2004
Published by the
National Pharmaceutical Council, Inc.
1894 Preston White Drive
Reston, VA 20191-5433
Information for this compilation was acquired from multiple sources, including a survey of Medicaid
prescription drug programs administered for the National Pharmaceutical Council by Muse &
Associates, Washington, DC with assistance from Total Compensation Solutions and StateScape.
While we have checked all secondary data in the book for consistency relative to the original source,
we have not validated the original data reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) and other organizations.
The data were compiled and the book prepared for publication by Donald Muse, Ph.D., David
Goldenberg, Ph.D., Anne Marie Hummel, Stanley Weintraub, C.P.A, Daniel B. Gurley, M.P.A.,
Jaclyn S. Kuwada, M.P.P, Steven Heath, M.P.A., Errica Philpott, Liz Segall, and Tiffany Crawford of
Muse & Associates. Paul Gavejian and Matthew Leach of Total Compensation Solutions prepared
and conducted the 2004 survey. James Elliott at StateScape supervised the compilation of information
on State officials, State professional associations, and expanded drug programs for elderly and
disabled beneficiaries. Gary Persinger and Kimberly Westrich of the National Pharmaceutical Council
provided valuable input and support.
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................v
i
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Sociodemographics
- Age Demographics, 2003 .......................................................................................... 3-5
- Race Demographics, 2003 ......................................................................................... 3-6
- Hispanic Demographics, 2003 .................................................................................. 3-7
- Insurance Status-Populations, 2003 .......................................................................... 3-8
- Insurance Status-Percentages, 2003 ........................................................................ 3-9
- Poverty Status-Populations, 2003............................................................................ 3-10
- Poverty Status-Percentages, 2003............................................................................ 3-11
- Employment Status, 2004........................................................................................ 3-12
ii
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: State and Federal Medicaid Contacts.................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Medicaid Program Statistics – CMS MSIS Tables ................................................B-1
Appendix C: Medicaid Rebate Law.............................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Federal Upper Limits for Multiple Source Products............................................. D-1
Appendix E: Glossary ..................................................................................................................E-1
iii
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
iv
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
INTRODUCTION
The 2004 edition of Pharmaceutical Benefits under State Medical Assistance Programs marks the 39th
year that the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) has compiled and published one of the largest
sources of information on pharmacy programs within the State Medical Assistance Programs (Title
XIX) and expanded pharmacy programs for the elderly and disabled. Due to the hard work of a skilled
team and countless contributors, the “Medicaid Compilation” has become a standard reference and
invaluable resource in government offices, research libraries, consultancies, the pharmaceutical
industry, numerous businesses, and policy organizations.
The data used to create each edition of the Compilation are assembled from numerous sources. The
Compilation incorporates information on each State pharmacy program from an annual NPC survey of
State Medicaid program administrators and pharmacy consultants, statistics from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and information from other Federal agencies and
organizations.
In order to give a better understanding of the content of the “Medicaid Compilation,” the information
contained in this version of the book is summarized below by section:
• Section 1: Presents estimates of Medicaid expenditures and recipients for FY 2003 to FY
2005 by State.
• Section 2: Contains an overview of the Medicaid program, details about Medicaid managed
care enrollment, including a breakdown by plan type and enrollment by plan type, and a
synopsis of 1915(b) waivers and 1115 demonstrations.
• Section 3: Consists of sociodemographic statistics, by age, race, insurance, income, and
employment, for the fifty States and the District of Columbia for calendar year 2003.
Additionally, a description of the Medicaid certified facilities in each State, including the
number of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and intermediate care facilities for the mentally
retarded (ICFs-MR), home health agencies, and rural health clinics are presented.
• Section 4: Provides Medicaid pharmacy program characteristics, drawn largely from the 2004
NPC annual survey of State pharmacy program administrators. In addition, this section
provides Medicaid eligibility statistics from CMS for fiscal year 2002 and program
expenditure data for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Medicaid pharmacy programs are
characterized by estimates of total expenditures, drug payments, drug benefit design, and
pharmacy payment and patient cost sharing.
• Section 5: Contains detailed profiles of the States’ Medicaid pharmacy programs. This
section contains a description of medical assistance benefits and eligibles, drug payments and
recipients, benefit design, pharmacy payment and patient cost sharing, use of managed care,
and State contacts.
• Section 6: Profiles the “expanded” drug programs in States that are providing pharmaceutical
coverage or discounts to the elderly and/or disabled persons.
The book also contains a series of appendices. Appendix A features a list of State contacts, CMS
regional offices and Medicaid program personnel. Appendix B provides a national level summary on
total Medicaid program recipients by type of service for FY 2001 and FY 2002 and data on total
number of drug recipients for each State and the nation as a whole for the period 1996-2002.
Appendix C provides the current Medicaid drug rebate law. Appendix D contains the list of CMS
upper limits on multiple source products. Appendix E is a glossary and list of acronyms.
v
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Each year, finding and compiling current, relevant information for inclusion in the Compilation
presents a challenge. This year was no exception. For example, CMS makes available on its website
the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) Statistical Reports for the most recent enrollment
and expenditure data available. MSIS tables are used in several sections of the Compilation as a
secondary data source. This year, CMS released MSIS reports on Federal Fiscal Year 2002.
However, the 2002 MSIS data have been reformatted to appear more like the older Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) 2082 reports. Hence, we requested, and CMS provided, a special
version of the 2002 MSIS Report in original MSIS format. This enabled us to compile 2002 data on
pharmaceutical expenditures and recipients for inclusion in each State profile. Also, CMS has yet to
release an update of The CMS 64-Report, a major data source used throughout the Compilation.
However, we were fortunate to obtain a pre-release version of the 2003 CMS 64-Report and thank
CMS for making it available to us.
For the past several years, the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Area
Resource File (ARF) has served as the primary source for statistics on physicians and registered
nurses. Unfortunately, HRSA was not able to obtain updated physician information for the 2004
version of the ARF. Therefore, we have repeated last year’s data on physicians and registered nurses.
As we continue to update and discover data, we are able to improve the Compilation with new tables
and sources that we believe enhance its overall significance to the user. These new tables and sources
include:
NPC gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance of the many State and Federal program
officials and their staffs. With their cooperation, we were able to achieve a 94 percent response rate to
the 2004 Survey. Unfortunately, not all States were able to submit revised/updated information. In
such instances, we have incorporated the most recently available data from other sources. However,
for these States, much of the information may reflect data that have been presented in previous
versions of the Compilation.
We would also like to thank Muse & Associates and their subcontractors, Total Compensation
Solutions, and StateScape, for administering the survey, compiling the information, and analyzing the
data. We hope you continue to find the information contained in this compilation useful and, as
always, we welcome your suggestions and comments.
Gary Persinger
Vice President, Health Care Systems
National Pharmaceutical Council
vi
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 1:
Estimates of Medicaid
Total and Prescription
Drug Expenditures and
Recipients: FY 2003
Through FY 2005 by State
1-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
1-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are responsible for publishing data on the
Medicaid program. The most recent State-by-State statistics on recipients and expenditures for the
Medicaid program, as of the date of preparation of this publication, were for 2002.1 Based on the best
available data from states and CMS, the section provides more recent estimates through 2005 of
Medicaid spending and recipients of prescription drugs. Estimates are presented for each State and for
the nation overall.
The objective of this Section is to estimate total Medicaid expenditures and recipients for FY 2003,
FY 2004, and FY 2005 in the aggregate and by State.2 This will provide interested parties with
estimates of trends more current than estimates available through CMS. The Office of the Actuary at
CMS publishes aggregate estimates of Medicaid expenditures in the National Health Accounts.3 The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also publishes aggregate estimates of Medicaid expenditures and
recipients.4 Neither of these organizations has published estimates of State-by-State spending through
FY 2005 in recent years.5 However, these previous estimates document the importance and feasibility
of this chapter’s goals. The aggregate estimates presented in this Section are numerically very similar
in all but one instance, projections of 2005 recipients, to those of CMS and CBO.
SUMMARY
The analysis presented in this Section is based on State reports to CMS. Table 1 contains aggregate
data on total expenditures and number of recipients by fiscal year. Estimates by Muse & Associates
are indicated by the bolded text. All other data are State actual, or estimated by the authors.
Table 1
Total Program Expenditures and Recipients by Source
By Fiscal Year: FY 2000 through FY 2005
1
The most recent estimates can be found at www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/msis/mstats.asp.
2
FY stands for Federal Fiscal Year. Federal Fiscal Years are from October 1 to September 30. For example, FY 2003 is
from October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003.
3
These can be found at www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe.
4
http://www.cbo.gov/factsheets/2005/Medicaid.pdf
5
Katherine R. Levit, et al, State Health Expenditures Accounts: Building Blocks for State Health Spending Analysis, Health
Care Financing Review, Fall 1995, Vol. 17, No. 1.
1-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The methodology used for developing the 2003-2005 recipient estimates employed the cube root of
the change over a four year period for each state with outliers trimmed. The trimming procedures are
described later in the paper. The estimation technique we employed is commonly used in statistical
and actuarial estimates and simply means that the fifth point in a curve is estimated by using the rate
of change for the preceding four years. Table 1 shows that expenditures have risen between 6 percent
and 14 percent per year while the number of recipients has increased between 7 percent and 8 percent
per year. We estimate that the accuracy of these estimates is between plus or minus 2.2 percent by
using the methodology to estimate preceding years where the actual data were already available.
DATA
The analysis presented in this Section is based on State data submitted to CMS. We assume that the
States are in the best position to predict the future of their programs. Actual expenditure and recipient
data for FY 2000 through FY 2002 were available from the Medicaid Statistical Information System
(MSIS). Aggregate expenditure data for FY 2003 were available from State reports known as the
CMS-64s. Expenditure estimates for FY 2004 and FY 2005 were compiled from State reports known
as CMS-37s. Aggregate data by type of service and recipient estimates by State were prepared by
Muse & Associates. Each of these sources is discussed below.
MSIS Data
MSIS files are used by CMS to produce data on Medicaid program characteristics and utilization
information by State. The MSIS system collects, manages, analyzes, and disseminates information on
eligibles, beneficiaries, utilization, and payment for services covered by each State Medicaid program.
These data provide CMS with a large-scale database of State eligibles and services for many types of
analyses. States provide CMS with quarterly computer files containing specified data elements for:
(1) eligible persons who received services covered by Medicaid (recipient files); and (2) adjudicated
claims (paid claims files) for medical services reimbursed with Title XIX funds. These data are
furnished on the Federal fiscal year quarterly schedule, which begins October 1 of each year.
Each State recipient file contains one record for each person covered by Medicaid for at least one day
during the reporting quarter. Individual recipient records consist of demographic and monthly
enrollment data. Paid claims files contain information from adjudicated medical service related claims
and capitation payments. Each State submits to CMS four types of claims files representing inpatient,
long-term care, prescription drugs, and non-institutional services. These are claims that have
completed the State's payment processing cycle for which the State has determined it has a liability to
reimburse the provider from Title XIX funds. Claims records contain information on the types of
services provided, providers of services, service dates, costs, types of reimbursement, and
epidemiological variables.
The data files are subjected to quality assurance edits to ensure that the data are within acceptable error
tolerances. A distributional review verifies the reasonableness of the data. Once accepted, valid tape
files are created which serve as the historical source of detailed Medicaid eligibility and paid claims
data maintained by CMS. The individual paid claims and eligible information are used for program
analysis and research and to produce various public use reports that represent national Medicaid
populations and expenditures. After processing, CMS creates the tables and publishes the data. The
MSIS system was our primary source for expenditure and recipient data for FY 2000 through FY
2002.
1-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The primary source of data for our estimates for FY 2003 through FY 2005 is the CMS-37 Report, a
financial reporting form submitted by the States to CMS. This form is submitted on a quarterly basis
and requires the States to project their expenditures for two fiscal years. The single State agency must
attest to the accuracy of the estimates. The data in the CMS-37s are used by CMS to set the amount
the State may withdraw from the Federal Reserve for Federal Medicaid matching.
The data on this form have known strengths and weaknesses. As with all State submitted data, some
States appear to provide more accurate data than others. Not surprisingly, the States are clearly more
accurate at predicting the present year, at this writing FY 2005, than they are at predicting the
following year, FY 2006. States have, as of this writing, yet to adjust their FY 2006 Medicaid
prescription drug expenditures for the implementation of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA)
which will transfer the fiscal responsibility for those recipients eligible for both Medicare and
Medicaid to the Federal government. The limitations of the data led us not to attempt to estimate FY
2006.
A third source of data was the CMS-64s, another fiscal reporting form submitted by the States which
contains details of their past expenditures. These reports contain expenditures, reversals,
disallowances, third-party collections and a variety of other adjustments. However, they represent the
most current statement of State-by-State expenditures available for FY 2003. Hence, they were used
for FY 2003 expenditure estimates.
It must be noted that while the data from the three sources (the MSIS, CMS-37, and CMS-64) are
highly correlated, they are not identical. The data do not match for a variety of reasons. Some are
prospective and some are retrospective, some contain adjustments and other do not. Table 2 compares
the three sources at the aggregate expenditure level.
Table 2
Total Program Expenditures by Source
By Fiscal Year: FY 2000 through FY 2005
($ billions)
Source: State data reported to CMS, CMS-37, 64, and MSIS Reports
* CMS 37s as of May 2004.
** N/A is not available
Table 2 clearly shows that the data reported on the CMS-64 reports are higher, until 2003, compared
to the other two data sets. The primary reason for this is that the MSIS reports do not contain
Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to providers, while the other two reports do contain DSH
data.
1-5
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
METHODOLOGY
Muse & Associates has accumulated Medicaid data from the CMS-37, CMS-64, MSIS, and the
forerunner to the MSIS, the HCFA 2082, for more than two decades. To create the estimates, we
explored two methodological approaches. The first approach was regression based. Several different
types of regressions were considered, including log-based approaches. The problem we encountered
with regression analysis was that the regression model was over specified.6 This is primarily due to
the fact that the number of States being estimated (fifty-one) is much larger than the small number of
years (three) of data selected for use.7 Five years was selected because of the cyclical nature of the
Medicaid program. CMS published an analysis that clearly shows the trend in drug spending between
the first and second half of the 1990s.8 Their observations and our own analysis show that the
optimum period that State trends appear stable is four years. The regression approach did not yield
results with statistically significant predictability as measured by R2, a measure of the predictive ability
of the regression model. Hence, this approach was abandoned.
The approach that yielded more stable and predictive results was employing the cube root of the
change over a four year period for each state with outliers trimmed.. However, several States had very
significant programmatic changes in recent years that required data trimming. A total of four States
required trimming.9 Outliers were defined as changes of more than 20 percent from year to year for
year to year increase. These were trimmed to 20 percent. Two States, Tennessee and New Mexico
presented special problems. The statistical portions of their data processing systems had considerable
problems over the last five years. The estimates for these States were developed through direct
conversations with State Medicaid officials.
The CMS-37 and CMS-64 reports from States often show significant swings for both total program
and prescription drugs expenditures. State expenditures for Medicaid can have significant swings in
spending for a variety of reasons. For example, all of the Medicaid data systems are on a cash basis
rather than an accrual basis. States often have cash flow concerns that require that they pay claims on
one side or the other at the end of the State fiscal year. Many States have the same Fiscal Year as the
Federal government, which can result in FY data showing decreases followed by substantial increases
in expenditures. In addition, States may incur large settlements with CMS and/or providers in a
particular year. These, and a variety of other factors, lead to real swings in the expenditure data.
DISCUSSION
Presented on the pages that follow are tables showing national and State-level data on Medicaid
expenditures and recipients, including our estimates for the most recent fiscal years. Table 3 shows
national-level data from the CMS-64s for expenditures by type of service for the period FY 2000
through FY 2005. Similarly, Table 4 presents national-level MSIS data on the number of Medicaid
recipients by type of service. Tables 5 through 8 provide national and State-level information on total
6
In non-statistical terms, a regression model becomes over specified when the number of points being estimates
exceeds the number of data points available for the analysis.
7
The District of Columbia was included in the analysis but Puerto Rico and the Trust Territories were excluded.
8
David Baugh, M.A, Penelope I. Pine, Steve Blackwell, Ph.D., J.D. R.Ph. and Gary Ciborowski, M.A..
Medicaid Prescription Drug Spending in the 1990s: A Decade of Change, Health Care Financing Review, Spring
2004, Volume 25, Number 3, page 5 to 23.
9
The States were Connecticut, Delaware, and Nevada. The District of Columbia also required trimming
1-6
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Medicaid expenditures, number of recipients, recipients of prescription drugs, and Medicaid program
payments for prescription drugs.
Tables 3 & 4
Table 3 shows the distribution of Medicaid expenditures by service category from the CMS-64s and
the National Health Expenditures Accounts for the period FY 2000 through FY 2005. The data show
that total Medicaid program expenditures have or are expected to increase annually by 6 to 14 percent
per year between FY 2000 and FY 2005, or at an average annual increase of approximately 10 percent
per year. Our estimates indicate that total Medicaid program expenditures will exceed $316 billion in
FY 2005. The data from the CMS-64s indicate that pharmaceuticals are the third highest Medicaid
program expenditure category in each fiscal year, exceeded only by nursing facility expenditures and
payments for inpatient acute care hospital services. For FY 2005, we estimate that Medicaid program
expenditures for pharmaceutical will be $44.3 billion.
Table 4 presents national-level data from the MSIS system on the number of Medicaid recipients by
type of service. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005, the number of Medicaid recipients has or is expected
to increase at annual rates of between 6.4 percent and 7.8 percent, or at an average annual rate of about
seven percent. In FY 2005, it is estimated that 62 million beneficiaries will receive medical services
through the Medicaid program. Aside from capitated payment services (i.e., per capita payments to
managed care organizations), the service category with the highest number of recipients is
pharmaceuticals. It is estimated that 29.9 million Medicaid beneficiaries will receive pharmaceutical
services during FY 2005.
Tables 5 & 6
Presented in Tables 5 and 6 are data on total Medicaid expenditures and number of Medicaid
recipients on a State-by-State basis for the period FY 2000 to FY 2005. The data source for the
expenditures distributions in Table 5 is the CMS-37s. Based on State data submitted to CMS in their
quarterly CMS-37 submissions, Medicaid program expenditures for FY 2005 are expected to total
$315.7 billion, similar to the $316.2 billion FY 2005 estimate derived from the CMS-64s. Also shown
in Table 5 are year-by-year data on total Medicaid expenditures by State for the period. A review of
the State-by-State data indicates that in most States, Medicaid program spending has increased from
one year to the next. There are few instances over the entire period where total Medicaid program
spending has declined from one year to the next.
The MSIS system was the primary source for data on the distribution Medicaid recipients by State
(Table 6). CMS has released MSIS data through FY 2002. FY 2003, FY 2004, and FY 2005 are
estimates, based on the cubed root of change over a 4 year period methodology discussed above. As
shown in Table 6, the total number of Medicaid recipients, like the expenditure data in Table 5, has
increased or is estimated to increase each year between FY 2005 and FY 2006. Likewise, with few
exceptions, the number of Medicaid recipients has increased each year in each State over the period.
Tables 7 & 8
Tables 7 and 8 present MSIS data on State-by-State prescription drug payments and the number of
drug recipients for the period FY 2000-FY 2005. As shown in Table 7, Medicaid program payments
for prescription drugs have more than doubled over the period, from approximately $20 billion in FY
2000 to an estimated $44.3 billion in FY 2005. Few states experienced any declines in prescription
drug payments between one year and the next.
The total number of Medicaid recipients receiving prescription drug services has increased by slightly
more than 50 percent between FY 2000 and FY 2005 (Table 8). For FY 2005, it is estimated that 29.8
1-7
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
million beneficiaries will receive prescription drug services under the Medicaid program. Most States
are expected to experience increases in the number of Medicaid prescription drug recipients over the
period. However, in a small number of States, including Kansas and Massachusetts, the number of
Medicaid prescription drug recipients are expected to remain relatively constant or even decline
slightly between FY 2000 and FY 2005.
