When you pick up a prescription, you might not think about whether it’s a brand-name drug or a generic. But behind the counter, state governments are quietly pushing pharmacists-and patients-to choose the cheaper option. It’s not magic. It’s policy. And it’s saving billions.
Why States Care About Generic Drugs
Generic drugs aren’t just cheaper-they’re the same. Same active ingredients. Same effectiveness. Same safety. The only difference? Price. A generic version of a popular blood pressure pill can cost $4 instead of $150. That’s not a typo. And when you multiply that across millions of prescriptions, the savings add up fast. States aren’t doing this out of charity. Medicaid alone spends over $100 billion a year on prescriptions. With rising drug costs and strained budgets, every dollar saved on generics means more money for nursing care, mental health services, or rural clinics. That’s why 46 out of 50 states have set up Preferred Drug Lists-curated lists of medications that are covered with lower copays or no prior authorization.How Preferred Drug Lists Work
Think of a Preferred Drug List (PDL) like a grocery store’s “store brand” section. It’s not that the name-brand items are banned. But if you pick the more expensive one, you pay more out of pocket. In states with PDLs, if your doctor prescribes a brand-name drug that’s not on the list, you or your insurer have to jump through hoops. Maybe you need prior authorization. Maybe you pay a higher copay. Sometimes, the pharmacist can’t even fill it unless the doctor explains why the generic won’t work. These lists aren’t static. Twenty states review them every year. Ten do it quarterly. That means if a new generic hits the market and proves it’s safe and effective, it can get added fast. And if a brand-name drug raises its price? It might get kicked off the list. The kicker? Forty-six states negotiated extra rebates with drugmakers on top of the federal minimum. That’s not just policy-it’s negotiation. States are playing hardball to get better prices.The Real Game Changer: Presumed Consent Laws
Here’s where things get interesting. Some states let pharmacists swap a brand-name drug for a generic without asking you first. That’s called presumed consent. Other states require you to say yes before the switch happens. That’s explicit consent. A 2018 NIH study found a clear winner: presumed consent increases generic dispensing by 3.2 percentage points. That might sound small, but it’s the same effect as raising the price of brand-name drugs by $3. And if all 39 explicit consent states switched to presumed consent? They’d save an estimated $51 billion a year. Why does this work? Because most people don’t care. They just want the pill to work. And if the pharmacist hands them a cheaper version without a fuss, they take it. But if they have to sign a form or ask a question? They often stick with the brand-especially if they’re not sure the generic will work the same.Copay Differentials: Putting the Pressure on Patients
States aren’t just nudging pharmacists. They’re nudging you. Many states structure copayments so that generics cost $5, while brand-name drugs cost $30 or more. That’s not a mistake. It’s intentional. And it works. People who are cost-conscious-especially those on fixed incomes or with chronic conditions-switch to generics because they have to. In the late 90s, the gap between pharmacy dispensing fees for brand and generic drugs was barely $0.08. That means pharmacists made almost the same profit either way. So why would they push generics? Because patients did. When the copay difference grew, so did generic use. Today, 15 states and Puerto Rico have laws that require or encourage these copay differentials. But even in states without laws, many Medicaid programs and private insurers do it anyway. It’s become standard practice.
What Doesn’t Work: Mandatory Substitution Laws
You might think forcing pharmacists to substitute generics would be the most effective tactic. But research shows it’s not. Mandatory substitution laws-where pharmacists must switch unless the doctor says no-have almost no measurable impact. Why? Because pharmacists already have a financial incentive to do it. They get paid the same whether they dispense a $4 generic or a $150 brand. And they know patients prefer the cheaper option. So mandating it doesn’t change behavior. It just adds paperwork. The real leverage isn’t in forcing pharmacists. It’s in making patients feel the cost difference.The Hidden Problem: When Generics Disappear
There’s a dark side to all this cost-cutting. Generic manufacturers are caught in a trap. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires them to pay back a percentage of their sales to states. But here’s the catch: if the price of ingredients goes up, or if there’s a shortage, or if the market gets crowded with competitors, the rebate formula doesn’t adjust. So the drug stays the same price-but the rebate keeps growing. Avalere Health found five scenarios where generic manufacturers end up losing money on Medicaid sales. And when that happens? They stop making the drug. Or they pull it from the market entirely. That’s right. The very policies meant to increase generic access can cause shortages. One state might save $10 million by pushing generics. But if the only generic for a critical drug vanishes? That’s a public health crisis.340B and the Safety Net
Hospitals and clinics that serve low-income patients get special pricing through the 340B Drug Pricing Program. They can buy drugs-brand and generic-at 20% to 50% off. That’s huge. But here’s the twist: states have to reimburse these clinics based on what they actually paid, not what the drug normally costs. After a 2016 CMS rule, states had to cap reimbursement at the 340B ceiling price. That meant some clinics got paid less than they spent. It created chaos. Some clinics stopped stocking certain generics because they couldn’t afford to buy them at 340B prices and then get reimbursed even less. So even with all the incentives, access didn’t always improve.
Write a comment