2014
Stephane A. Regnier, PhD, MBA
There were some limitations in the data. First, coverage information was not complete for all plans. For example, of 1768 plans in the database, 1579 plans had coverage information for all on-patent HMGs; 1673 for all ARBs; and 1631 for all P-TKIs. Only plans that had coverage information for all on-patent drugs within a therapeutic area were included in the analysis, which could, therefore, suffer from censoring issues. Of the plans that did not have information for all HMGs, 39% were commercial plans and 29% were employer plans. In the whole Fingertip Formulary database, commercial and employer plans represented 22% and 11% of the plans, respectively. There was a high overlap across therapeutic areas between plans without coverage information for all products. For instance, 92% of the plans that did not have coverage information for all ARBs did not have information for all HMGs.

Second, clear conclusions for municipal plans could not be derived because they are heterogeneous, as described in the Background and Objectives sections.

Third, only 11 union plans were included, which made it difficult to draw robust conclusions. If prescription data were available, a Herfindahl index based on the market share of plans may be a better measure of competition than a plan count.

Finally, the analysis was a snapshot of the situation in 2011. As more generics launch in each therapeutic area and as more new drugs become available, the results of this study may not be applicable.


Compared with commercial plans, the level of on-patent drug coverage was consistently higher in employer, union, and PBM plans, and consistently lower in Medicare plans. One implication would be to reconsider coverage by Medicare plans for chronic therapeutic diseases with high costs. Patients enrolled with Medicaid (ie, the economically poorest segment of the population) had excellent on-patent drug coverage and good access to new technologies. Increased competition between plans does not reduce on-patent drug coverage for all therapeutic areas.

Take-Away Points

  • Insurance plans assign the drugs that they cover (ie, reimburse) to “tiers,” with the copay varying by tier (the lower the tier, the lower the copay).

  • For 3 drug classes in distinct therapeutic areas, access to on-patent drugs in the lowest copay tiers (1 and 2) was higher in employer, union, and pharmacy benefit management plans than in commercial plans. However, in Medicare plans, substantially fewer on-patent drugs were included in these tiers, which could create choice restrictions and thus compliance issues.

  • Medicare plans should reconsider access to on-patent drugs by tier for high-cost therapeutic areas without affordable alternatives.
Author Affiliation: The study reported in this paper was conducted as part of the author’s research at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

Author Affiliations: University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics AG, Basel, Switzertland.

Source of Funding: No funding was received for this research; editorial assistance was funded by Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics AG.

Author Disclosures: The author reports employment by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics AG (NVD). This paper represents the views of the author and should not be considered as representative of the views of NVD. Authorship Information: Concept and design; acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; statistical analysis.

Address correspondence to: Stephane A. Régnier, St Alban Vorstadt 49A, CH-Basel 4052, Switzerland. E-mail: stephane.regnier@unine.ch.
1. US Census Bureau. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2010: Table HI01. Current Population Survey. 2011.

2. The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. Employer Health Benefits – 2012 Annual Survey. Page 4. http:// ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2013.

3. Hargravei E, Hoadley J, Summerii L, Cubanski J, Neumaniii T. Medicare Part D 2010 data spotlight – benefit design and cost sharing. http:// www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8033.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2013.

4. Employee Benefit Research Center. Choice in health care: fact sheet from the Health Confidence Survey. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/ hcs/2002/hcs-choi.pdf. Published September 2002. Accessed January 29, 2013.

5. Zhou C, Zhang Y. The vast majority of Medicare Part D beneficiaries still don’t choose the cheapest plans that meet their medication needs. Health Aff. 2012;31(10):2259-2265.

6. Linton A, Garber M, Fagan NK, Peterson M. Factors associated with choice of pharmacy setting among DoD health care beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13(8):677-686.

7. Eaddy MT, Cook CL, O’Day K, Burch SP, Cantrell CR. How patient cost-sharing trends affect adherence and outcomes: a literature review. P T. 2012;37(1):45-55.

8. Nair KV, Wolfe P, Valuck RJ, McCollum MM, Ganther JM, Lewis SJ. Effects of a 3-tier pharmacy benefit design on the prescription purchasing behavior of individuals with chronic disease. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(2):123-133.

9. Beam, C. Do I have a “Cadillac Plan”? www.slate.com/articles/news _and_politics/explainer/2009/10/do_i_have_a_cadillac_plan.html. Published October 14, 2009. Accessed July 26, 2012.

10. Gold J. “Cadillac” insurance plans explained. Kaiser Health News. March 18, 2010.

11. Katz DM. Drug discount peddlers: uncontainable drug costs have spurred employers to take a fresh look at how their pharmacy benefit managers might be hiding revenue. http://www.cfo.com/printable/ article.cfm/5079733/c_2984396?f=options. Published October 28, 2005. Accessed January 29, 2013.

12. After move to tier 3, Nexium scripts fall 25%. Manag Care. 2009; 18(2):45.

13. Linton A, Bacon T, Peterson M. Proton-pump inhibitor utilization associated with the change to non-preferred formulary status for esomeprazole in the TRICARE formulary. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009; 15(1):42-54.

14. Hodgkin D, Parks Thomas C, Simoni-Wastila L, Ritter GA, Lee S. The effect of a three-tier formulary on antidepressant utilization and expenditures. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2008;11(2):67-77.

15. Trice S, Devine J, Mistry H, Moore E, Linton A. Formulary management in the Department of Defense. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(2): 133-146.

16. Neumann PJ, Lin PJ, Greenberg D, et al. Do drug formulary policies reflect evidence of value? Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(1):30-36.

17. Schiff GD, Galanter WL, Duhig J, et al. A prescription for improving drug formulary decision making. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1-7.

18. Brehany J, Cohen P, Sax MJ. The drug formulary decision-making process. Healthplan. 1999;40(3):85-92.

19. Berger J. Demystifying the list: necessary ingredients for a credible drug formulary. Manag Care Interface. 2006 ;19(3):20-21.

20. Remund DD, Sutton EL. A US military perspective. Value Health. 1998;1(4):228-230.

21. Shop around before enrolling in managed care plans. AIDS Alert. 1996;11(5)(suppl 1-2).

22. Gross DJ. Prescription drug formularies in managed care: concerns for the elderly population. Clin Ther. 1998;20(6):1277-1291.

23. Smith PS. Determining whether managed care formularies meet the needs of pediatric patients. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4(9):1328-1335; 1336-1337.

24. First DataBank. AnalySource Online website. http://www.firstdatabank. com/Products/analysource.aspx. Published 2009. Accessed January 31, 2012.

25. Gleevec [prescribing information]. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; January 2012.

26. Newhouse JP; the Health Insurance Experiment Group. Free for all? lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993.

27. Newhouse JP. Reconsidering the moral hazard-risk avoidance tradeoff. J Health Econ. 2006; 25(5):1005-1014.

28. Goldman DP, Joyce GE, Karaca-Mandic P. Varying pharmacy benefits with clinical status: the case of cholesterol-lowering therapy. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(1):21-28.
Issue: April 2014
More on AJMC.COM