One way to ascertain whether an estimation methodology is accurate is to apply it to earlier years
where the estimated year is known. We chose this methodology as way to address the question of the
probable accuracy of our estimates. We applied the final estimation method to the years FY 1999 to
FY 2002. Specifically, we used FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 data to predict FY 2002, a year in
which we had actual values for aggregate and State-by-State data. The results were that the actual
aggregate totals were within 0.3 percent of the estimated totals. The State-by-State estimates were less
accurate but still within what we judge as acceptable limits. Forty-two States were within plus or
minus five percent. Seven States were within plus or minus twenty percent, and two States exceeded
twenty percent.
Despite these limitations and the variations inherent in the use of different data systems, we believe
that our estimates provide useful information on Medicaid program expenditures and recipients that is
more up to date than that which is currently available from CMS.
1-8
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Table 3
Medicaid Expenditures, by Type of Service: In dollars by Fiscal Year
Table 4
Medicaid Recipients, by Type of Service and Fiscal Year
1-9
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Table 5
Total Medicaid Expenditures in thousands of dollars by Fiscal Year by State
S tate FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
National Total $168,307,231 $185,786,851 $213,491,313 $268,496,116 $290,680,584 $315,701,965
Alabama $2,391,195 $2,950,096 $3,204,064 $3,603,097 $3,445,986 $3,850,214
Alaska $470,250 $557,399 $686,795 $774,755 $909,840 $942,281
Arizona $2,111,770 $2,453,184 $2,881,870 $4,253,304 $5,135,647 $5,772,557
Arkansas $1,510,080 $1,684,718 $2,015,437 $2,394,653 $2,762,943 $2,989,172
California $17,060,494 $19,824,989 $23,636,240 $29,897,092 $32,173,749 $36,362,263
Colorado $1,808,569 $1,952,709 $2,166,200 $2,597,187 $2,703,792 $2,902,011
Connecticut $2,839,310 $2,962,088 $3,245,143 $3,691,626 $3,866,361 $4,103,564
Delaware $528,340 $601,182 $651,385 $737,360 $752,775 $855,737
District of Columbia $792,584 $830,258 $1,027,022 $1,072,802 $1,165,242 $1,241,190
Florida $7,350,363 $8,398,160 $9,827,004 $11,041,401 $12,340,063 $13,790,043
Georgia $3,577,903 $3,815,267 $4,796,005 $7,055,152 $7,045,377 $7,154,685
Hawaii $535,163 $535,163 $695,279 $759,731 $846,973 $1,026,277
Idaho $593,751 $713,433 $791,864 $853,256 $905,311 $1,058,487
Illinois $7,807,447 $8,150,021 $9,121,713 $8,954,270 $10,073,437 $11,400,358
Indiana $2,976,177 $3,355,996 $3,725,258 $4,584,428 $4,699,660 $5,563,225
Iowa $1,476,340 $1,660,864 $1,855,817 $2,360,040 $2,196,622 $2,448,931
Kansas $1,226,211 $1,370,248 $1,501,270 $1,789,086 $1,754,285 $2,096,225
Kentucky $2,912,792 $3,235,073 $3,459,366 $3,864,583 $4,075,918 $4,464,305
Louisiana $2,630,563 $2,881,578 $3,234,422 $4,858,435 $4,633,523 $4,990,753
M aine $1,306,809 $1,457,466 $1,716,582 $1,680,703 $1,916,751 $2,072,414
M aryland $3,585,781 $3,855,003 $3,662,090 $4,359,399 $4,494,121 $4,708,992
M assachusetts $5,397,153 $5,765,108 $6,387,100 $8,632,074 $8,987,848 $9,968,515
M ichigan $4,880,769 $5,316,249 $5,918,817 $8,150,661 $8,507,062 $8,850,936
M innesota $3,277,014 $3,766,605 $4,439,494 $5,117,771 $5,225,883 $5,719,244
M ississippi $1,807,392 $2,180,662 $2,499,641 $3,028,552 $3,280,007 $3,658,914
M issouri $3,270,152 $3,626,213 $4,071,544 $5,578,991 $5,966,126 $6,744,680
M ontana $433,208 $482,543 $532,886 $519,065 $601,474 $700,806
Nebraska $958,490 $1,089,788 $1,255,040 $1,351,142 $1,354,239 $1,424,542
Nevada $515,444 $565,300 $723,957 $989,559 $1,053,794 $1,160,591
New Hampshire $650,594 $691,196 $745,754 $1,014,956 $1,180,678 $1,272,117
New Jersey $4,706,929 $5,011,795 $5,497,284 $8,358,844 $7,883,350 $8,416,526
New M exico $1,248,764 $1,476,538 $1,796,901 $2,030,060 $2,230,879 $2,416,959
New York $26,147,613 $27,497,918 $31,488,930 $40,551,353 $49,425,404 $49,312,629
North Carolina $4,830,026 $5,499,094 $6,041,011 $7,139,629 $7,613,812 $8,901,127
North Dakota $356,185 $374,197 $422,745 $463,348 $496,642 $535,293
Ohio $7,090,396 $7,772,738 $9,186,331 $10,601,589 $12,030,919 $12,595,864
Oklahoma $1,603,789 $2,004,799 $2,238,213 $2,402,648 $2,720,199 $2,860,078
Oregon $1,700,409 $1,878,673 $2,136,401 $2,757,488 $2,535,181 $3,057,873
Pennsylvania $6,365,806 $7,634,325 $8,523,928 $13,168,602 $14,422,482 $16,466,731
Rhode Island $1,069,994 $1,095,853 $1,251,440 $1,472,595 $1,533,600 $1,771,549
South Carolina $2,672,146 $3,096,854 $3,382,951 $3,766,709 $3,576,207 $4,097,262
South Dakota $401,175 $426,634 $503,947 $546,789 $579,726 $666,494
Tennessee $3,490,957 $4,059,332 $4,747,550 $6,639,519 $6,735,962 $7,837,560
Texas $9,075,306 $9,644,600 $11,121,020 $15,289,859 $16,621,374 $17,735,949
Utah $959,100 $1,059,730 $1,215,620 $1,123,620 $1,258,360 $1,428,054
Vermont $479,259 $541,283 $607,250 $713,582 $766,279 $862,161
Virginia $2,483,931 $2,715,962 $3,017,870 $3,706,653 $4,156,487 $4,723,322
Washington $2,432,050 $2,432,050 $4,373,171 $5,180,773 $5,304,530 $5,762,663
West Virginia $1,391,731 $1,565,009 $1,577,698 $1,873,502 $1,912,439 $2,157,688
Wisconsin $2,905,599 $3,029,723 $3,605,542 $4,806,489 $4,478,875 $4,403,336
Wyoming $213,958 $241,187 $280,452 $337,334 $342,390 $398,818
Table 6
Total Unduplicated Medicaid Recipients by State by Fiscal Year
State FY 2000* FY 2001* FY 2002* FY 2003** FY 2004** FY 2005**
National Total 42,886,999 46,163,776 49,754,619 53,446,822 57,546,074 61,991,626
Alabama 619,480 882,105 765,328 836,803 925,028 939,796
Alaska 96,432 105,464 109,641 119,836 128,838 137,728
Arizona 681,258 763,422 878,362 976,625 1,101,200 1,244,229
Arkansas 489,325 531,533 579,278 622,674 674,759 730,614
California 7,918,151 8,583,027 9,301,001 10,323,828 11,278,372 12,353,265
Colorado 381,018 393,160 425,878 450,793 476,784 508,439
Connecticut 419,968 685,246 479,051 502,652 533,685 533,685
Delaware 115,267 122,947 167,162 193,885 230,582 276,698
District of Columbia 138,677 140,719 193,494 218,982 255,002 306,002
Florida 2,372,585 2,471,771 2,676,235 2,833,382 3,006,073 3,208,707
Georgia 1,369,006 1,514,398 1,637,329 1,777,775 1,939,549 2,106,303
Hawaii 194,376 191,533 199,966 198,658 200,106 203,048
Idaho 131,077 157,121 176,499 200,665 231,270 263,077
Illinois 1,519,313 1,657,954 1,731,398 1,834,859 1,953,984 2,063,973
Indiana 706,476 777,418 849,427 940,652 1,034,840 1,138,359
Iowa 313,648 319,740 352,635 368,428 388,738 414,900
Kansas 262,557 272,783 289,349 296,359 308,567 321,509
Kentucky 763,587 806,578 808,294 847,565 877,563 902,586
Louisiana 761,252 804,996 898,824 966,003 1,045,831 1,141,171
Maine 193,582 251,511 275,826 316,222 372,421 424,483
Maryland 625,863 656,307 692,539 732,052 771,312 813,962
Massachusetts 1,059,612 1,054,916 1,065,636 1,073,987 1,078,821 1,086,909
Michigan 1,351,852 1,352,610 1,449,915 1,490,027 1,539,155 1,606,888
Minnesota 558,089 600,686 620,652 641,859 672,488 698,281
Mississippi 605,078 707,911 712,457 794,881 870,561 932,694
Missouri 890,338 978,656 1,036,150 1,128,728 1,221,614 1,315,332
Montana 104,354 108,409 103,617 106,048 106,619 106,029
Nebraska 229,379 243,421 255,771 270,822 286,238 302,123
Nevada 138,076 153,777 202,306 231,948 275,728 330,873
New Hampshire 96,935 97,062 104,138 108,072 112,062 117,561
New Jersey 821,579 881,468 954,491 1,002,879 1,071,803 1,143,978
New Mexico 375,585 385,180 798,665 958,398 1,150,078 1,380,093
New York 3,419,983 3,590,999 3,920,718 4,180,420 4,469,771 4,808,120
North Carolina 1,214,174 1,309,810 1,355,269 1,424,834 1,502,884 1,573,372
North Dakota 63,165 63,566 70,132 73,108 76,759 81,739
Ohio 1,304,886 1,498,322 1,656,124 1,805,943 2,012,556 2,220,558
Oklahoma 507,060 589,363 631,498 699,125 778,132 853,644
Oregon 557,809 582,112 621,462 649,472 683,258 720,739
Pennsylvania 1,492,352 1,557,801 1,627,261 1,652,312 1,709,355 1,763,081
Rhode Island 178,859 188,228 199,014 213,572 226,581 241,029
South Carolina 689,159 760,805 809,136 871,535 942,482 1,012,216
South Dakota 102,039 109,516 117,631 130,669 141,898 154,694
T ennessee 1,568,318 1,602,027 1,732,381 1,797,473 1,881,071 1,984,497
T exas 2,633,498 2,659,932 2,952,569 3,113,488 3,292,193 3,534,736
Utah 224,732 232,997 274,707 294,790 322,698 359,703
Vermont 139,351 149,763 153,731 161,978 170,309 177,766
Virginia 626,996 619,727 665,203 680,602 699,471 728,271
Washington 895,567 957,731 1,039,070 1,105,389 1,185,735 1,273,217
West Virginia 342,189 349,229 362,030 367,825 376,790 386,452
Wisconsin 576,636 637,069 716,298 793,773 883,002 984,509
Wyoming 46,451 50,950 59,071 64,164 71,459 79,989
Table 7
Medicaid Prescription Drug Payments, Before Rebates are Deducted
in thousands of dollars by State by Fiscal Year
S tate FY 2000* FY 2001* FY 2002* FY 2003** FY 2004*** FY 2005***
1-12
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Table 8
Medicaid Recipients Receiving Prescription Drugs by State by Fiscal Year
1-13
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
1-14
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 2:
The Medicaid Program
2-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY
Medicaid Eligibility: Medicaid is a “means tested program for low-income individuals.” To qualify,
a Medicaid recipient must not have “income” or “resources” that exceed the applicable limits
prescribed in the law and regulations.
Every State, in order to receive Federal funding under Title XIX, must provide Medicaid benefits to
certain “categorically needy” persons. These are the “mandatory” categorically needy. In addition,
the State has the option of providing Medicaid benefits to certain additional categories of persons.
These are the “optional” categorically needy. An additional category of Medicaid recipients that a
State may choose to include in its program is the “medically needy.”
Mandatory Categorically Needy: There are numerous and detailed categories under which the
“categorically needy” may qualify for Medicaid benefits. The principal categories of the mandatory
categorically needy are:
• Low-income families with children;
• Recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled
(this includes disabled children);
• Individuals qualified for adoption assistance agreements or foster care maintenance
payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act;
• Qualified pregnant women;
• Newborn children of Medicaid-eligible women;
• Various categories of low-income children; and
• Certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
Optional Categorically Needy: These are groups of individuals who meet the characteristics of the
mandatory groups, but the eligibility criteria are somewhat more liberally defined. For example, in
determining their incomes and resources, they are allowed to exclude certain kinds of income. The
“optional categorically needy” include individuals who are aged, blind, disabled, caretaker relatives,
and pregnant women who meet the SSI income and resources requirements but are not receiving SSI
cash payments.
Medically Needy: The “medically needy” are those individuals who meet the definitional
requirements described above, except that their income or resources exceed the limitations applicable
to the categorically needy. These individuals can “spend down” to qualify. That is, they can deduct
their medical bills from their income and resources until they meet the applicable income and
resources requirements. Their Medicaid benefits can then begin.
Special Categories: The Medicaid statute also authorizes limited Medicaid benefits to special
categories of individuals. In general, these are individuals whose income and resources would
otherwise be too high to qualify for full Medicaid benefits under the regular provisions.
2-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
For example, a “Qualified Medicare Beneficiary” (QMB) is an individual who qualifies for Medicare
Part A, whose income does not exceed 100 percent of the Federal poverty level, and whose resources
do not exceed twice the SSI resource-eligibility standard. Medicaid coverage of QMBs is limited to
payment of their Medicare cost-sharing charges, such as the Medicare premiums, coinsurance, and
co-payment amounts.
Non-Eligibles: A State can include in its Medicaid program individuals who do not meet the statutory
eligibility criteria. However, the State must pay the full costs for these individuals. There are no
Federal matching payments.
MEDICAID SERVICES
Title XIX lists the many types of medical care that a State may select for inclusion into its Medicaid
State Plan, thus qualifying for Federal matching payments. However, the law requires that certain
basic benefits must be available to all “categorically needy” recipients. These services include:
• Inpatient and outpatient hospital services;
• Physician services;
• Medical and surgical dental services;
• Laboratory and X-ray services;
• Nursing facility services (for persons 21 years of age or older);
• Early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) services for children
under age 21;
• Family planning services and supplies;
• Home health services for persons eligible for nursing facility services;
• Rural health clinic services and any other ambulatory services offered by a rural health
clinic that are otherwise covered under the State Plan;
• Nurse-midwife services (to the extent authorized under State law);
• Pediatric and family nurse practitioners services; and
• Federally-qualified health center (FQHC) services and any other ambulatory services
offered by an FQHC that are otherwise covered under the State Plan.
If a State chooses to include the “medically needy” population, the State Plan must provide, as a
minimum, the following services:
• Prenatal care and delivery services for pregnant women;
• Ambulatory services to individuals under age 18 and individuals entitled to institutional
services;
• Home health services to individuals entitled to nursing facility services; and
• If the State Plan includes services either in institutions for mental diseases or in
intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (ICFs/MR), it must offer medically
needy groups certain specified services provided to the categorically needy.
States may also receive Federal funding if they elect to provide other optional services. The most
commonly covered optional services under the Medicaid program include:
• Clinic services;
• Services of ICFs/MR;
• Nursing facility services (children under 21 years old);
• Prescribed drugs;
• Optometrist services and eyeglasses;
2-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-5
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
and Human Services (DHHS) has determined has a shortage of home health agencies, the services are
furnished by nurses employed by the RHC, and the services are furnished to a homebound recipient
under a written plan of treatment.
2-6
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-7
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Voluntary Sterilizations: FFP is available in expenditures for the sterilization of an individual only if
she is at least age 21, has voluntarily given informed consent in accordance with Medicaid
regulations, and is not a mentally incompetent individual.
Physicians’ Services
Physicians’ services are covered, whether provided in the office, the patient’s home, a hospital, a
nursing facility, or elsewhere. Such services must be within the physicians’ scope of practice of
medicine or osteopathy as defined by State law, and by or under the personal supervision of an
individual licensed under State law to practice medicine or osteopathy.
Prescribed Drugs
Prescribed drugs are simple or compound substances or mixtures of substances prescribed for the
cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease, or for health maintenance, which are prescribed by a
physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts within the scope of their professional
practice, as defined and limited by Federal and State law (42 CFR 440.120). The drugs must be
dispensed by licensed authorized practitioners on a written prescription that is recorded and
maintained in the pharmacist’s or the practitioner’s records.
Personal support services consist of a variety of services including personal care, targeted case
management, home and community-based care for functionally disabled elderly, rehabilitative
services, hospice services, and nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and private duty nursing. Details of
some of these services are provided below:
1. Personal Care Services: Services provided to an individual who is not an inpatient or
resident of a hospital, nursing facility, intermediate care facility for the mentally
2-8
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Nurse-Midwife Services
Nurse-midwife services are those concerned with management of the care of mothers and newborns
throughout the maternity cycle. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980 required that
payment be made providing for nurse-midwife services to categorically needy recipients (42 CFR
440.165). These provisions require States to provide coverage for nurse-midwife services to the
extent that the nurse-midwife is authorized to practice under State law or regulation. The statute also
requires that States offer direct reimbursement to nurse-midwives as one of the payment options.
Nurse-midwives must be registered nurses who are either certified by an organization recognized by
the Secretary of DHHS or who have completed a program of study and clinical experience that has
been approved by the Secretary.
2-9
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
• The facility receives a grant under sections 329, 330, or 340 of the Public Health Service
Act;
• The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) recommends, and the DHHS
Secretary determines, that the facility meets the requirements of the grant; or
• The Secretary determines that a facility may qualify through waivers of the requirements.
Such a waiver cannot exceed two years.
