Volume 53 | Number S1 | August 2018

Abstract List

Joshua P. Cohen Ph.D., Christelle El Khoury Pharm.D., M.P.H., Christopher‐Paul Milne D.V.M., M.P.H., J.D., Sandra M. Peters M.L.I.S.


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 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‐, 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‐ for excluded drugs was higher ($51,611) than the cost‐per‐ 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.


Cost‐effectiveness does not correlate with a drug's excluded or recommended status. Lack of cost‐effectiveness evidence favors a drug's excluded status.