2-10
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Receiving
Total Cash Medically Poverty 1115 MAS
State Eligibles Assistance Needy Related Other Demonstration Unknown
National Total 51,552,491 18,215,830 4,401,790 15,073,035 8,638,035 5,222,626 1,175
Alabama 845,125 285,853 0 415,276 37,583 106,412 1
Alaska 121,400 51,076 0 59,975 10,349 0 0
Arizona 1,053,602 464,480 0 261,509 191,223 136,390 0
Arkansas 608,017 157,551 10,178 240,028 53,153 147,107 0
California 9,336,447 4,248,290 954,214 515,990 1,439,123 2,178,830 0
Colorado 438,670 219,239 0 163,359 56,072 0 0
Connecticut 487,989 90,988 37,438 77,862 281,701 0 0
Delaware 147,197 69,003 0 13,727 42,564 21,903 0
District of Columbia 204,591 121,320 37,458 35,262 10,551 0 0
Florida 2,691,502 1,113,402 73,312 978,702 387,399 138,672 15
Georgia 1,459,631 525,736 11,140 647,738 275,017 0 0
Hawaii 195,684 97,250 2,434 44,997 15,949 35,054 0
Idaho 196,406 27,994 0 112,074 56,338 0 0
Illinois 2,076,146 293,787 464,565 907,285 247,823 162,686 0
Indiana 881,942 346,171 0 334,326 201,445 0 0
Iowa 358,708 153,913 10,470 111,512 82,813 0 0
Kansas 305,110 106,986 20,423 125,774 51,927 0 0
Kentucky 769,826 343,646 34,626 313,097 78,457 0 0
Louisiana 990,286 347,677 12,207 526,815 103,587 0 0
Maine 346,449 75,324 2,281 89,232 63,619 115,993 0
Maryland 752,065 208,927 91,591 396,639 54,907 0 1
Massachusetts 1,204,312 330,017 21,919 444,390 154,005 253,981 0
Michigan 1,527,627 438,127 128,552 524,624 436,113 0 211
Minnesota 680,627 227,569 55,720 47,787 229,354 120,197 0
Mississippi 707,986 305,857 0 380,081 22,009 0 39
Missouri 1,098,525 679,410 0 128,970 170,202 119,943 0
Montana 106,229 45,831 8,812 25,458 26,119 0 9
Nebraska 266,245 62,809 43,608 130,929 28,238 0 661
Nevada 203,251 78,290 0 65,462 59,499 0 0
New Hampshire 115,517 26,064 11,039 53,280 25,134 0 0
New Jersey 982,676 359,040 5,133 373,027 145,072 100,404 0
New Mexico 462,878 184,972 0 206,152 59,022 12,713 19
New York 4,139,898 1,337,584 1,883,373 420,071 100,457 398,413 0
North Carolina 1,389,455 601,045 42,021 678,924 67,465 0 0
North Dakota 71,619 36,148 14,690 5,330 15,451 0 0
Ohio 1,754,379 430,980 0 363,075 960,324 0 0
Oklahoma 677,788 108,330 7,706 463,661 98,091 0 0
Oregon 637,140 146,559 9,472 171,403 129,447 180,084 175
Pennsylvania 1,710,999 699,940 114,369 574,506 322,184 0 0
Rhode Island 204,789 82,419 4,330 29,368 47,524 41,148 0
South Carolina 895,863 295,611 0 382,483 217,753 0 16
South Dakota 113,925 40,732 0 48,892 24,301 0 0
Tennessee 1,700,384 485,216 121,968 252,406 181,966 658,809 19
Texas 3,202,171 930,165 77,768 1,618,830 574,504 904 0
Utah 233,156 85,897 5,558 87,040 54,661 0 0
Vermont 156,958 30,893 13,253 48,162 14,078 50,572 0
Virginia 727,784 141,198 8,395 422,709 155,481 0 1
Washington 1,104,813 260,809 16,819 394,375 361,851 70,959 0
West Virginia 362,264 133,188 5,087 198,667 25,322 0 0
Wisconsin 776,638 263,555 39,861 124,246 177,525 171,443 8
Wyoming 69,802 18,962 0 37,548 13,283 9 0
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
2-11
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-12
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-13
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
American
Indian/
Total Black/African Alaska Hispanic or
State Eligibles White American Native Asian Latino Other
National Total 51,552,491 22,476,575 12,282,148 743,956 1,222,704 10,694,241 4,132,867
Alabama 845,125 386,692 413,920 2,204 3,651 13,566 25,092
Alaska 121,400 51,974 6,275 44,388 5,695 4,449 8,619
Arizona 1,053,602 385,624 62,086 137,230 12,181 436,283 20,198
Arkansas 608,017 378,477 194,146 4,844 5,151 21,159 4,240
California 9,336,447 2,136,678 943,186 43,312 460,010 4,871,320 881,941
Colorado 438,670 203,858 31,916 3,275 4,264 163,887 31,470
Connecticut 487,989 227,213 108,673 946 10,545 140,416 196
Delaware 147,197 63,923 63,337 288 2,042 17,181 426
District of Columbia 204,591 3,166 180,962 25 1,568 11,859 7,011
Florida 2,691,502 1,015,714 807,949 1,271 13,788 552,750 300,030
Georgia 1,459,631 595,614 735,738 1,084 13,586 12,675 100,934
Hawaii 195,684 41,169 2,973 469 57,127 5,882 88,064
Idaho 196,406 158,930 1,547 5,082 861 29,782 204
Illinois 2,076,146 837,072 779,474 3,752 50,926 383,503 21,419
Indiana 881,942 609,861 197,903 579 3,173 60,867 9,559
Iowa 358,708 261,289 27,993 1,874 3,504 8,402 55,646
Kansas 305,110 201,217 51,148 4,073 2,696 36,404 9,572
Kentucky 769,826 626,904 97,351 297 1,913 11,867 31,494
Louisiana 990,286 346,283 574,364 1,780 3,425 5,539 58,895
Maine 346,449 334,640 5,131 3,005 2,274 1,399 0
Maryland 752,065 254,437 397,418 1,284 20,551 51,213 27,162
Massachusetts 1,204,312 592,131 127,243 2,646 39,039 188,078 255,175
Michigan 1,527,627 863,660 520,060 7,779 22,142 79,963 34,023
Minnesota 680,627 413,244 105,466 27,520 44,513 2,140 87,744
Mississippi 707,986 241,923 424,485 2,901 2,786 5,042 30,849
Missouri 1,098,525 773,021 283,495 2,204 7,027 351 32,427
Montana 106,229 78,698 730 23,975 435 2,336 55
Nebraska 266,245 180,346 32,801 9,318 2,845 95 40,840
Nevada 203,251 114,714 37,657 3,362 6,727 40,791 0
New Hampshire 115,517 106,887 2,032 95 832 3,342 2,329
New Jersey 982,676 342,642 306,819 3,263 20,462 200,015 109,475
New Mexico 462,878 116,769 10,384 87,040 2,627 236,470 9,588
New York 4,139,898 1,250,339 898,747 52,389 154,509 648,943 1,134,971
North Carolina 1,389,455 607,557 569,579 23,854 12,478 94,973 81,014
North Dakota 71,619 54,016 1,367 15,907 294 0 35
Ohio 1,754,379 1,142,733 529,489 1,788 8,405 51,314 20,650
Oklahoma 677,788 421,204 111,899 87,341 5,973 51,371 0
Oregon 637,140 469,028 27,287 14,161 17,365 102,107 7,192
Pennsylvania 1,710,999 1,020,844 470,098 1,961 32,235 129,568 56,293
Rhode Island 204,789 92,982 17,997 327 5,046 37,098 51,339
South Carolina 895,863 359,348 480,943 1,294 1,757 13,314 39,207
South Dakota 113,925 68,633 2,346 39,991 651 2,120 184
Tennessee 1,700,384 1,121,661 471,076 3,605 11,783 36,923 55,336
Texas 3,202,171 855,101 606,560 11,602 41,413 1,650,717 36,778
Utah 233,156 163,596 4,815 10,234 9,678 41,538 3,295
Vermont 156,958 92,535 1,023 244 425 302 62,429
Virginia 727,784 333,733 335,288 1,125 18,601 37,338 1,699
Washington 1,104,813 709,195 68,751 29,629 52,419 148,121 96,698
West Virginia 362,264 335,086 18,575 180 719 702 7,002
Wisconsin 776,638 378,877 130,331 11,703 20,320 41,865 193,542
Wyoming 69,802 55,337 1,315 5,456 267 6,901 526
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
2-14
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-15
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Total Medicaid Eligibles Per 1000 Population, 2002
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates, December 18, 2003; CMS, MSIS Report,
FY 2002.
2-16
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-17
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-18
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-19
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-20
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*The data displayed in this table were compiled from the CMS website at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/schip/enrollment/schip03.pdf.
Column and row values do not always sum to totals.
NR- State has not reported data via the Statistical Enrollment Data System (SEDS).
Source: CMS, SCHIP Enrollment Report, August 5, 2004.
2-21
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-22
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Not a QMB/
State All Eligibles Dual Eligible QMB Only Medicaid SLMB Only
National Total 51,552,491 40,008,697 461,055 3,946,067 319,072
Alabama 845,125 627,146 24,763 91,387 22,661
Alaska 121,400 99,842 5 7,852 119
Arizona 1,053,602 891,673 918 52,667 114
Arkansas 608,017 421,744 18,403 96,042 2,907
California 9,336,447 7,523,677 7,008 764,249 3,122
Colorado 438,670 336,155 6,320 41,897 3,476
Connecticut 487,989 376,168 6,209 45,416 3,443
Delaware 147,197 118,672 3,935 5,658 3,242
District of Columbia 204,591 173,783 87 11,381 860
Florida 2,691,502 2,072,192 21,989 280,205 19,242
Georgia 1,459,631 1,163,783 50,127 0 46
Hawaii 195,684 156,830 107 21,515 1,262
Idaho 196,406 171,732 2,809 10,706 0
Illinois 2,076,146 1,581,719 10,717 125,373 2,311
Indiana 881,942 706,225 8,787 61,139 5,842
Iowa 358,708 257,128 4,533 29,288 3,574
Kansas 305,110 227,750 4,191 25,299 2,366
Kentucky 769,826 549,992 24,944 83,171 10,805
Louisiana 990,286 787,181 24,420 101,528 12,220
Maine 346,449 242,436 2,524 31,984 5,013
Maryland 752,065 612,534 13,750 53,339 5,475
Massachusetts 1,204,312 887,127 184 67,784 14,098
Michigan 1,527,627 1,217,506 552 78,539 12,687
Minnesota 680,627 504,862 1,705 58,945 6,072
Mississippi 707,986 523,298 603 140,540 1,512
Missouri 1,098,525 899,710 9,149 58,471 4,953
Montana 106,229 78,459 394 10,236 603
Nebraska 266,245 215,554 0 22,551 2,305
Nevada 203,251 150,778 7,223 18,404 5,670
New Hampshire 115,517 90,356 1,838 17,973 0
New Jersey 982,676 715,363 0 111,678 20,333
New Mexico 462,878 408,518 10,191 4,404 0
New York 4,139,898 2,963,226 2,007 224,938 0
North Carolina 1,389,455 1,004,720 720 194,145 27,374
North Dakota 71,619 51,954 724 1,431 598
Ohio 1,754,379 1,450,281 29,749 0 0
Oklahoma 677,788 495,758 22 82,863 8,308
Oregon 637,140 476,725 4,571 29,713 8,937
Pennsylvania 1,710,999 1,294,399 520 205,913 18,831
Rhode Island 204,789 158,661 221 18,337 1,138
South Carolina 895,863 756,869 0 78,482 17
South Dakota 113,925 88,716 2,370 3,010 1,171
Tennessee 1,700,384 1,322,117 36,052 54,344 21,870
Texas 3,202,171 2,471,405 57,996 280,680 30,912
Utah 233,156 194,965 1,084 8,481 492
Vermont 156,958 120,711 159 9,750 361
Virginia 727,784 524,983 32,289 73,502 13,000
Washington 1,104,813 936,178 8,113 76,956 6,089
West Virginia 362,264 286,111 12,924 0 0
Wisconsin 776,638 565,889 1,686 71,103 2,979
Wyoming 69,802 55,136 1,463 2,798 662
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
QMB Only = Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
QMB/ Medicaid = QMBs With Full Medicaid
SLMB Only = Specified Low-Income Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
SLMB/Medicaid = SLMBs with full Medicaid
QDWI = Qualified Disabled and Working Individuals
QI 1 = Qualifying Individuals (1)
QI 2 = Qualifying Individuals (2)
Other = Other Dual Eligibles, Dual Category Unknown, and Dual Status Unknown
Source: CMS, MSIS Report, FY 2002.
2-23
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
SLMB/
State Medicaid QDWI QI(1) QI(2) Other
National Total 284,793 3,961 136,263 45,553 6,347,030
Alabama 9,952 0 2,897 62 66,257
Alaska 0 0 0 0 13,582
Arizona 0 0 31 43 108,156
Arkansas 0 3,881 0 0 65,040
California 113,100 4 1,714 1,532 922,041
Colorado 3 1 1,556 767 48,495
Connecticut 6,160 0 4,116 0 46,477
Delaware 0 0 23 0 15,667
District of Columbia 0 0 261 237 17,982
Florida 37,316 0 22,385 0 238,173
Georgia 0 0 0 0 245,675
Hawaii 0 0 0 0 15,970
Idaho 0 0 0 0 11,159
Illinois 17,643 0 10,360 0 328,023
Indiana 14,933 3 3,235 3,278 78,500
Iowa 6,464 0 1,817 1,019 54,885
Kansas 210 0 852 34 44,408
Kentucky 4,315 0 3,979 1,225 91,395
Louisiana 446 0 6,214 4,267 54,010
Maine 1,899 51 1,464 693 60,385
Maryland 0 0 1,833 1,192 63,942
Massachusetts 0 0 2,915 3,267 228,937
Michigan 0 6 5,506 5,628 207,203
Minnesota 10,521 0 2,243 0 96,279
Mississippi 0 0 0 2,840 39,193
Missouri 8,260 0 290 533 117,159
Montana 1,698 0 0 0 14,839
Nebraska 0 0 0 0 25,835
Nevada 0 0 0 0 21,176
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 5,350
New Jersey 0 0 8,334 0 126,968
New Mexico 0 0 0 0 39,765
New York 0 0 0 0 949,727
North Carolina 5,547 0 12,133 0 144,816
North Dakota 337 0 270 77 16,228
Ohio 0 0 0 0 274,349
Oklahoma 4,688 0 0 0 86,149
Oregon 4 0 4,871 4,647 107,672
Pennsylvania 13,066 0 11,249 4,496 162,525
Rhode Island 0 0 653 564 25,215
South Carolina 0 0 6 2 60,487
South Dakota 934 0 514 152 17,058
Tennessee 0 0 0 0 266,001
Texas 8,073 0 15,658 5,381 332,066
Utah 0 0 223 146 27,765
Vermont 5,266 0 12 0 20,699
Virginia 0 14 4,644 3,218 76,134
Washington 1,923 0 2,700 0 72,854
West Virginia 0 0 0 0 63,229
Wisconsin 8,477 1 969 135 125,399
Wyoming 3,558 0 336 118 5,731
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
QMB Only = Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
QMB/ Medicaid = QMBs With Full Medicaid
SLMB Only = Specified Low-Income Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
SLMB/Medicaid = SLMBs with full Medicaid
QDWI = Qualified Disabled and Working Individuals
QI 1 = Qualifying Individuals (1)
QI 2 = Qualifying Individuals (2)
Other = Other Dual Eligibles, Dual Category Unknown, and Dual Status Unknown
Source: CMS, MSIS Report, FY 2002.
2-24
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Total Medicaid Medical Vendor Payments and Dual Eligibility Status, 20021
Not a QMB/
State All Eligibles Dual Eligible QMB Only Medicaid SLMB Only
National Total $213,491,313,278 $106,490,928,726 $1,030,874,920 $42,127,217,095 $380,179,278
Alabama $3,204,063,602 $1,274,232,277 $15,621,507 $776,780,560 $1,742,014
Alaska $686,795,186 $453,075,715 $2,393 $115,089,861 $42,590
Arizona $2,881,870,077 $1,948,997,686 $1,060,033 $434,460,779 $370,784
Arkansas $2,015,436,554 $883,682,774 $33,136,737 $982,685,560 $876,861
California $23,636,239,505 $13,213,780,910 $17,194,733 $5,372,345,733 $8,953,869
Colorado $2,166,199,614 $1,025,390,092 $2,726,907 $539,103,641 $378,910
Connecticut $3,245,142,644 $1,175,956,667 $4,499,349 $1,158,720,879 $932,196
Delaware $651,384,655 $376,621,212 $5,282,458 $96,699,451 $710,727
District of
Columbia $1,027,022,357 $628,363,371 $31,210 $145,262,877 $391,722
Florida $9,827,003,688 $4,874,067,948 $70,370,898 $1,572,827,572 $1,914,956
Georgia $4,796,005,361 $2,604,578,450 $75,123,488 $0 $481,290
Hawaii $695,279,178 $350,981,489 $98,371 $170,361,874 $438,832
Idaho $791,863,699 $574,360,327 $2,988,527 $155,399,823 $0
Illinois $9,121,713,188 $4,462,411,533 $8,884,937 $1,663,359,310 $150,684
Indiana $3,725,257,965 $1,828,126,131 $4,655,964 $965,283,909 $770,567
Iowa $1,855,817,441 $849,122,634 $4,851,165 $514,241,421 $1,118,401
Kansas $1,501,270,019 $641,032,282 $2,589,548 $442,607,105 $623,360
Kentucky $3,459,365,581 $2,024,455,125 $30,181,481 $837,839,353 $5,423,430
Louisiana $3,234,421,939 $1,818,732,605 $15,725,714 $1,129,348,514 $1,891,563
Maine $1,716,581,955 $1,007,751,695 $2,241,357 $402,060,123 $4,571,138
Maryland $3,662,089,984 $2,174,249,468 $42,413,617 $561,303,632 $7,178,292
Massachusetts $6,387,100,271 $2,842,987,095 $1,119,363 $1,276,162,774 $13,833,824
Michigan $5,918,817,382 $2,383,042,311 $239,353 $324,807,789 $12,825,261
Minnesota $4,439,493,794 $1,971,803,574 $1,834,826 $1,269,281,520 $1,576,820
Mississippi $2,499,640,805 $1,244,615,576 $460,562 $1,115,192,344 $529,391
Missouri $4,071,544,403 $2,116,935,133 $13,187,461 $722,404,739 $1,793,555
Montana $532,886,400 $267,585,800 $95,329 $121,091,801 $1,823
Nebraska $1,255,039,718 $597,240,859 $0 $203,777,475 $830,507
Nevada $723,956,752 $393,365,477 $4,139,667 $205,892,296 $1,351,254
New
Hampshire $745,754,084 $322,552,211 $5,726,610 $393,680,976 $0
New Jersey $5,497,284,438 $2,463,309,859 $0 $2,200,468,218 $21,904,790
New Mexico $1,796,901,383 $270,634,581 $2,669,257 $26,751,670 $0
New York $31,488,930,244 $14,675,424,270 $283,178 $4,530,472,744 $0
North
Carolina $6,041,011,008 $3,069,848,793 $476,113 $1,956,224,103 $11,998,085
North Dakota $422,745,114 $141,026,852 $527,092 $11,637,757 $70,489
Ohio $9,186,330,669 $4,505,534,072 $53,754,743 $0 $0
Oklahoma $2,238,213,087 $1,000,843,567 $1,581 $866,098,451 $1,100,816
Oregon $2,136,400,869 $1,197,343,350 $2,454,895 $331,546,311 $104,945,182
Pennsylvania $8,523,928,057 $4,394,947,388 $180,299 $2,006,722,671 $5,704,980
Rhode Island $1,251,440,036 $618,547,690 $29,133 $197,393,826 $650,916
South
Carolina $3,382,950,504 $1,596,815,267 $0 $633,188,504 $332
South Dakota $503,947,234 $245,685,676 $2,324,910 $86,640,920 $486,079
Tennessee $4,747,549,898 $2,989,461,147 $423,736,615 $193,006,651 $148,528,283
Texas $11,121,020,040 $6,226,003,393 $13,230,318 $2,572,622,555 $2,739,277
Utah $1,215,620,497 $597,811,407 $20,665,614 $148,327,002 $617,489
Vermont $607,249,969 $345,763,875 $326,101 $80,741,638 $810,752
Virginia $3,017,869,649 $1,491,183,939 $97,494,303 $840,368,767 $3,077,319
Washington $4,373,171,467 $1,866,732,897 $11,597,264 $725,557,952 $4,353,706
West Virginia $1,577,697,829 $809,141,082 $32,163,017 $0 $0
Wisconsin $3,605,541,906 $1,518,334,992 $1,330,865 $1,025,297,993 $1,423,172
Wyoming $280,451,579 $136,436,202 $1,146,057 $26,025,571 $62,990
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
QMB Only = Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
QMB/ Medicaid = QMBs With Full Medicaid
SLMB Only = Specified Low-Income Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
SLMB/Medicaid = SLMBs with full Medicaid
QDWI = Qualified Disabled and Working Individuals
QI 1 = Qualifying Individuals (1)
QI 2 = Qualifying Individuals (2)
Other = Other Dual Eligibles, Dual Category Unknown, and Dual Status Unknown
Source: CMS, MSIS Report, FY 2002
2-25
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Total Medicaid Medical Vendor Payments and Dual Eligibility Status, 2002 (Con’t)1
SLMB/
State Medicaid QDWI QI (1) QI (2) Other
National Total $3,559,380,313 $735,149 $178,350,688 $74,882,766 $59,648,764,343
Alabama $112,567,502 $0 $513,112 $92,115 $1,022,514,515
Alaska $0 $0 $0 $0 $118,584,627
Arizona $0 $0 $84,004 $243,720 $496,653,071
Arkansas $0 $672,119 $0 $0 $114,382,503
California $745,947,070 $4,165 $1,162,676 $566,590 $4,276,283,759
Colorado $142 $0 $146,264 $68,737 $598,384,921
Connecticut $197,571,333 $0 $411,137 $0 $707,051,083
Delaware $0 $0 $333,000 $0 $171,737,807
District of Columbia $0 $0 $85,870 $206,988 $252,680,319
Florida $123,645,804 $0 $20,102,739 $0 $3,164,073,771
Georgia $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,115,822,133
Hawaii $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,398,612
Idaho $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,115,022
Illinois $296,069,746 $0 $63,709,153 $0 $2,627,127,825
Indiana $263,277,503 $0 $608,687 $847,483 $661,687,721
Iowa $115,732,538 $0 $615,501 $498,436 $369,637,345
Kansas $1,482,507 $0 $126,091 $0 $412,809,126
Kentucky $105,575,625 $0 $1,404,720 $323,582 $454,162,265
Louisiana $5,298,239 $0 $769,228 $665,812 $261,990,264
Maine $26,664,799 $42,650 $1,479,128 $829,750 $270,941,315
Maryland $0 $0 $676,428 $943,460 $875,325,087
Massachusetts $0 $0 $708,782 $592,059 $2,251,696,374
Michigan $0 $9,474 $5,622,730 $6,009,856 $3,186,260,608
Minnesota $228,125,144 $0 $651,618 $0 $966,220,292
Mississippi $0 $0 $0 $1,279,733 $137,563,199
Missouri $109,503,184 $0 $164,581 $159,402 $1,107,396,348
Montana $23,213,856 $0 $0 $0 $120,897,791
Nebraska $0 $0 $0 $0 $453,190,877
Nevada $0 $0 $0 $0 $119,208,058
New Hampshire $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,794,287
New Jersey $0 $0 $10,312,558 $0 $801,289,013
New Mexico $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,496,845,875
New York $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,282,750,052
North Carolina $145,924,080 $0 $4,503,365 $0 $852,036,469
North Dakota $2,172,957 $0 $28,265 $3,604 $267,278,098
Ohio $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,627,041,854
Oklahoma $80,888,878 $0 $0 $0 $289,279,794
Oregon $20,304 $0 $57,550,344 $58,249,186 $384,291,297
Pennsylvania $418,438,234 $0 $2,601,815 $1,411,225 $1,693,921,445
Rhode Island $0 $0 $121,993 $246,581 $434,449,897
South Carolina $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,152,946,401
South Dakota $22,512,693 $0 $482,607 $95,771 $145,718,578
Tennessee $0 $0 $0 $0 $992,817,202
Texas $150,439,855 $0 $971,338 $0 $2,155,013,304
Utah $0 $0 $158,160 $162,856 $447,877,969
Vermont $129,875,293 $0 $33,049 $0 $49,699,261
Virginia $0 $6,741 $1,129,860 $1,371,915 $583,236,805
Washington $9,357,997 $0 $879,661 $0 $1,754,691,990
West Virginia $0 $0 $0 $0 $736,393,730
Wisconsin $150,448,240 $0 $193,214 $7,787 $908,505,643
Wyoming $94,626,790 $0 $9,010 $6,118 $22,088,741
1
Eligibles are defined as individuals who were on the Medicaid roles at least one month during the year.
QMB Only = Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
QMB/ Medicaid = QMBs With Full Medicaid
SLMB Only = Specified Low-Income Beneficiaries Without Other Medicaid
SLMB/Medicaid = SLMBs with full Medicaid
QDWI = Qualified Disabled and Working Individuals
QI 1 = Qualifying Individuals (1)
QI 2 = Qualifying Individuals (2)
Other = Other Dual Eligibles, Dual Category Unknown, and Dual Status Unknown
Source: CMS, MSIS Report, FY 2002
2-26
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
100%
40%
55.6% 55.8% 56.8% 57.6% 59.1% 60.7%
47.8% 53.6%
20% 29.4%
40.1%
23.2%
14.4%
0%
19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid
& State Operations. *Approximated numbers for 1995. Total Medicaid population was provided by the Office of the Actuary,
which used CMS 2082 data to calculate average Medicaid enrollees over 1995. The managed care population differs from the
11,619,929 reported in the 1995 report as the number represented enrollment of some beneficiaries in more than one plan.
Medicaid managed care beneficiaries can be enrolled in one of five basic Medicaid managed care
plans:
• Health Insuring Organization (HIO): an entity that provides for or arranges for the
provision of care and contracts on a prepaid capitated risk basis to provide a
comprehensive set of services.
• Commercial Managed Care Organization (Com-MCO): a Com-MCO is a health
maintenance organization with a contract under §1876 or a Medicare+Choice
organization, a provider sponsored organization or any other private or public
organization, which meets the requirements of §1902(w). They provide
comprehensive services to commercial and/or Medicare enrollees, as well as
Medicaid enrollees.
• Medicaid-only Managed Care Organization (Mcaid-MCO): an MCO that
provides comprehensive services to Medicaid beneficiaries, but not commercial or
Medicare enrollees.
• Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP): an entity that provides less than
comprehensive services on an at-risk basis or one that provides any benefit package
on a non-risk or other than State reimbursement Plan basis; and provides, arranges
2-27
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
for or otherwise has responsibility for the provision of any inpatient hospital or
institutional services.
• Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plan (PAHP): a prepaid ambulatory health plan that
provides less than comprehensive services on an at-risk or other than State Plan
reimbursement basis, and does not provide, arranges for, or otherwise has
responsibility for the provision of any inpatient hospital or institutional services.
• Primary Care Case Management (PCCM): a provider (usually a physician,
physician group practice, or an entity employing or having other arrangements with
such physicians, but sometimes also including nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives,
or physician assistants) who contracts to locate, coordinate, and monitor covered
primary care (and sometimes additional services). This category includes those
PIHPs that act as PCCMs.
• Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE): a program that provides
prepaid, capitated comprehensive health care services to the frail elderly.
• “Other” Managed Care Arrangement: An entity where the plan is not considered
a PCCM, PIHP, PAHP, Comprehensive MCO, Medicaid-only MCO, HIO, or PACE.
The most utilized of these plans are Comprehensive MCOs and Prepaid Health Plans.
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid
& State Operations.
The following tables provide an overview of Medicaid managed care enrollment at the State level.
2-28
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Rank Based on
Medicaid Medicaid Managed Percent in Percent in
State Enrollment Care Enrollment Managed Care Managed Care
National Total 44,355,955 26,913,570 60.68%
Alabama 800,569 439,832 54.94% 39
Alaska 96,630 0 0.00% 50
Arizona 904,658 806,193 89.12% 8
Arkansas 594,264 386,395 65.02% 29
California 6,471,239 3,258,787 50.36% 42
Colorado 378,416 369,270 97.58% 3
Connecticut 402,286 303,404 75.42% 17
Delaware 135,224 99,598 73.65% 18
District of Columbia 138,637 88,452 63.80% 31
Florida 2,207,375 1,450,117 65.69% 27
Georgia 1,323,036 1,273,133 96.23% 5
Hawaii 190,381 145,580 78.04% 15
Idaho 166,088 131,693 79.29% 12
Illinois 1,740,488 158,869 9.13% 48
Indiana 803,786 509,732 63.42% 33
Iowa 284,918 262,487 92.13% 7
Kansas 269,032 153,395 57.02% 38
Kentucky 678,529 625,807 92.23% 6
Louisiana 919,079 723,837 78.76% 14
Maine 258,686 154,785 59.84% 36
Maryland 696,097 469,998 67.52% 24
Massachusetts 947,297 581,520 61.39% 35
Michigan 1,409,832 1,255,067 89.02% 9
Minnesota 568,761 361,381 63.54% 32
Mississippi 637,910 73,445 11.51% 47
Missouri 974,310 432,339 44.37% 44
Montana 86,452 58,030 67.12% 25
Nebraska 206,701 149,405 72.28% 19
Nevada 169,334 89,846 53.06% 40
New Hampshire 96,188 0 0.00% 50
New Jersey 798,132 541,820 67.89% 23
New Mexico 420,935 273,018 64.86% 30
New York 4,022,544 2,341,733 58.22% 37
North Carolina 1,112,341 788,943 70.93% 20
North Dakota 52,458 33,065 63.03% 34
Ohio 1,645,454 507,337 30.83% 46
Oklahoma 518,926 354,110 68.24% 22
Oregon 426,905 345,410 80.91% 11
Pennsylvania 1,599,570 1,265,891 79.14% 13
Puerto Rico 873,211 842,827 96.52% 4
Rhode Island 180,528 124,921 69.20% 21
South Carolina 845,870 69,791 8.25% 49
South Dakota 97,774 95,577 97.75% 2
Tennessee 1,345,131 1,345,131 100.00% 1
Texas 2,692,012 1,150,773 42.75% 45
Utah 188,839 167,338 88.61% 10
Vermont 130,782 86,263 65.96% 26
Virgin Islands 10,900 0 0.00% 50
Virginia 607,493 398,871 65.66% 28
Washington 1,080,738 834,883 77.25% 16
West Virginia 298,093 156,468 52.49% 41
Wisconsin 792,177 374,003 47.21% 43
Wyoming 58,939 0 0.00% 50
State Medicaid enrollment includes individuals enrolled in State health care reform programs that expand eligibility beyond traditional Medicaid eligibility
standards. This table provides unduplicated figures for Medicaid Enrollment and Managed Care Enrollment by State for a single point in time. These
values differ significantly (i.e., are lower than) unduplicated annual counts of enrollees over the entire year.
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid & State Operations.
2-29
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make formulary/drug decisions.
“-” indicates Not Applicable, “N/A” indicates “No Answer” was received on the Survey.
Sources: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
2-30
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
State Medicaid enrollment includes individuals enrolled in State health care reform programs that expand eligibility beyond traditional Medicaid
eligibility standards.
Sources: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003and. DHHS, CMS, Center for
Medicaid & State Operations.
2-31
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
HIO=Health Insuring Organization; Commercial MCO=Commercial Managed Care Organization; Medicaid-only MCO=Medicaid-only
Managed Care Organization; PCCM=Primary Care Case Management; PIHP=Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan; PAHP=Prepaid Ambulatory Health
Plans; PACE=Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid & State
Operations.
2-32
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid & State
Operations.
2-33
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Individual State totals may not sum to total managed care enrollment (page 2-29) because State totals include individuals enrolled in more than
one plan type including dental, mental, and long-term care.
Source: Medicaid Managed Care Enrollment Report: Summary Statistics as of June 30, 2004. DHHS, CMS, Center for Medicaid & State
Operation
2-34
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 1915(b) waivers are granted to give States the authority to conduct Medicaid programs
outside of the scope of the Medicaid statute, allowing them to waive freedom of choice, statewide
access to care, and comparability requirements under Section 1902 of the Social Security Act. With a
1915(b) waiver, a State can require mandatory enrollment of Medicaid recipients in managed care
plans. Section 1915(b) waivers can also allow a State to create a “carveout” delivery system for
specialty care, e.g., a Managed Behavioral Health Care Plan. Section 1915(b) waivers cannot
negatively impact beneficiary access or quality of care of services, and must be cost-effective (i.e.,
cost must be less than the Medicaid program would cost without the waiver). Section 1915(b)
waivers are typically limited to a targeted geographical area or population, are approved for an initial
period of two years, and can be renewed on an ongoing basis if the State reapplies.
Four options for 1915(b) waivers exist; each is governed by a different subsection(s) of Section
1915(b);
• Paragraph (b)(1) - Case Management: States are allowed to implement case management
systems which can be as simple as requiring each beneficiary to choose a primary care
provider or as comprehensive as mandating enrollment in a prepaid health plan. The
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 also gave States the option to enroll certain beneficiaries
into managed care via a State Plan Amendment.
• Paragraph (b)(2) - Central Broker: Localities are allowed to act as a central broker in
assisting Medicaid eligibles in selecting among competing health care plans, if such a
restriction does not substantially impair access to medically necessary services of
adequate quality.
• Paragraph (b)(3) - Shared Cost Saving: States are allowed to share (through provision of
additional services) cost savings (resulting from use by the recipient of more cost-
effective medical care) with recipients of medical assistance under the State Plan.
• Paragraph (b)(4) - Restrict Providers: States can limit the number of providers of certain
services. These waivers are sometimes referred to as selective contracting waivers and
are gaining in popularity. For example, some approved 1915(b)(4) waivers include
programs to restrict the number of providers of transportation services, organ transplants,
and inpatient obstetrical care.
Although Section 1915(b) waivers allow States to increase access to managed care plans, States are still
limited under Federal regulations and cannot use them to serve beneficiaries beyond Medicaid State Plan
Eligibility or change their benefits package. In order to expand their Medicaid programs even further
than under Section 1915(b) waivers, States apply for Section 1115 research and demonstration waivers.
2-35
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 1115 research and demonstration waivers release States from standard Medicaid
requirements, allowing them the flexibility to test substantially new ideas of policy merit. Along with
Section 1915(b) waivers, Section 1115 waivers allow States to waive freedom of choice, statewide
access to care, and comparability requirements. However, a Section 1115 waiver also allows States
to provide new and additional services, test new payment methods, offer benefits to new and
expanded populations, and contract with managed care organizations that do not meet the necessary
criteria of Section 1903 of the Social Security Act.
To receive approval of a Section 1115 waiver, States submit a proposal to CMS for discussion and
review. Once operational, States allow formal evaluations of the research and public policy value of
the programs and to demonstrate that their programs do not exceed costs, which would have
otherwise occurred under traditional Medicaid programs (i.e., States must demonstrate budget
neutrality). Section 1115 waivers are usually granted for a five-year period and each State must
submit a request for continuation. For example, Arizona has operated its program under a Section
1115 waiver for over 20 years. The Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) of 2000
streamlined the process for States to submit requests for and receive extensions of Section 1115
demonstration waivers.
Currently, there are 17 Medicaid programs with Section 1115 waiver approvals: Arizona, California,
Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin. Refer to the table on page 2-40 for
a listing of implemented Section 1115 waivers.
Section 1115 demonstration authority may be used to extend pharmacy coverage to certain low-
income elderly and disabled individuals who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. This type of
Section 1115 waiver program is commonly referred to as “Pharmacy Plus.” Its purpose is to provide
a subsidized pharmacy benefit that is intended to assist individuals in maintaining their healthy status
and avoid spending down to Medicaid income and asset eligibility levels. The waivers will test how
provision of a pharmacy benefit to a non-Medicaid covered population will affect Medicaid costs,
utilization and future eligibility trends.
Pharmacy Plus demonstrations 1) cover an individual’s cost of drugs; 2) cover the individual’s cost
sharing obligation for private prescription programs; and 3) provide wrap-around coverage to bring
private sources of drug coverage up to the level of the Pharmacy Plus benefit. States may construct
their Pharmacy Plus programs to provide eligibility for individuals who are not eligible for full
Medicaid benefits and who have incomes below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Under a
Pharmacy Plus waiver, States may elect to provide a prescription and over-the-counter drug benefit
that is similar to, or different from, the benefits provided in the Medicaid State Plan. States may
choose to deliver the services via fee-for-service or capitation. Last, States may choose whether to
perform assets tests and income adjustments, and may also choose to enact an enrollment ceiling on
the number of individuals who participate in the demonstration.
Like all 1115 demonstrations, Pharmacy Plus waivers must be budget neutral to the Federal
government. Under the terms and conditions of an approved plan, which is usually granted for a 5-
year period, a ceiling cap is placed on Federal financial payments for services included in the budget
neutrality agreement. States are encouraged to involve the private sector in implementing these
programs and are encouraged to explore the use of pharmacy benefit managers (PBM). Premiums,
cost sharing (deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance), and benefit limitations are all available tools
for providing incentives and cost containment.
2-36
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
As of September 16, 2004, four States had received Pharmacy Plus demonstration approval: Florida,
Illinois, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Another 8 states had applications pending and one state
withdrew its request.
Refer to the table on page 2-41 for a complete status of the Pharmacy Plus Demonstrations Program.
2-37
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-38
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
1915)
Statutes
State Program(s) Approved Utilized Implemented Expiration
st
Alabama Patient 1 1, 3, 4 01/1/97 2/18/04
Alaska None -- -- --
Arizona None -- -- --
Non-Emergency Transportation 1, 4 3/1/98 11/21/05
Arkansas
Primary Care Physician 1 11/1/96 12/17/04
Caloptima 1, 4 10/1/95 7/10/05
Central Coast Alliance for Health 1, 4 1/1/96 7/10/05
Health Plan of San Mateo 1, 4 11/30/87 8/26/04
Hudman 4 4/24/92 10/14/03
Managed Care Network 1, 2, 4 3/1/97 6/30/03
Medi-Cal Mental Health Care Field Test (San Mateo Co.) 4 4/1/95 7/25/05
Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services Consolidation 4 3/15/95 4/27/05
California
Partnership Health Plan of California 1, 4 5/1/94 2/10/05
Primary Care Case Management Program 1, 4 8/1/84 8/13/03
Sacramento Geographic Managed Care 1, 2, 4 4/1/94 10/8/04
San Diego Geographic Managed Care 1, 2, 4 10/17/98 10/10/03
Santa Barbara Health Initiative 1, 4 9/1/83 1/11/05
Selective Provider Contracting Program 4 9/21/82 12/31/04
Two-Plan Model Program 1, 2, 4 1/23/96 11/8/03
Colorado Mental Health Capitation Program 1, 3, 4 7/1/95 5/4/05
Connecticut HUSKY A 1, 4 10/1/95 5/30/04
Delaware None -- -- --
District of
DC Medicaid Managed Care Program
Columbia 1, 2, 4 4/1/94 6/30/04
Managed Health Care 1, 2, 3, 4 10/1/92 9/26/04
Florida Prepaid Mental Health Plan 1, 4 3/1/96 11/12/03
Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Program 4 4/1/99 12/31/03
Non-Emergency Transportation Broker Program 4 10/1/97 1/10/04
Georgia Preadmission Screening and Annual Resident Review
(PASARR) 1, 4 11/1/94 10/5/05
Hawaii None -- -- --
Idaho Healthy Connections 1, 2 10/1/93 9/21/04
Illinois None -- -- --
Indiana Hoosier Healthwise 1 7/1/94 9/22/05
Indiana Medicaid Select 1 1/1/03 7/22/05
Iowa Iowa Plan for Behavioral Health 1, 3, 4 1/1/99 6/30/05
Kansas None -- -- --
Kentucky Human Service Transportation 1, 4 6/1/98 6/12/05
Louisiana Community Care 1 6/1/92 2/28/04
Maine None -- -- --
Maryland None -- -- --
Massachusetts None -- -- --
Michigan Comprehensive Health Care 1, 2, 4 7/1/97 4/21/05
Minnesota Consolidated Chemical Dependency Treatment Fund 1, 4 1/1/88 3/23/03
Mississippi None -- -- --
Missouri MC+ Managed Care/1915(b) 1, 2, 4 9/1/95 3/14/04
2-39
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
1915)
Statutes
State Program(s) Approved Utilized Implemented Expiration
Montana Passport to Health 1, 2 1/1/94 4/24/04
Nebraska Nebraska Health Connection Combined Waiver Program 1, 2, 3, 4 7/1/95 6/30/05
Nevada None -- -- --
New
None
Hampshire -- -- --
New Jersey New Jersey Care 2000+ 1915(b) 1, 2 10/1/00 12/29/04
New Mexico SALUD! 1,4 7/1/97 6/30/04
New York Non-Emergency Transportation 1, 4 7/1/96 11/14/04
ACCESS II/III 1915(b) 1 7/1/98 8/5/03
North Carolina Carolina Access 1915(b) 1 4/1/91 8/5/03
Health Care Connection 1915(b) 1 7/1/96 8/5/03
North Dakota None -- -- --
Ohio PremierCare 1, 2, 4 7/1/01 6/30/05
Oklahoma None -- -- --
Oregon Transportation Program 4 9/1/94 7/25/03
Family Care Network 1 2/1/94 10/26/03
Pennsylvania
HealthChoices 1, 2, 3, 4 2/1/97 6/16/04
Puerto Rico None -- -- --
Rhode Island None -- -- --
South Carolina None
-- -- --
South Dakota None -- -- --
Tennessee None -- -- --
Lonestar Select I 4 9/1/94 9/3/04
Lonestar Select II 4 3/10/95 3/4/04
Texas
NorthSTAR 1, 2, 4 11/1/99 11/5/03
STAR 1, 2, 3, 4 8/1/93 8/31/03
Choice of Health Care Delivery 1, 2, 4 7/1/82 7/23/03
Utah Non-Emergency Transportation 1, 4 7/1/01 10/21/05
Prepaid Mental Health Program 4 7/1/91 12/26/05
Vermont None -- -- --
Medallion 1, 2 3/1/92 3/24/04
Virginia
Medallion II 1, 2, 4 1/1/96 12/25/04
Healthy Options 1, 4 10/1/93 7/1/03
Washington
The Integrated Mental Health Services 1, 4 7/1/93 3/4/04
Mountain Health Trust 1, 4 9/1/96 3/22/04
West Virginia
Physician Assured Access System 1,2 6/1/92 4/27/04
Wisconsin None -- -- --
Wyoming None -- -- --
Source: 2003 National Summary of State Medicaid Managed Care Programs. Program Descriptions as of June 30, 2003.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid & State Operations.
2-40
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: 2003 National Summary of State Medicaid Managed Care Programs. Program Descriptions as of June 30, 2003. Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid & State Operations. Last Modified: 9/16/04.
2-41
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
2-42
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 3:
State Characteristics
3-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
3-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
STATE CHARACTERISTICS
Presented in Section 3 of the Compilation is State-by-State information on several topics. The
Section begins with a series of tables showing select State demographic characteristics including
age composition and racial/Hispanic status. Next, insurance coverage, poverty status,
employment, and income data for each State are presented. The final group of tables show select
components of each State’s health care system including Medicare and Medicaid certified
facilities (hospitals, SNFs, ICFs/MR, home health agencies, and rural health clinics), licensed
pharmacies, and health manpower (physicians, Registered Nurses, and pharmacists).
The data in Section 3 have been compiled from a myriad of sources. These include:
• CMS
• The U.S. Bureau of the Census
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
• The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
• The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
Because of the unevenness with which the various government agencies and other organizations
have released updated information, we have carefully reviewed all possible information sources
and made judgments on which data to present. In the final analysis, we have included those data
that, in our opinion, best reflect the factors and characteristics on which we have reported.
However, certain limitations in the different sources have resulted in some inconsistencies among
the tables. The following examples illustrate this problem.
The table showing the age distribution of the population is derived from the 2003 American
Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Unfortunately, the
approximately 5 million individuals residing in “group quarters” were not included. Hence, the
total population figure (and the corresponding figures for each State) presented in this table is
lower than the population total in the table showing insurance status.
The data on insurance status was compiled from the Current Population Survey, 2004 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement, a collaborative effort by the Census Bureau and BLS. Hence,
the estimates on the number of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries differ slightly from those
published by CMS. In addition, more detailed data on poverty, also compiled from 2004 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, have been included in this
year’s Compilation.
HRSA’s Bureau of Health Professions, National Center for Health Workforce Analysis is
responsible for compiling the Area Resource File (ARF), an important annual data file for
researchers, planners, policymakers, and others seeking information on the health professions
workforce, health care facilities, health care utilization and expenditures, etc. at a variety of
geographic levels. The ARF has been our primary source of information on physicians and, for
the past several years, registered nurses. Unfortunately, 2002 physician data provided by the
American Medical Association (AMA) that HRSA had hoped to include in the 2004 ARF were
not able to be included. Instead, HRSA carried over 2001 physician data from the 2003 ARF.
Therefore, since no update information was available, we decided not to acquire the 2004 ARF
and have repeated the 2001 physician data that appeared in last year’s Compilation (see page 3-
16).
3-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses is the most extensive and comprehensive
source of nursing statistics for the U.S health care system. Conducted every four years by
HRSA’s Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Nursing, the most recent data currently
available from this survey are for 2000. Since these data are somewhat out-of-date, we have, for
the past two years, turned to the ARF for nursing statistics. However, as is often the case, data
from different sources are not exactly the same. The ARF, for example, provides information on
the number of “full-time equivalent registered nurses, not a simple body count of the number of
full-time and part-time RNs. Thus, the number of nurses presented in the ARF may be lower than
those compiled from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. Also, since we did not
obtain the 2004 ARF because of the lack of updated physician data, we also repeated the RN data
that were presented in the 2003 Compilation (see page 3-17).
Despite the limitations confronted while compiling these statistics, we believe that the data
presented in Section 3 provide a useful and meaningful picture of State characteristics. Users of
the Compilation are urged to carefully read the source information and notes at the bottom of each
table in order to understand the limitations of the data contained therein.
3-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2003 American Community Survey.
3-5
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2003 American Community Survey.
3-6
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2003 American Community Survey.
3-7
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
3-8
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
% Covered by % Covered by
Total % Covered by % Covered by Military Private
State Population Medicaid Medicare Insurance Insurance % Not Insured
National Total 288,280,000 12.4% 13.7% 3.5% 68.6% 15.6%
Alabama 4,427,000 13.2% 15.5% 4.1% 67.7% 14.2%
Alaska 645,000 15.1% 8.5% 14.0% 61.5% 18.9%
Arizona 5,576,000 13.3% 13.6% 6.3% 64.0% 17.0%
Arkansas 2,671,000 16.0% 17.0% 7.0% 60.7% 17.4%
California 35,394,000 15.1% 11.7% 2.7% 63.8% 18.4%
Colorado 4,480,000 9.1% 9.9% 5.6% 69.8% 17.2%
Connecticut 3,421,000 10.7% 15.4% 2.1% 75.8% 10.4%
Delaware 820,000 11.2% 13.4% 3.9% 75.7% 11.1%
District of Columbia 554,000 18.2% 12.5% 2.1% 64.6% 14.3%
Florida 16,921,000 11.2% 18.4% 4.7% 64.7% 18.2%
Georgia 8,571,000 11.3% 11.6% 3.3% 69.5% 16.4%
Hawaii 1,253,000 10.6% 14.1% 8.3% 74.0% 10.1%
Idaho 1,360,000 12.3% 12.3% 3.0% 67.1% 18.6%
Illinois 12,628,000 9.5% 13.5% 1.7% 73.2% 14.4%
Indiana 6,149,000 9.2% 13.7% 1.5% 73.7% 13.9%
Iowa 2,921,000 8.0% 15.9% 2.7% 79.3% 11.3%
Kansas 2,683,000 8.8% 12.9% 7.6% 75.4% 11.0%
Kentucky 4,110,000 13.4% 16.1% 6.0% 68.4% 14.0%
Louisiana 4,429,000 13.7% 13.7% 4.4% 61.3% 20.6%
Maine 1,283,000 18.0% 17.3% 4.2% 68.4% 10.4%
Maryland 5,493,000 8.0% 12.3% 3.4% 75.2% 13.9%
Massachusetts 6,367,000 11.9% 14.0% 1.8% 74.4% 10.7%
Michigan 9,918,000 12.7% 14.1% 1.4% 76.2% 10.9%
Minnesota 5,076,000 9.5% 11.3% 2.1% 81.0% 8.7%
Mississippi 2,854,000 18.8% 14.8% 6.6% 59.4% 17.9%
Missouri 5,623,000 12.1% 16.2% 3.4% 74.9% 11.0%
Montana 917,000 12.5% 14.7% 7.4% 64.2% 19.4%
Nebraska 1,727,000 8.8% 12.5% 4.8% 76.2% 11.3%
Nevada 2,250,000 8.3% 12.4% 4.0% 67.5% 18.9%
New Hampshire 1,264,000 6.9% 12.6% 2.4% 79.3% 10.3%
New Jersey 8,579,000 8.3% 12.6% 1.4% 74.2% 14.0%
New Mexico 1,871,000 19.3% 15.0% 4.8% 55.2% 22.1%
New York 18,970,000 16.5% 14.5% 1.2% 66.4% 15.1%
North Carolina 8,253,000 12.8% 14.7% 5.3% 63.9% 17.3%
North Dakota 631,000 8.7% 13.9% 6.8% 76.0% 10.9%
Ohio 11,247,000 10.7% 13.1% 2.0% 74.8% 12.1%
Oklahoma 3,438,000 11.5% 16.1% 6.5% 62.1% 20.4%
Oregon 3,569,000 11.6% 13.3% 3.4% 68.3% 17.2%
Pennsylvania 12,155,000 10.5% 17.1% 2.1% 75.8% 11.4%
Rhode Island 1,053,000 15.2% 15.5% 2.5% 72.7% 10.2%
South Carolina 4,064,000 13.6% 16.3% 5.4% 68.3% 14.4%
South Dakota 751,000 10.8% 15.8% 4.6% 74.6% 12.2%
Tennessee 5,909,000 16.3% 14.5% 4.4% 66.6% 13.2%
Texas 21,858,000 13.3% 10.6% 3.1% 57.9% 24.6%
Utah 2,352,000 8.5% 8.8% 3.6% 77.8% 12.7%
Vermont 611,000 18.4% 15.4% 3.3% 71.1% 9.5%
Virginia 7,386,000 7.8% 13.4% 10.2% 71.8% 13.0%
Washington 6,091,000 13.8% 11.3% 5.2% 68.3% 15.5%
West Virginia 1,787,000 16.6% 19.9% 3.6% 60.9% 16.6%
Wisconsin 5,429,000 12.1% 13.9% 1.6% 75.2% 10.9%
Wyoming 488,000 12.3% 13.1% 7.8% 68.2% 15.9%
*The sum of rows may be greater than the total State population because individuals may have dual coverage and appear in
more than one category.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 2004 Annual Social and
Economic Supplement.
3-9
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 2004 Annual Social and
Economic Supplement.
3-10
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 2004 Annual Social and
Economic Supplement.
3-11
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 10, 2005.
3-12
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
3-13
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
3-14
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
LEGEND
3-15
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Physicians, 2001
3-16
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
# FTE # FTE
Registered Registered Nurses* Pharmacists** Pharmacists**
State Nurses* per 1,000 population (Licensed by State) per 1,000 population
National Total 962,195 3.4 352,869 1.2
Alabama 17,143 3.8 6,026 1.3
Alaska 2,339 3.7 616 0.9
Arizona 13,058 2.5 6,884 1.2
Arkansas 9,898 3.7 3,649 1.3
California 85,878 2.5 29,676 0.8
Colorado 12,034 2.7 5,445 1.2
Connecticut 9,930 2.9 4,486 1.3
Delaware 2,971 3.7 1,385 1.7
District of Columbia 5,011 8.7 1,564 2.8
Florida 56,078 3.4 21,540 1.2
Georgia 28,447 3.4 10,474 1.2
Hawaii 3,470 2.8 1,574 1.2
Idaho 3,599 2.7 1,623 1.2
Illinois 45,501 3.6 13,151 1.0
Indiana 21,436 3.5 8,696 1.4
Iowa 12,404 4.2 5,001 1.7
Kansas 9,102 3.4 3,652 1.3
Kentucky 16,213 4.0 5,383 1.3
Louisiana 17,274 3.9 5,970 1.3
Maine 5,265 4.1 1,267 1.0
Maryland 16,623 3.1 7,391 1.3
Massachusetts 24,133 3.8 9,940 1.5
Michigan 35,094 3.5 11,322 1.1
Minnesota 16,122 3.2 6,052 1.2
Mississippi 12,356 4.3 3,483 1.2
Missouri 23,650 4.2 7,123 1.2
Montana 3,205 3.5 1,556 1.7
Nebraska 7,249 4.2 2,722 1.6
Nevada 5,084 2.4 8,386 3.6
New Hampshire 4,206 3.3 1,963 1.5
New Jersey 28,082 3.3 13,100 1.5
New Mexico 5,258 2.9 2,325 1.2
New York 72,057 3.8 19,136 1.0
North Carolina 32,695 4.0 9,864 1.2
North Dakota 3,175 5.0 2,155 3.4
Ohio 43,869 3.9 14,703 1.3
Oklahoma 10,827 3.1 4,785 1.4
Oregon 11,674 3.4 4,189 1.2
Pennsylvania 48,786 4.0 17,991 1.5
Rhode Island 2,850 2.7 1,810 1.7
South Carolina 14,942 3.7 5,256 1.3
South Dakota 3,829 5.1 1,443 1.9
Tennessee 20,777 3.6 7,498 1.3
Texas 65,056 3.0 21,795 1.0
Utah 5,446 2.4 2,266 0.9
Vermont 1,656 2.7 840 1.4
Virginia 23,152 3.2 8,754 1.2
Washington 15,440 2.6 7,146 1.2
West Virginia 9,307 5.2 2,970 1.6
Wisconsin 16,878 3.1 5,836 1.1
Wyoming 1,666 3.4 1,007 2.0
*FTE- Full-time equivalent employees as of 2001
**As of June 30, 2004
Source: USDHHS, HRSA, Bureau of Health Professions, National Center for Health Workforce Information & Analysis,
Area Resource File, February 2003. 2005 National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Survey of Pharmacy Law.
3-17
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
3-18
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 4:
Pharmacy Program
Characteristics
4-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The Medicaid program defines prescribed drugs as simple or compound substances or mixtures of
substances prescribed for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease, or for health maintenance,
which are prescribed by a physician or other licensed practitioner of the healing arts within the scope
of their professional practice (42 CFR 440.120). The drugs must be dispensed by licensed authorized
practitioners on a written prescription that is recorded and maintained in the pharmacist’s or the
practitioner’s records.
On July 31, 1987, CMS published a notice of the final rule for limits on payments for drugs in the
Medicaid program. The regulations adopted in the rule became effective October 29, 1987 (52 FR
28648). In this final rule, CMS attempted to (1) respond to public comments on the NPRM (51 FR
2956); (2) provide maximum flexibility to the States in their administration of the Medicaid program;
(3) provide responsible but not burdensome Federal oversight of the Medicaid program; and (4) take
advantage of savings in the marketplace for multiple-source drugs.
To accomplish this, CMS adopted a Federal upper limit standard for certain multiple-source drugs,
based on application of a specific formula. The upper limit for other drugs is similar, in that it retains
the estimated acquisition cost (EAC) as the upper limit standard that State agencies must meet.
However, this standard is applied on an aggregate basis rather than on a prescription-specific basis.
State agencies are therefore encouraged to exercise maximum flexibility in establishing their own
payment methods (see the Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 147, Friday, July 31, 1987, page 28648).
Multiple-Source Drugs
A multiple-source drug is one that is marketed or sold by two or more manufacturers or labelers, or a
drug marketed or sold by the same manufacturer or labeler under two or more different proprietary
names or under a proprietary name and without such a name.
A specific upper limit for a multiple-source drug may be established if the following requirements are
met:
• All of the formulations of the drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have
been evaluated as therapeutically equivalent in the current edition of the publication, Approved
Drug Products with Therapeutically Equivalent Evaluations; and
• At least three suppliers list the drug (which is classified by the FDA as Category A in its
publication) in the current editions of published compendia of cost information for drugs
available for sale nationally.
The upper limit for a multi-source drug for which a specific limit has been established does not apply
if a physician certifies in his or her own handwriting that a specific brand is “medically necessary” for
a particular recipient.
The handwritten phrase “brand necessary,” “medically necessary,” or “brand medically necessary”
must appear on the face of the prescription. The rule specifically states that a check-off box on a
prescription form is not acceptable, but it does not address the use of two-line prescription forms.
4-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The formula to be used in calculating the aggregate upper limit of payment for certain multiple-source
drugs will be 150% of the least costly therapeutic equivalent that can be purchased by pharmacists in
quantities of 100 tablets or capsules (or if the drug is not commonly available in quantities of 100, the
package size commonly listed), or in the case of liquids, the commonly listed size, plus a reasonable
dispensing fee.
Other Drugs
A drug described as an “other drug” is (1) a brand name drug certified as medically necessary by the
physician, (2) a multiple-source drug not subject to the 150% formula; or (3) a single-source drug.
Payments for these drugs must not exceed, in the aggregate, payment levels determined by applying
the lower of:
Other Requirements
The rule requires States to submit a State plan that describes their payment methods for prescribed
drugs. The rule does not prescribe a preferred payment method, as long as the State’s aggregate
spending in each category is equal to or below the upper limit requirements. States are also required
to submit assurances to CMS that the requirements are met.
The rule does not prescribe a preferred payment method for the States, but gives States the flexibility
to determine how they will pay for prescription drugs under Medicaid. As long as the State’s
aggregate spending is at or below the amount derived from the formula, the State is free to maintain
its current payment program or adopt other methods. States can alter payment rates for individual
drugs, balancing payment increases for certain products with payment decreases for other drugs so
that, in the aggregate, the program does not exceed the established limit. With the establishment of
upper limit payment maximums, some States may alter their current payment methods to comply with
the established limits.
State programs vary, depending upon whether or not State maximum allowable cost (MAC) programs
cover the same drugs listed by CMS. States with established MAC programs may be unaffected if
their MAC rates are already low, or they may have to make certain adjustments in their MAC levels
to meet the Federal aggregate expenditure limits. States without MAC programs may develop a new
payment method to increase the use of lower cost generic drug products in order to stay within the
upper payment limits, or may simply adopt CMS’ formula for listed drug products.
DRUG RECIPIENTS
Drug recipients are defined as individuals who received drugs, not as everyone eligible to receive
drugs. Today, all 50 States and the District of Columbia cover drugs under the Medicaid program.
4-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-5
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
% of 2003 National
2003 2003 Medicaid Drug 2002 2002
State Payments Ranking Expenditures Payments Ranking
National Total $33,794,520,738 $29,339,050,970
California $4,219,504,969 1 12.5% $3,591,537,830 2
New York $4,218,811,815 2 12.5% $3,660,427,024 1
Florida $2,018,037,106 3 6.0% $1,717,652,527 3
Texas $1,920,865,985 4 5.7% $1,591,064,713 4
Ohio $1,520,147,470 5 4.5% $1,333,992,298 5
Illinois $1,469,190,682 6 4.3% $1,293,435,797 6
North Carolina $1,291,263,155 7 3.8% $1,100,822,176 7
Tennessee $1,280,129,986 8 3.8% $905,405,421 9
Georgia $1,073,715,230 9 3.2% $873,703,133 10
Massachusetts $946,210,618 10 2.8% $958,972,520 8
Missouri $941,522,305 11 2.8% $790,853,387 11
Louisiana $827,713,132 12 2.4% $714,107,841 13
Pennsylvania $791,053,653 13 2.3% $718,210,352 12
New Jersey $766,995,569 14 2.3% $694,669,924 14
Michigan $758,266,989 15 2.2% $674,222,281 15
Kentucky $685,229,661 16 2.0% $652,904,065 16
Indiana $627,575,345 17 1.9% $631,637,846 17
Washington $592,437,155 18 1.8% $541,963,790 19
Wisconsin $592,295,000 19 1.8% $442,718,195 23
Mississippi $568,007,104 20 1.7% $567,313,801 18
South Carolina $558,129,364 21 1.7% $451,846,044 22
Alabama $536,222,703 22 1.6% $452,269,953 21
Virginia $506,414,352 23 1.5% $458,953,342 20
Maryland $429,589,193 24 1.3% $297,291,733 26
Connecticut $403,802,170 25 1.2% $357,919,257 24
West Virginia $345,831,214 26 1.0% $277,039,990 30
Iowa $331,222,324 27 1.0% $285,467,642 27
Arkansas $310,709,182 28 0.9% $273,257,660 31
Oklahoma $301,294,000 29 0.9% $285,068,869 28
Minnesota $276,731,202 30 0.8% $310,174,144 25
Maine $268,547,563 31 0.8% $220,420,714 32
Oregon $262,335,388 32 0.8% $279,029,096 29
Kansas $228,920,787 33 0.7% $213,778,616 33
Colorado $225,297,507 34 0.7% $189,717,036 35
Nebraska $210,199,726 35 0.6% $207,782,737 34
Utah $163,217,885 36 0.5% $140,275,267 36
Rhode Island $140,686,626 37 0.4% $125,187,888 37
Idaho $132,143,091 38 0.4% $119,177,013 38
Vermont $127,763,857 39 0.4% $114,157,870 39
New Hampshire $112,948,647 40 0.3% $99,682,997 40
Delaware $109,844,743 41 0.3% $97,750,161 41
Nevada $106,821,075 42 0.3% $86,929,536 43
Hawaii $97,386,406 43 0.3% $88,256,904 42
New Mexico $86,408,362 44 0.3% $73,877,785 45
District of Columbia $81,762,504 45 0.2% $66,129,208 47
Montana $79,771,831 46 0.2% $83,587,410 44
South Dakota $71,223,108 47 0.2% $62,382,937 48
Alaska $69,512,220 48 0.2% $70,708,412 46
North Dakota $56,960,417 49 0.2% $52,495,878 49
Wyoming $49,106,118 50 0.1% $39,094,579 50
Arizona $4,744,244 51 0.0% $3,725,371 51
*Rebates have not been subtracted from these figures.
4-6
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Total Medicaid
Net Medical Assistance Total Drug % of Total
State Expenditures Expenditures* Net Expenditures
National Total $259,895,896,495 $33,794,520,738 13.0%
Alabama $3,477,832,931 $536,222,703 15.4%
Alaska $563,428,717 $69,512,220 12.3%
Arizona $4,219,253,105 $4,744,244 0.1%
Arkansas $2,329,593,600 $310,709,182 13.3%
California $30,051,769,056 $4,219,504,969 14.0%
Colorado $2,552,159,860 $225,297,507 8.8%
Connecticut $3,506,583,946 $403,802,170 11.5%
Delaware $718,470,271 $109,844,743 15.3%
District of Columbia $1,076,136,978 $81,762,504 7.6%
Florida $10,946,214,986 $2,018,037,106 18.4%
Georgia $6,300,856,479 $1,073,715,230 17.0%
Hawaii $766,109,972 $97,386,406 12.7%
Idaho $809,931,820 $132,143,091 16.3%
Illinois $9,253,097,164 $1,469,190,682 15.9%
Indiana $4,282,435,701 $627,575,345 14.7%
Iowa $2,136,386,901 $331,222,324 15.5%
Kansas $1,764,536,608 $228,920,787 13.0%
Kentucky $3,697,230,708 $685,229,661 18.5%
Louisiana $4,423,174,011 $827,713,132 18.7%
Maine $1,747,306,187 $268,547,563 15.4%
Maryland $4,343,054,613 $429,589,193 9.9%
Massachusetts $7,680,882,159 $946,210,618 12.3%
Michigan $7,967,828,590 $758,266,989 9.5%
Minnesota $3,604,575,049 $276,731,202 7.7%
Mississippi $2,853,086,305 $568,007,104 19.9%
Missouri $5,541,604,705 $941,522,305 17.0%
Montana $511,474,712 $79,771,831 15.6%
Nebraska $1,325,133,485 $210,199,726 15.9%
Nevada $1,015,796,455 $106,821,075 10.5%
New Hampshire $916,422,038 $112,948,647 12.3%
New Jersey $7,858,368,246 $766,995,569 9.8%
New Mexico $2,006,492,205 $86,408,362 4.3%
New York $39,585,134,508 $4,218,811,815 10.7%
North Carolina $7,050,804,888 $1,291,263,155 18.3%
North Dakota $468,522,734 $56,960,417 12.2%
Ohio $10,177,517,569 $1,520,147,470 14.9%
Oklahoma $2,311,939,159 $301,294,000 13.0%
Oregon $2,678,357,318 $262,335,388 9.8%
Pennsylvania $12,772,008,268 $791,053,653 6.2%
Rhode Island $1,436,618,006 $140,686,626 9.8%
South Carolina $3,540,107,364 $558,129,364 15.8%
South Dakota $536,195,894 $71,223,108 13.3%
Tennessee $6,348,265,631 $1,280,129,986 20.2%
Texas $15,420,026,696 $1,920,865,985 12.5%
Utah $1,092,519,199 $163,217,885 14.9%
Vermont $705,028,688 $127,763,857 18.1%
Virginia $3,524,849,814 $506,414,352 14.4%
Washington $5,006,473,801 $592,437,155 11.8%
West Virginia $1,857,747,927 $345,831,214 18.6%
Wisconsin $4,799,267,070 $592,295,000 12.3%
Wyoming $337,284,398 $49,106,118 14.6%
*Rebates have not been subtracted from these figures.
4-7
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-8
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Hormones and
Central Nervous Cardiovascular Anti-Infective Gastrointestinal Synthetic
State System Drugs Drugs Agents Drugs Substitutes
National Total $12,363,631,847 $3,801,947,569 $3,524,213,631 $2,450,238,097 $3,122,393,794
Alabama $190,945,957 $66,659,877 $60,716,138 $27,223,794 $60,041,745
Alaska $40,923,331 $7,768,953 $8,847,721 $9,310,870 $7,442,275
Arizona* - - - - -
Arkansas $124,140,938 $31,785,881 $36,048,688 $15,032,482 $34,833,265
California $1,289,548,645 $559,177,157 $328,595,843 $332,606,715 $446,647,443
Colorado $103,640,073 $22,017,120 $18,531,371 $14,468,064 $20,563,418
Connecticut $175,996,061 $43,649,610 $33,252,384 $33,724,817 $28,069,637
Delaware $35,648,536 $9,932,451 $15,575,193 $6,274,352 $9,960,540
District of Columbia $22,639,645 $11,118,033 $20,050,510 $2,311,674 $5,808,770
Florida $693,597,564 $226,902,557 $327,894,156 $166,461,633 $169,619,538
Georgia $352,660,702 $106,114,919 $146,354,001 $46,097,696 $101,979,157
Hawaii $38,608,056 $16,570,061 $8,256,539 $4,368,883 $10,537,125
Idaho $60,904,208 $9,756,419 $10,628,384 $4,941,868 $12,181,215
Illinois $495,470,501 $216,632,381 $158,093,371 $120,206,662 $147,429,047
Indiana $285,453,451 $56,722,913 $50,052,280 $38,769,474 $61,546,793
Iowa $157,180,331 $29,475,299 $29,648,480 $20,589,271 $31,129,735
Kansas $108,704,011 $20,129,864 $17,339,561 $19,155,941 $20,852,659
Kentucky $259,250,343 $77,499,804 $65,552,414 $38,423,330 $71,239,832
Louisiana $243,290,866 $80,234,506 $109,817,991 $54,704,705 $72,578,920
Maine $117,977,151 $25,767,867 $18,778,785 $25,943,479 $26,564,709
Maryland $204,973,562 $52,518,379 $37,778,689 $30,695,978 $30,165,832
Massachusetts $426,324,589 $92,542,559 $91,559,817 $65,955,409 $76,059,993
Michigan $361,027,746 $76,602,148 $41,181,543 $46,655,710 $59,556,708
Minnesota $181,317,127 $22,612,381 $21,521,170 $26,666,517 $26,618,045
Mississippi $177,433,416 $84,476,651 $66,031,112 $32,146,980 $57,169,431
Missouri $405,814,288 $102,560,092 $85,327,587 $42,501,845 $91,382,260
Montana $40,552,154 $6,856,348 $5,988,940 $7,054,158 $7,814,615
Nebraska $90,518,087 $18,113,336 $17,825,594 $9,825,208 $19,259,675
Nevada $47,839,070 $11,322,593 $12,500,368 $4,793,034 $9,231,504
New Hampshire $55,511,397 $8,670,264 $6,145,697 $7,987,351 $9,272,731
New Jersey $282,889,997 $100,795,953 $86,862,944 $66,022,618 $59,052,329
New Mexico $33,805,242 $10,254,314 $7,189,377 $9,600,179 $11,525,477
New York $1,289,421,527 $466,736,184 $660,900,621 $298,153,780 $377,655,759
North Carolina $448,996,966 $150,623,341 $133,935,843 $137,251,191 $121,245,082
North Dakota $25,861,471 $4,787,469 $3,856,941 $3,635,205 $4,990,743
Ohio $652,799,378 $157,137,204 $135,588,872 $126,543,046 $143,667,021
Oklahoma $119,561,069 $30,104,381 $28,607,550 $17,356,536 $27,406,868
Oregon $141,970,988 $14,073,890 $12,508,942 $9,146,150 $15,944,333
Pennsylvania $307,075,831 $86,090,827 $51,191,071 $76,369,314 $66,108,211
Rhode Island $62,768,301 $18,136,380 $10,787,026 $12,448,121 $11,563,648
South Carolina $207,810,670 $89,756,227 $70,178,436 $28,189,939 $67,604,062
South Dakota $31,103,276 $5,211,572 $7,244,215 $6,629,496 $6,748,303
Tennessee $519,390,119 $161,820,197 $77,633,377 $114,371,425 $102,886,876
Texas $649,950,752 $197,853,618 $227,126,956 $119,278,242 $196,523,211
Utah $76,262,627 $10,588,695 $13,338,853 $12,287,375 $13,644,567
Vermont $12,190,259 $4,029,933 $2,955,483 $1,274,253 $3,432,229
Virginia $191,563,725 $64,498,544 $41,046,594 $55,067,690 $43,083,321
Washington $264,734,853 $57,092,141 $43,927,432 $50,205,897 $54,915,790
West Virginia $132,548,914 $41,425,874 $31,511,034 $22,586,370 $36,930,892
Wisconsin $106,988,776 $34,076,588 $23,531,062 $26,031,579 $27,907,393
Wyoming $18,045,300 $2,663,814 $4,396,675 $2,891,791 $4,001,062
* Data not reported for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
4-9
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Unclassified
Therapeutic Autonomic Blood Formation
State Agents Drugs and Coagulation Other Total
National Average $1,055,465,025 $1,444,434,327 $1,631,603,922 $4,342,078,576 $33,736,006,788
Alabama $16,933,831 $29,117,413 $24,798,577 $88,291,181 $564,728,513
Alaska $3,017,515 $4,143,870 $6,586,137 $10,045,292 $98,085,964
Arizona* - - - - -
Arkansas $11,391,635 $16,290,279 $20,346,625 $43,386,184 $333,255,977
California $124,486,965 $109,440,799 $277,059,101 $392,418,402 $3,859,981,070
Colorado $8,369,762 $12,209,376 $8,772,382 $28,741,953 $237,313,519
Connecticut $10,845,172 $15,529,027 $15,588,038 $42,629,307 $399,284,053
Delaware $3,080,673 $4,797,072 $4,129,047 $14,564,793 $103,962,657
District of Columbia $1,528,819 $1,881,191 $4,304,599 $11,053,831 $80,697,072
Florida $66,881,733 $92,245,297 $114,802,172 $273,547,974 $2,131,952,624
Georgia $32,931,912 $58,770,316 $47,089,914 $172,266,157 $1,064,264,774
Hawaii $4,528,069 $4,022,621 $6,637,325 $12,070,039 $105,598,718
Idaho $4,314,264 $5,635,849 $2,919,820 $13,229,104 $124,511,131
Illinois $47,769,159 $63,945,423 $85,924,830 $197,901,702 $1,533,373,076
Indiana $23,254,776 $31,028,392 $42,923,482 $102,732,283 $692,483,844
Iowa $9,787,979 $16,730,776 $9,418,099 $39,127,637 $343,087,607
Kansas $7,119,076 $12,062,663 $6,580,327 $28,274,280 $240,218,382
Kentucky $26,072,218 $45,278,547 $30,533,575 $94,528,334 $708,378,397
Louisiana $23,611,873 $38,485,281 $36,873,442 $139,158,070 $798,755,654
Maine $8,040,234 $12,176,814 $10,185,925 $25,153,673 $270,588,637
Maryland $10,075,261 $12,388,585 $21,864,657 $39,448,955 $439,909,898
Massachusetts $25,289,436 $32,901,099 $38,923,231 $105,231,780 $954,787,913
Michigan $24,190,573 $28,593,928 $37,571,523 $85,771,522 $761,151,401
Minnesota $10,553,097 $14,662,898 $13,349,968 $38,123,425 $355,424,628
Mississippi $16,796,656 $27,954,253 $26,440,052 $76,114,896 $564,563,447
Missouri $27,673,946 $51,284,406 $44,879,042 $128,694,744 $980,118,210
Montana $3,539,485 $4,642,139 $2,668,099 $10,979,885 $90,095,823
Nebraska $6,717,962 $9,742,260 $6,302,498 $26,583,522 $204,888,142
Nevada $3,571,056 $5,639,042 $6,116,918 $13,564,994 $114,578,579
New Hampshire $2,992,898 $5,631,726 $2,482,312 $12,988,214 $111,682,590
New Jersey $25,517,275 $33,348,479 $52,697,474 $104,790,316 $811,977,385
New Mexico $3,806,974 $4,222,012 $3,924,480 $13,564,380 $97,892,435
New York $141,742,052 $155,076,486 $197,337,654 $555,046,144 $4,142,070,207
North Carolina $42,606,450 $56,952,033 $60,109,134 $193,389,654 $1,345,109,694
North Dakota $1,697,267 $2,510,695 $1,645,740 $6,675,757 $55,661,288
Ohio $45,200,120 $85,106,203 $57,239,140 $213,194,584 $1,616,475,568
Oklahoma $11,119,046 $14,623,169 $14,922,093 $32,159,087 $295,859,799
Oregon $5,192,257 $8,586,132 $7,653,099 $16,824,128 $231,899,919
Pennsylvania $24,675,241 $44,691,804 $48,107,836 $101,012,127 $805,322,262
Rhode Island $3,880,507 $5,800,930 $4,609,417 $15,825,524 $145,819,854
South Carolina $19,236,343 $28,235,443 $24,643,479 $92,173,886 $627,828,485
South Dakota $2,361,480 $3,460,577 $2,942,659 $10,135,666 $75,837,244
Tennessee $32,266,211 $51,570,846 $37,631,333 $119,158,930 $1,216,729,314
Texas $68,447,771 $95,780,057 $88,073,590 $351,910,677 $1,994,944,874
Utah $4,199,480 $6,240,065 $2,186,777 $19,419,642 $158,168,081
Vermont $1,171,684 $1,460,581 $1,529,437 $4,942,610 $32,986,469
Virginia $15,844,703 $25,131,271 $27,136,311 $71,109,483 $534,481,642
Washington $18,662,019 $24,374,739 $20,421,210 $64,322,622 $598,656,703
West Virginia $11,707,954 $16,987,581 $9,383,374 $43,432,138 $346,514,131
Wisconsin $9,066,980 $10,992,631 $11,481,805 $40,318,584 $290,395,398
Wyoming $1,697,176 $2,051,251 $1,856,163 $6,050,504 $43,653,736
* Data not reported for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
4-10
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Hormones and
Central Nervous Cardiovascular Anti-Infective Gastrointestinal Synthetic
State System Drugs Drugs Agents Drugs Substitutes
National Average 171,087,805 80,839,088 48,001,985 34,302,085 55,890,837
Alabama 3,171,638 1,567,963 1,138,879 553,609 1,127,896
Alaska 548,257 203,519 122,476 103,357 149,034
Arizona* - - - - -
Arkansas 1,731,110 797,550 759,124 263,680 648,832
California 14,259,438 7,954,722 3,977,118 3,317,303 5,721,487
Colorado 1,583,124 593,377 413,553 244,334 520,571
Connecticut 2,072,006 915,787 259,671 362,472 545,336
Delaware 487,968 184,937 162,745 76,266 169,529
District of Columbia 268,419 225,749 84,515 33,064 98,035
Florida 9,307,006 5,172,090 2,831,244 1,902,380 3,047,416
Georgia 5,424,867 2,495,750 2,494,567 898,164 1,998,544
Hawaii 490,672 324,763 92,049 136,203 177,740
Idaho 763,814 214,445 196,731 82,277 238,825
Illinois 8,266,131 5,540,656 2,496,296 2,101,959 3,234,926
Indiana 4,206,893 1,419,140 992,144 932,118 1,112,689
Iowa 2,232,976 746,404 578,027 304,342 638,478
Kansas 1,429,685 544,022 345,553 244,418 448,490
Kentucky 4,209,055 1,901,993 1,308,853 1,002,805 1,352,565
Louisiana 3,653,912 1,731,401 1,710,847 586,044 1,301,839
Maine 1,909,114 708,202 356,938 323,601 580,394
Maryland 2,485,651 1,120,167 313,685 353,731 609,632
Massachusetts 5,852,176 2,326,321 1,039,851 891,682 1,614,601
Michigan 5,348,834 2,085,945 746,226 801,119 1,280,656
Minnesota 2,088,156 559,625 311,226 451,235 485,462
Mississippi 2,572,856 1,769,873 1,137,394 451,414 1,012,463
Missouri 5,202,372 2,282,561 1,195,140 814,529 1,643,419
Montana 563,101 171,791 129,643 96,744 172,580
Nebraska 1,289,900 447,252 390,739 310,048 385,045
Nevada 599,049 256,638 151,055 81,940 183,761
New Hampshire 783,744 217,582 131,413 158,724 181,359
New Jersey 3,444,576 1,981,577 628,802 714,276 1,021,018
New Mexico 595,916 281,797 134,825 143,222 286,371
New York 16,319,688 9,021,907 5,175,402 4,049,862 5,817,384
North Carolina 6,235,662 3,386,484 2,032,839 1,332,424 2,364,568
North Dakota 357,380 143,776 91,286 50,922 120,832
Ohio 9,926,750 3,864,726 2,349,075 2,407,992 2,899,276
Oklahoma 1,395,693 581,302 512,325 232,606 454,827
Oregon 2,004,987 453,103 222,004 224,644 397,877
Pennsylvania 4,198,755 2,036,284 837,861 948,649 1,335,172
Rhode Island 813,442 308,215 116,847 159,760 192,723
South Carolina 2,928,723 2,021,657 1,047,783 475,084 1,339,858
South Dakota 399,558 147,440 158,080 71,747 138,279
Tennessee 8,340,084 3,670,322 1,286,313 1,496,149 2,213,225
Texas 9,092,238 3,169,705 4,802,083 1,600,010 2,757,927
Utah 1,109,740 241,808 297,363 166,672 294,969
Vermont 166,600 74,664 41,811 22,874 57,384
Virginia 2,838,758 1,428,824 603,632 774,924 853,123
Washington 3,872,043 1,467,594 701,236 823,549 1,224,420
West Virginia 2,215,492 928,170 664,115 359,356 691,640
Wisconsin 1,788,091 1,087,096 333,075 329,368 675,631
Wyoming 241,705 62,412 97,526 38,433 72,729
*Data not reported for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
4-11
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Unclassified
Therapeutic Autonomic Blood Formation
State Agents Drugs and Coagulation Other Total
National Average 11,853,860 30,838,002 13,382,215 115,859,862 562,055,739
Alabama 212,576 658,280 265,307 2,704,930 11,401,078
Alaska 28,043 87,848 30,535 233,712 1,506,781
Arizona* - - - - -
Arkansas 121,607 322,711 129,844 1,262,522 6,036,980
California 1,119,181 2,220,821 1,370,538 9,121,332 49,061,940
Colorado 96,895 298,800 100,463 850,026 4,701,143
Connecticut 125,679 292,253 156,958 939,638 5,669,800
Delaware 33,085 107,860 26,206 328,206 1,576,802
District of Columbia 21,565 44,891 24,297 218,812 1,019,347
Florida 835,642 1,831,715 861,701 6,044,048 31,833,242
Georgia 392,437 1,305,010 428,075 4,639,338 20,076,752
Hawaii 63,617 82,552 45,988 330,097 1,743,681
Idaho 44,790 120,381 33,901 347,382 2,042,546
Illinois 656,985 1,573,171 928,489 6,946,150 31,744,763
Indiana 230,548 698,234 310,000 2,781,211 12,682,977
Iowa 114,630 354,809 140,862 1,107,657 6,218,185
Kansas 81,549 245,679 90,475 771,341 4,201,212
Kentucky 313,874 870,152 342,808 3,154,670 14,456,775
Louisiana 281,821 863,458 341,589 3,512,998 13,983,909
Maine 97,307 303,890 83,761 675,526 5,038,733
Maryland 130,618 299,880 189,155 1,013,935 6,516,454
Massachusetts 275,688 813,956 301,360 2,415,517 15,531,152
Michigan 275,857 652,859 409,452 2,342,925 13,943,873
Minnesota 90,260 280,272 95,056 941,083 5,302,375
Mississippi 208,689 476,308 285,945 2,158,653 10,073,595
Missouri 287,390 973,232 386,707 3,028,715 15,814,065
Montana 34,681 99,230 25,941 275,126 1,568,837
Nebraska 77,885 230,919 84,325 951,883 4,167,996
Nevada 39,978 123,670 40,868 325,257 1,802,216
New Hampshire 32,045 114,142 35,577 398,917 2,053,503
New Jersey 294,180 575,191 332,324 2,355,693 11,347,637
New Mexico 41,959 101,590 49,449 459,079 2,094,208
New York 1,610,186 3,409,929 1,192,203 13,543,607 60,140,168
North Carolina 524,687 1,193,010 454,082 4,694,793 22,218,549
North Dakota 22,156 52,161 25,011 206,338 1,069,862
Ohio 561,787 1,914,814 739,909 6,915,185 31,579,514
Oklahoma 96,291 266,844 81,798 746,371 4,368,057
Oregon 52,451 196,722 73,708 579,612 4,205,108
Pennsylvania 274,742 754,046 579,899 2,602,161 13,567,569
Rhode Island 49,480 120,909 51,961 387,406 2,200,743
South Carolina 225,238 569,221 268,378 2,314,061 11,190,003
South Dakota 27,068 70,636 29,357 270,255 1,312,420
Tennessee 396,317 1,173,744 503,537 3,793,613 22,873,304
Texas 617,164 2,146,746 626,793 10,040,023 34,852,689
Utah 45,455 158,015 42,323 539,754 2,896,099
Vermont 10,812 29,345 9,374 96,604 509,468
Virginia 205,807 486,953 245,099 2,043,981 9,481,101
Washington 189,025 608,244 213,822 1,954,869 11,054,802
West Virginia 143,269 377,868 125,592 1,222,582 6,728,084
Wisconsin 125,280 238,879 157,435 1,112,614 5,847,469
Wyoming 15,584 46,152 13,978 159,654 748,173
*Data not reported for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
4-12
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-13
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-14
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
In 1990, Congress considered a number of proposals designed to reduce and control Federal and State
expenditures for prescription drug products provided to Medicaid patients (S.2605, the
Pharmaceutical Access and Prudent Purchasing Act; S.3029, the Medicaid Anti-Discriminatory Drug
Act, sponsored by Senator David Pryor; and H.R.5589, the Medicaid Prescription Drug Fair Access
and Pricing Act, sponsored by Representatives Ron Wyden and Jim Cooper). A vigorous
Congressional debate ensued over which of these approaches to pursue. Several pharmaceutical
manufacturers voluntarily offered rebates to the States in exchange for open access for their products,
while the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association proposed a set rebate amount in exchange for
open formularies. Numerous public interest groups offered opinions on the proposals and in some
cases proposals of their own.
The Congressional debate ended in both the House and Senate offering somewhat similar proposals.
During the ensuing Conference between the House and Senate, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) argued for the inclusion of several proposals into the provisions in budget bill, the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA ’90). The resulting Public Law 101-508, enacted
November 5, 1990, required a drug manufacturer to enter into and have in effect a national rebate
agreement with the Secretary of DHHS for States to receive Federal funding for outpatient drugs
dispensed to Medicaid patients. (For a detailed account of the debate and genesis of various
provisions see Robert Betz’s analysis of the Medicaid Best Price Law and its effect on pharmaceutical
manufacturers’ pricing policies.∗)
The requirement for rebate agreements does not apply to the dispensing of a single-source or
innovator multiple-source drug if the State has determined that the drug is essential, rated 1-A by the
FDA, and prior authorization is obtained for the exception. Existing rebate agreements qualify under
the law if the State agrees to report all rebates to DHHS and the agreement provides for a minimum
aggregate rebate of 10% of the State’s expenditures for the manufacturer’s products.
OBRA ‘90 was amended by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 which also required a drug
manufacturer to enter into discount pricing agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs and
with covered entities funded by the Public Health Service in order to have its drugs covered by
Medicaid. The Medicaid rebate law, as amended, is included as Appendix C.
The drug rebate program is administered by CMS’ Center for Medicaid and State Operations
(CMSO). Currently, the rebate for covered outpatient drugs is as follows:
• For all innovator products, reimbursement requires: (1) a rebate that is the greater of 15.1
percent of the average manufacturer’s price (AMP) or the difference between the AMP and
the manufacturer’s “best price,” and (2) an additional rebate for any price increase for a
product that exceeds the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for all items since the
fall of 1990. AMP is the average price paid by wholesalers for products distributed to the
retail class of trade. The best price is the lowest price offered to any other customer,
excluding Federal Supply Schedule prices, prices to State pharmaceutical assistance
programs, and prices that are nominal in amount, and includes all discounts and rebates.
• For generic drugs (non-innovator drugs), reimbursement requires: a rebate of 11 percent of
each product’s AMP.
∗
Robert Betz, “The Medicaid Best Price Law and Its Effect on Pharmaceutical Manufacturer’s Pricing Policies and Behavior for
Name Brand, Outpatient Pharmaceutical Products,” unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, The George Washington University, May 21,
2000.
4-15
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-16
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Allocation of
State Drug Rebate Monies1 Total Rebates2 Federal Share2
National Total $7,008,382,303 $4,145,168,732
Alabama Medicaid Drug Budget $102,784,110 $74,244,635
Alaska General Fund $15,060,446 $8,946,379
Arizona* - - -
Arkansas Medicaid Drug Budget $58,097,761 $44,058,096
California Medicaid Drug Budget $1,207,800,866 $635,884,565
Colorado Medicaid General $32,446,928 $16,743,775
Connecticut General Fund $81,550,711 $42,156,720
Delaware Medicaid General $28,352,506 $14,871,627
District of Columbia Medicaid Drug Budget $15,120,780 $10,813,162
Florida Medicaid Drug Budget $464,880,949 $281,544,767
Georgia General Fund $219,238,104 $133,880,256
Hawaii General Fund $19,212,047 $11,571,434
Idaho General Fund $31,430,642 $22,834,044
Illinois Drug Rebate Fund $292,630,625 $150,740,652
Indiana General Fund $131,850,261 $83,862,599
Iowa Medicaid Drug Budget $62,173,583 $40,568,073
Kansas General Fund $59,849,370 $36,912,589
Kentucky General Fund $124,919,867 $89,772,191
Louisiana Medicaid Drug Budget $165,904,174 $121,064,068
Maine Medicaid Drug Budget $68,331,107 $46,664,469
Maryland Medicaid General $77,934,401 $40,509,917
Massachusetts Medicaid General $208,146,240 $108,049,289
Michigan General Fund $179,774,542 $103,731,878
Minnesota Medicaid General $54,081,115 $27,643,562
Mississippi Medicaid General $114,233,479 $89,163,417
Missouri Medicaid Drug Budget $178,620,625 $112,813,582
Montana General Fund $17,172,113 $12,822,675
Nebraska Medicaid Drug Budget $42,766,762 $26,291,497
Nevada General Fund $21,078,909 $11,402,018
New Hampshire General Fund $27,628,562 $14,223,879
New Jersey Medicaid Drug Budget $149,040,244 $76,924,905
New Mexico General Fund $19,585,223 $14,894,385
New York General Fund $598,407,083 $305,702,916
North Carolina Medicaid General $260,487,290 $168,077,481
North Dakota Medicaid Drug Budget $11,369,358 $8,067,828
Ohio Medicaid General $325,329,459 $196,899,815
Oklahoma Medicaid General $59,205,487 $42,776,373
Oregon General Fund $65,706,778 $40,630,979
Pennsylvania Outpatient Appropriation $149,563,463 $84,158,389
Rhode Island General Fund $30,477,726 $17,361,117
South Carolina Medicaid Drug Budget $119,101,600 $85,684,428
South Dakota Medicaid Drug Budget $14,808,661 $10,010,329
Tennessee Medicaid General $224,072,761 $148,367,141
Texas Medicaid Drug Budget $392,292,711 $242,560,725
Utah General Fund $25,931,043 $19,597,473
Vermont Health Access Trust Fund $28,595,852 $18,448,953
Virginia Medicaid General $112,854,618 $59,506,765
Washington General Fund $123,683,508 $64,563,377
West Virginia Medicaid General $69,568,029 $53,266,225
Wisconsin Medicaid General $118,267,026 $69,458,066
Wyoming Medicaid Drug Budget $6,962,798 $4,425,247
*Does not apply for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
Sources: 1As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
2
CMS, CMS-64 Report, FY 2003, includes reported state supplemental rebates for CA, FL, IL, LA, MI, VT, and WV.
4-17
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Does not apply for Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
**Includes reported State supplemental rebates.
Source: CMS, HCFA-64 Report, FY 1999-FY 2003.
4-18
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-19
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Rebates as % Drug
State Drug Expenditures Rebates** Expenditure
National Total $33,794,520,738 $7,008,382,303 20.7%
Alabama $536,222,703 $102,784,110 19.2%
Alaska $69,512,220 $15,060,446 21.7%
Arizona* $4,744,244 - -
Arkansas $310,709,182 $58,097,761 18.7%
California $4,219,504,969 $1,207,800,866 28.6%
Colorado $225,297,507 $32,446,928 14.4%
Connecticut $403,802,170 $81,550,711 20.2%
Delaware $109,844,743 $28,352,506 25.8%
District of Columbia $81,762,504 $15,120,780 18.5%
Florida $2,018,037,106 $464,880,949 23.0%
Georgia $1,073,715,230 $219,238,104 20.4%
Hawaii $97,386,406 $19,212,047 19.7%
Idaho $132,143,091 $31,430,642 23.8%
Illinois $1,469,190,682 $292,630,625 19.9%
Indiana $627,575,345 $131,850,261 21.0%
Iowa $331,222,324 $62,173,583 18.8%
Kansas $228,920,787 $59,849,370 26.1%
Kentucky $685,229,661 $124,919,867 18.2%
Louisiana $827,713,132 $165,904,174 20.0%
Maine $268,547,563 $68,331,107 25.4%
Maryland $429,589,193 $77,934,401 18.1%
Massachusetts $946,210,618 $208,146,240 22.0%
Michigan $758,266,989 $179,774,542 23.7%
Minnesota $276,731,202 $54,081,115 19.5%
Mississippi $568,007,104 $114,233,479 20.1%
Missouri $941,522,305 $178,620,625 19.0%
Montana $79,771,831 $17,172,113 21.5%
Nebraska $210,199,726 $42,766,762 20.3%
Nevada $106,821,075 $21,078,909 19.7%
New Hampshire $112,948,647 $27,628,562 24.5%
New Jersey $766,995,569 $149,040,244 19.4%
New Mexico $86,408,362 $19,585,223 22.7%
New York $4,218,811,815 $598,407,083 14.2%
North Carolina $1,291,263,155 $260,487,290 20.2%
North Dakota $56,960,417 $11,369,358 20.0%
Ohio $1,520,147,470 $325,329,459 21.4%
Oklahoma $301,294,000 $59,205,487 19.7%
Oregon $262,335,388 $65,706,778 25.0%
Pennsylvania $791,053,653 $149,563,463 18.9%
Rhode Island $140,686,626 $30,477,726 21.7%
South Carolina $558,129,364 $119,101,600 21.3%
South Dakota $71,223,108 $14,808,661 20.8%
Tennessee $1,280,129,986 $224,072,761 17.5%
Texas $1,920,865,985 $392,292,711 20.4%
Utah $163,217,885 $25,931,043 15.9%
Vermont $127,763,857 $28,595,852 22.4%
Virginia $506,414,352 $112,854,618 22.3%
Washington $592,437,155 $123,683,508 20.9%
West Virginia $345,831,214 $69,568,029 20.1%
Wisconsin $592,295,000 $118,267,026 20.0%
Wyoming $49,106,118 $6,962,798 14.2%
*Does not apply to Arizona. Arizona has a 1115 waiver for which special rules apply.
**Includes reported State supplemental rebates.
Source: CMS, CMS-64 Report, FY 2003.
4-20
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
In general, all prescription products sold by a manufacturer that has signed a drug rebate agreement
are covered outpatient drugs reimbursable by Medicaid. A State Medicaid program may require prior
approval before dispensing of any drug product and may design and implement a formulary intended
to limit coverage for specific drugs. Drug formularies and prior authorization programs must meet
specific requirements established in Medicaid law.
A State Medicaid program can restrict coverage for a drug product through a formulary, if based on
official labeling or information in designated official medical compendia, “the excluded drug does not
have a significant, clinically meaningful therapeutic advantage in terms of safety, effectiveness or
clinical outcome of such treatment” over other drug products, and there is a written explanation
(available to the public) of the basis for the exclusion. However, drug products excluded from the
formulary under these conditions, nevertheless, must be available through prior authorization.
Drugs in certain specific classes may be restricted or excluded from coverage without regard to the
formulary conditions and need not be available through prior authorization. These classes include:
• Drugs used for anorexia, weight gain, fertility, hair growth, cosmetic effect, symptomatic
relief of cough or colds, or for cessation of smoking.
• Vitamins and minerals (except prenatal prescription vitamins and fluoride preparations) or
non-prescription drugs.
• Drugs that require tests or monitoring services to be purchased exclusively from the
manufacturer or his designee.
• Barbiturates or benzodiazepines.
PRIOR AUTHORIZATION
Whether or not a drug product is on a formulary, States may require physicians to request and receive
official permission before a particular product can be dispensed. This procedure is called Prior
Authorization or Prior Approval.
States may not operate prior authorization plans unless the State provides for a response within 24
hours of a request and provides for a 72-hour emergency supply of the medication.
The Congressional intent for the prior authorization provision was not to encourage the use of such
programs, but rather to make them available to the States for the purpose of controlling utilization of
products that have very narrow indications or high abuse potential.
The majority of States report the establishment of prior authorization programs and have plans to
apply prior authorization to a select number of drugs. Some States will do so only after their Drug
Utilization Review (DUR) program has identified areas of therapeutic concern.
DUR Program. Each State must establish a Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Program in order to
assure that prescriptions are appropriate, medically necessary, and not likely to result in adverse
medical results. A DUR Program consists of prospective and retrospective components as well as
components to educate physicians and pharmacists on common drug therapy problems.
4-21
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Specifically, the program educates physicians and pharmacists how to identify and reduce fraud,
abuse, gross overuse, or inappropriate or medically unnecessary care; potential and actual severe
adverse reactions to drugs, including education on therapeutic appropriateness, overutilization and
underutilization, appropriate use of generic products, therapeutic duplication, drug-disease
contraindications, drug-drug interactions, incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment, drug-
allergy interactions, and clinical abuse or misuse.
The two primary objectives of DUR systems are (1) to improve quality of care; and (2) to assist in
containing health care costs. While there is a general belief that DUR is cost beneficial, it is difficult
to isolate concrete evidence that supports this view. The primary issue facing Medicaid DUR
programs is whether or not the systems currently in place (or envisioned) meet the two objectives
outlined above.
Prospective DUR. Prospective DUR is to be conducted at the point of sale (POS) before delivery of a
medication by the pharmacist to the Medicaid recipient or caregiver. The State is to establish
standards for counseling patients and will require the pharmacist to offer to discuss matters, which, in
the exercise of the pharmacist’s professional judgment are deemed significant, including the
following:
• Name, address, telephone number, date of birth (or age) and gender;
• Individual history where significant, including a disease state or states, known allergies and
drug reactions, and a comprehensive list of medications and relevant devices; and
• Pharmacist comments relevant to the individual’s pharmaceutical therapy.
Retrospective DUR. This activity continuously assesses data on drug use against established
standards, preferably using automated claims processing and information retrieval techniques to
monitor for therapeutic appropriateness, overutilization and underutilization, appropriate use of
generic products, therapeutic duplication, drug-disease contraindications, drug-drug interactions,
incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment, clinical abuse/misuse and, as necessary,
introduce remedial strategies in order to improve the quality of care and to conserve program funds or
personal expenditures. This activity is also intended to identify patterns of fraud, abuse, gross
overuse, or inappropriate of medically unnecessary care among physicians, pharmacists, and
recipients, or with respect to specific drugs or groups of drugs.
State Drug Use Review Board. Each State must provide for the establishment of a DUR board of
health practitioners (one-third to one-half physicians and at least one-third pharmacists) to help
implement the DUR program. Each State must require its DUR board to make annual reports to
DHHS on its activities and on cost savings resulting from the DUR program.
4-22
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-23
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
PA = Prior Authorization, DME = Durable Medical Equipment
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-24
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
PA = Prior Authorization, DME = Durable Medical Equipment
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-25
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
PA= Prior Authorization, DME = Durable Medical Equipment
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-26
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Coverage of Injectables
Reimbursement for Non Self-Administered Medicines via
the Prescription Drug Program (PDP) or Physician Payment (PP)
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-27
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
^ Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT), Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Vaccines for
Children Program (VCP), or other.
LTC = Long Term Care
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-28
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-29
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
PA= Prior Authorization
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-30
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-31
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-32
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-33
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Prior Authorization
Analgesics,
State Anabolic Steroids Antipyretics, NSAIDs Anorectics
Alabama Covered Covered Covered
Alaska Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Arizona* - - -
Arkansas Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
California Partial Coverage, PA Required Partial Coverage, PA Required Partial Coverage, PA Required
Colorado Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Connecticut Covered Covered Not Covered
Delaware Covered Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
District of Columbia Not Covered Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
Florida Covered Covered, PA Required Covered
Georgia Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not covered
Hawaii Covered, PA Required Covered Covered, PA Required
Idaho Partial Coverage, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Illinois Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Indiana** N/A N/A N/A
Iowa Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Kansas Covered Covered Partial Coverage, PA Required
Kentucky Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
Louisiana Covered Covered, PA Required Partial Coverage
Maine Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
Maryland*** Covered Covered Not Covered
Massachusetts Covered Partial Coverage, PA Required Not Covered
Michigan Partial Coverage, PA Required Covered Not Covered
Minnesota Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Mississippi Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Missouri Partial Coverage Covered Not Covered
Montana Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Nebraska Not Covered Partial Coverage, PA Required Not Covered
Nevada Partial Coverage Covered Not Covered
New Hampshire Covered Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
New Jersey Covered Covered Partial Coverage
New Mexico Covered Covered Covered, PA Required
New York Covered Covered Not Covered
North Carolina Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
North Dakota Covered Covered Partial Coverage, PA Required
Ohio Covered, PA Required Covered Not Covered
Oklahoma Not Covered Covered, PA Required Partial Coverage, PA Required
Oregon Covered, PA Required Covered Covered, PA Required
Pennsylvania Covered Covered Not Covered
Rhode Island Covered Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
South Carolina Covered Covered Not Covered
South Dakota Covered Covered Covered
Tennessee* Covered Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Texas Covered Covered Covered, PA Required
Utah Covered Covered, PA Required Covered
Vermont Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not Covered
Virginia Covered Covered Partial coverage, PA Required
Washington Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required Not Covered
West Virginia Covered Covered Not Covered
Wisconsin Covered Covered, PA Required Covered, PA Required
Wyoming Not Covered Covered, Some require PA Not Covered
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
** All coverage in accordance with OBRA'90 and OBRA'93.
***PA required for all drugs not on the preferred drug list.
PA = Prior Authorization
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-34
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-35
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-36
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Prescribing/Dispensing Limits
Limits on
State Rx Limits on Number, Quantity, and Refills of Prescriptions
Alabama Yes 5 refills per Rx, 34 day supply per Rx, 4 brand limit per month
Alaska Yes 30 day supply per Rx, maximum number units for 50 classes and 40 narcotics
Arizona* - -
Arkansas Yes 31 day supply per Rx; 3 Rx per month (extension to 6); 5 refills per Rx within 6 months
California Yes 6 Rx per month, maximum 100 day supply for most medications
Colorado Yes 30 day quantity supply per Rx; reasonable amts. for maint. meds. Other limits may apply
Connecticut Yes 240 units or 30 day supply, 5 refills per RX except 12 month limit on oral contraceptives
Delaware Yes 34 day supply or 100 unit doses per Rx (whichever is greater)
District of Columbia Yes 30 day supply per Rx, 3 refills per Rx within 4 mths. Max/min quantities for certain meds
Florida Yes 4 brand name Rxs per month (with exceptions)
Georgia Yes 34 day supply per Rx; 5 (adult)/6 (child) Rx per month; Per Rx limit: $2999.99 (potential override)
Hawaii Yes 30 day supply or 100 unit doses per Rx, maximum quantities for some drugs
Idaho Yes 34 day supply per Rx (with exceptions); 3 cycles of birth control; limits on refills/early refills
Illinois Yes Medically appropriate monthly quantity
Indiana No -
Iowa Yes Maximum 30 day supply except select maintenance drugs (90 days)
Kansas Yes 31 day supply per Rx, 5 Rx per month, other limitations specific to certain medications
Kentucky Yes 30 day supply, max. 5 refills in 6 months; one dispensing fee per month for maintenance medication
Louisiana Yes 30 day supply or 100 unit doses (whichever is greater); 5 refills per Rx within 6 mos., max. 8 scripts per
recipient per month
Maine Yes 34 day supply (brand), 90 day supply (generic); Maximum 11 refills per prescription, 5 brand scripts
per month
Maryland Yes 34 day supply per Rx; maximum 11 refills per Rx, refills may not exceed 360 day supply
Massachusetts Yes 30 day supply, maximum 11 refills per prescription
Michigan Yes 100 day supply, quantity limits for selected drugs (e.g., sedative hypnotics)
Minnesota Yes 34 day supply
Mississippi Yes 34 day supply or 100 unit doses (whichever is greater); 5 Rx per month; 11 refills maximum
Missouri No -
Montana Yes 34 day supply
Nebraska Yes 90 day/100 unit doses, 5 refills per Rx 6 mos. for controlled substances, 31 days for injectibles
Nevada Yes 34 day supply per Rx; 100 day supply for maintenance medications. 5 refills within 6 months.
New Hampshire Yes 30 day supply, 90 day supply on maintenance medications
New Jersey Yes 34 day supply or 100 unit doses per Rx, 5 refills within 6 months
New Mexico No 34 day supply, except contraceptives (100 days) and maintenance drugs (90 days)
New York Yes 5 refills per Rx; annual limit on number of Rx and OTC drugs avail. (potential override)
North Carolina Yes 34 day supply per Rx, with exceptions; 6 Rx per month
North Dakota Yes 34 day supply per Rx, max 5 refills per script, limits on refills by Class
Ohio Yes 34 day supply; 102 day supply for maintenance medications; 5 refills per Rx
Oklahoma Yes 6 Rx (incl. 5 brands) per month (21+; under 21 unlimited), 34 day supply or 100 unit doses per Rx
Oregon Yes 34 day supply (15 day supply for initial Rx for chronic conditions), duration limits on selected drugs
Pennsylvania Yes 34 day supply or 100 unit doses per Rx (whichever is greater); 5 refills within 6 mos., 6 Rx per month
Rhode Island Yes 30 day supply per Rx (non-maintenance); 5 refills per Rx
South Carolina Yes 34 day supply w/ unlimited Rx (children); 4 Rx per month (adult), (potential override)
South Dakota Yes Varies by drug
Tennessee* Yes 31 day supply, 1 year for non-controlled medications
Texas Yes 3 Rx per month (unlimited Rxs for nursing home recipients or those < 21), max 5 refills or 6 months
Utah Yes 31 day supply per Rx, max 5 refills, cumulative limit on specific drugs
Vermont Yes 60 day supply for maintenance medications, 5 refills per Rx
Virginia Yes 34 day supply per Rx
Washington Yes 34 day supply per Rx; usually 2 refills per month; 4 refills for antibiotics or scheduled drugs
West Virginia Yes 34 day supply; 11 refills per Rx with quantity limits on some drugs
Wisconsin Yes 34 day supply per Rx with exceptions, maximum 11 refills during 12-month period
Wyoming Yes Quantity limits on some medications as deemed clinically appropriate.
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-38
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Medicaid Payment for Outpatient Prescription Drugs. Federal Medicaid regulations prescribe the
principles that apply to State Medicaid programs when they pay a pharmacy for outpatient drugs.
These regulations don’t just indicate the FFP cannot be based on amounts that exceed drug costs as
determined under the federal formula; they indicate the actual method for paying for prescription
drugs.
Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). If the recipient is enrolled in a Medicaid managed
care organization, payment is made to the MCO in accordance with its contract with the State
Medicaid agency to the extent the contract covers outpatient prescribed drugs.
Medicaid Payment to Pharmacies. Each State’s Medicaid State Plan must comprehensively describe
its payment for prescription drugs. Its aggregate Medicaid expenditures for “multiple-source drugs”
must not exceed the Federal Upper Limits published by CMS (see Appendix D) and its payment level
for other drugs must not exceed, in the aggregate, the lower of (1) EAC plus a reasonable dispensing
fee, or (2) providers’ charges to the general public.
States are permitted to require certain recipients to share some of the costs of Medicaid by imposing
on them such payments as enrollment fees, premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or
similar cost-sharing charges (42 CFR 447.50). For States that impose cost-sharing payments, the
regulations specify the standards and conditions under which States may impose cost-sharing, set
forth minimum amounts and the methods for determining maximum amounts, and describe
limitations on availability that relate to cost-sharing requirements.
With the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, States were empowered to impose
“nominal” cost-sharing requirements on optional Medicaid services for cash assistance recipients, and
on any services for the medically needy. Section 131 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
(TEFRA) of 1982 introduced major changes to Medicaid cost-sharing requirements. Under this act,
States may impose a nominal deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or similar charge on both
categorically needy and medically needy persons for any service offered under the State Plan. Public
Law 97-248, TEFRA, has been in effect since October 1982; it prohibits imposition of cost-sharing
on the following:
While emergency services are excluded from cost sharing, States may apply for waivers of nominal
amounts for non-emergency services furnished in hospital emergency rooms. Such a waiver allows
States to impose a copayment amount up to twice the current maximum for such services. Approval
4-39
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
of a waiver request by CMS is based partly on the State’s assurance that recipients will have access to
alternative sources of care.
4-40
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-41
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Federal State-Specific
State Upper Limits Upper Limits MAC Override Provisions
Alabama Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
Alaska Yes No Medically necessary and reason for medical necessity
Arizona* - - -
Arkansas Yes Yes Brand medically necessary MedWatch indicating why generics cannot
be dispensed
California Yes Yes Medically necessary and product unavailable at MAC rate
Colorado Yes Yes Medically necessary with documentation
Connecticut Yes Yes No physician MAC override
Delaware Yes Yes MedWatch form for prior authorization
District of Columbia No No -
Florida Yes Yes MedWatch form and prior authorization request
Georgia Yes Yes Prior authorization (Brand medically necessary and MedWatch form)
Hawaii Yes Yes Prior authorization
Idaho Yes Yes Prior authorization for brand names
Illinois Yes Yes Prior authorization request by M.D. justifying need for brand
Indiana Yes Yes Brand medically necessary, prior authorization
Iowa Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
Kansas Yes Yes Prior authorization and MedWatch form
Kentucky Yes Yes Brand necessary, brand medically necessary, plus PA on some drugs
Louisiana Yes Yes Brand necessary, brand medically necessary
Maine Yes Yes Prior authorization
Maryland Yes Yes Brand medically necessary and MedWatch form
Massachusetts Yes Yes Dispense as written, brand medically necessary, prior authorization
Michigan Yes Yes Brand medically necessary and prior authorization
Minnesota Yes Yes Dispense as written, brand medically necessary, plus prior authorization
Mississippi Yes No Brand medically necessary or prior authorization for brand multi-source
Missouri Yes Yes Brand medically necessary, prior authorization and MedWatch form
Montana Yes No Brand necessary or brand required
Nebraska Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
Nevada No Yes Brand medically necessary
New Hampshire Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
New Jersey Yes No Dispense as written, medically necessary
New Mexico Yes Yes Brand necessary, brand medically necessary
New York Yes No Prior authorization
North Carolina Yes Yes Brand medically necessary in writing on prescription
North Dakota Yes Yes Dispense as written
Ohio Yes Yes Prior authorization
Oklahoma Yes Yes Brand medically necessary plus prior authorization
Oregon Yes Yes Brand medically necessary and documentation of generic intolerance
Pennsylvania Yes Yes Brand necessary, brand medically necessary, plus prior authorization
Rhode Island No No -
South Carolina Yes Yes Brand medically necessary w/cert. by prescriber and prior authorization
South Dakota Yes Yes Brand necessary, brand medically necessary
Tennessee* Yes Yes Dispense as written
Texas Yes Yes Dispense as written, medically necessary, brand necessary, brand
medically necessary
Utah Yes Yes Brand medically necessary plus prior approval
Vermont Yes Yes Dispense as written, medically necessary, brand necessary, brand
medically necessary or DAW 8 (generic not available)
Virginia Yes Yes Medically necessary
Washington Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
West Virginia Yes No Dispense as written, brand medically necessary
Wisconsin No Yes Brand medically necessary plus prior authorization
Wyoming Yes Yes Brand medically necessary
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-42
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Mandatory Substitution
*Within Federal and State guidelines, individual managed care and pharmacy benefit management organizations make
formulary/drug decisions.
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-43
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Medicaid Payment
State Patient Counseling Required1 for Cognitive Services2
Alabama All No
Alaska All No
Arizona All -
Arkansas All No
California All No
Colorado Medicaid Only No
Connecticut Medicaid Only No
Delaware All No
District of Columbia Medicaid Only, New Prescriptions No
Florida All No
Georgia All No
Hawaii Medicaid Only No
Idaho All No
Illinois All No
Indiana All No
Iowa All Yes (pharm. Case management)
Kansas All No
Kentucky All No
Louisiana All No
Maine All No
Maryland Medicaid Only, New Prescriptions No
Massachusetts All No
Michigan All No
Minnesota All No
Mississippi All Yes (diabetes, asthma, coagulation, and lipids)
Missouri All Yes (diabetes, asthma, heart failure, and depression
education)
Montana All No
Nebraska All No
Nevada All No
New Hampshire All No
New Jersey All No
New Mexico All No
New York All No
North Carolina All No
North Dakota All No
Ohio All No
Oklahoma All No
Oregon All No
Pennsylvania All No
Rhode Island All No
South Carolina Medicaid Only No
South Dakota All No
Tennessee All No
Texas All No
Utah All No
Vermont All No
Virginia All No
Washington All Yes (emergency contraceptive counseling, clozaril
case management)
West Virginia All No
Wisconsin All Yes
Wyoming All No
Source: 12003-2004 National Association of Boards of Pharmacy Law, Survey of Pharmacy Law; 2 As reported by State drug
program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-44
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Source: As reported by State drug program administrators in the 2004 NPC Survey.
4-45
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
4-46
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Section 5:
State Pharmacy Program
Profiles
5-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2003
5-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2003
5-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2003
5-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
ALABAMA
Alabama-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alabama Medicaid Agency. Formulary: Open formulary with preferred drug list.
Formulary managed through restrictions on use, prior
D. PROVISIONS RELATING TO DRUGS authorization, therapeutic substitution, preferred
products, physician profiling, and voluntary
Benefit Design supplemental rebates. Prior authorization required for
non-preferred drugs. Anti-psychotics and HIV/AIDs
Drug Benefit Product Coverage: Products covered: drugs are exempted from the prior authorization
disposable needles and syringe combinations used for requirements. (For additional information see:
insulin. Products covered with restriction: prescribed www.medicaid.state.al.us.)
insulin. Products covered as DME: blood glucose test
strips; urine ketone test strips. Prior authorization Prior Authorization: State currently has a formal
required for: total parenteral nutrition; interdialytic prior authorization procedure. Prior authorization
parenteral nutrition; Retin A; Accutane; decisions may be appealed by physician submitting
Dipyridamole; and Synagis. Products not covered: written notice along with medical documentation to
cosmetics; fertility drugs; experimental drugs; drugs the administrative services contractor for physician
for anorexia or weight gain; hair growth products; review. The request is forwarded to the Medicaid
and DESI drugs. agency’s Medical Director for review.
Alabama-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alabama-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alabama-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alabama-5
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alabama-6
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
ALASKA
Prescribed Drugs
Inpatient Hospital Care
Outpatient Hospital Care
Laboratory & X-ray Service
Nursing Facility Services
Physician Services
Dental Services
*Total Expenditures/Recipients includes foster care children, 1115 demonstration participants, other recipients, and unknown.
Source: CMS, MSIS Report, FY 2002 and Alaska Medicaid Management Information System, FY 2003.
Note: Alaska estimates 2004 drug expenditures of approximately $113.5 million and the number of Medicaid drug recipients to be
75,000.
Alaska-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alaska-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Alaska-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
David Gilbreath
Soldotna,AK
Alaska-4
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
ARIZONA
ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
(AHCCCS - PRONOUNCED "ACCESS")
• Capitation of the State by the Federal
AHCCCS FEATURES Government.
The Arizona Health Care Cost-Containment System Primary Care Physicians as Gatekeepers
(AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid program, is a Title
XIX (Medicaid) 1115 Research and Demonstration AHCCCS legislation provided that all members must
Waiver project, jointly funded by the federal be under the care and supervision of a primary care
government and the State of Arizona. Begun in physician who assumed the role of gatekeeper. A
October 1982, it serves as a model for providing statewide network of primary care physicians was
medical services to the indigent in a managed care established to perform the gatekeeping function for
system rather than through fee-for-service the system.
arrangements. Typically, Medicaid programs have
incorporated the traditional hallmarks of the U.S. Prepaid Capitated Financing
health care system: namely, independent providers
and fee-for-service reimbursement. In contrast, It was the intent of the AHCCCS legislation that
organized health plans and capitation mark the health plans and their providers offer all covered
AHCCCS model. services to groups of members within a geographical
area for a fixed price, for a definite period. The law
In traditional Medicaid programs, the States assume allowed for the establishment of a statewide bidding
responsibility for contracting with individual process to accomplish this. Services are provided on
pharmacies and reimbursing them. In the AHCCCS a county-by-county basis, by prepaid health plans.
model however, the State contracts, instead, with pre- Providers may bid on a prepaid capitated basis for
paid health plans, HMOs and HMO-like entities. covered services to be provided within a particular
These plans are paid on a capitation basis and are county. The law allows for expansion and
responsible for providing all of the services covered contraction of bids to achieve the best possible
by the program. Thus, with the exception of system. In the event there are insufficient bids for a
behavioral health drugs which are carved out of given area, the legislation permits capped fee-for-
managed care, the delivery of pharmacy services is service arrangements. It is intended, however, that
the responsibility of each prepaid plan. capped fee-for-service will be authorized as a last
resort only.
GENERAL INFORMATION
In essence, AHCCCS prepaid health plans (PHPs),
The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and other
(AHCCCS), developed in Senate Bill 1001, was types of organized health delivery systems charge a
passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor fixed fee per individual enrolled (i.e., a capitation
in November 1981. It contained six major rate) and assume responsibility for providing a broad
mechanisms for restraining health care costs at the array of health care services to members. The plan or
same time ensuring that appropriate levels of quality contractor is then “at risk” to deliver the necessary
health care services are provided to eligible persons services within the capitated amount. AHCCCS
in a dignified fashion. The goal of these 6 items was receives Federal, State, and county funds to operate,
to contribute to the establishment of health care plus some monies from Arizona’s tobacco tax.
financing that is less expensive than conventional
fee-for-service systems. The six mechanisms were: Competitive Bidding Process
• Primary Care Physicians Acting as
The statewide competitive aspect of the bid process
Gatekeepers
for selecting providers and offering prepaid capitated
• Prepaid Capitated Financing services is the most unique feature of the AHCCCS
• Competitive Bidding Process model. A competition of this magnitude had never
• Cost Sharing been attempted in any other State. The AHCCCS
• Limitations on Freedom-of-Choice administration believes competitive bidding for
health care service contracts, as opposed to
Arizona-1
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
conventional negotiation processes, provides for the State to monitor health care costs on a careful
accessible cost-effective delivery of health care and continuous basis.
without sacrificing quality performance.
IMPLEMENTATION OF AHCCCS
The AHCCCS administration issues an invitation to
qualified health plans once every five years. AHCCCS is based on plans that have been tested, in
Qualified health plans may bid to offer the full range part, on smaller scales in different areas of the
of AHCCCS services in one or more counties. country. By combining a number of key mechanisms
on a statewide basis, AHCCCS represents a novel
Cost Sharing health care model. The purpose of this section is to
present a discussion of how the key concepts
The fourth major device for containing costs in the embodied in the AHCCCS legislation will be
AHCCCS model is a provision for cost sharing by implemented and rendered operational.
users. A statewide copayment schedule was
developed for this purpose, and the medically needy Provider Participation
participate in coinsurance cost sharing. It is expected
that the imposition of nominal copayments will Providers may participate in AHCCCS in 2 different
ensure optimal effectiveness in the area of service ways. First, they may contract with prepaid capitated
utilization. The copayment schedule accomplishes plans as either full or partial benefit providers.
three objectives: curtailment of over-utilization;
enhancement of patient dignity; and service The second mode of participation is on a capped fee-
utilization by members for truly needed health care. for-service basis. Here, providers agree to accept
There is no copayment for drugs and medication, capped fee payments as payments in full for services
prenatal care including all obstetrical visits, members provided on a FFS basis.
in long care facilities and for visits scheduled by the
primary care physician or practitioner, and not at the Functions of the AHCCCS Administration
request of the member.
The Arizona Health Care Containment System
Limitations On Freedom-of-Choice Administration (AHCCCSA) contracts with full
benefit capitated health plans to serve AHCCCS
The fifth major item for containing costs is a members through a network of providers.
restriction on provider/physician selection by
AHCCCS members. Unlike conventional delivery Contracting Health Plans
models, Arizona does not rely on fee-for-service
arrangements. The goal is to have the State Under the Contracting Health Plan arrangement,
completely blanketed with prepaid capitated plans are defined in terms of explicit groups of
arrangements. Members are linked to selected or providers organized as entities that are more formal.
assigned plans for definite durations of time. These consortia, or formal entities, are capable of
Freedom-of-choice is permitted to the extent providing the full range of AHCCCS benefits within
practicable for members to select the particular group a defined service area for all AHCCCS members who
with which to enroll, as well as the primary care elect to join the plans, up to a predetermined
physician within the selected group. Capped fee-for- capacity. This is the dominant mode of operation
service health service arrangements are used as a last within AHCCCS -- with two or more competing
resort, and only in areas not covered by prepaid plans wherever possible.
capitated plans.
The Contracting Health Plans are delivery systems,
CAPITATION BY THE FEDERAL not simply insurance plans, but they need not be
GOVERNMENT Health Maintenance Organizations by any legal or
conventional definition of the term. The AHCCCS
The State of Arizona will itself be capitated by the legislation provides for the creation of provider
Federal government and therefore will be at financial consortia for the purpose of participation in the
risk for containing health care costs. Capitation rates program. The Contracting Health Plan may be a
will be established according to sound actuarial loosely organized system, but it must be capable of
principles, and will represent no more than 95 providing the full range of AHCCCS benefits to a
percent of the estimated cost of services delivered in defined population at a capitation rate.
Arizona under conventional fee-for-service
arrangements. Capitation provides a key incentive
Arizona-2
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
The Operational Role of the AHCCCS Care1st Health Plan of Arizona, Inc.
Administration 2355 E. Camelback Rd.
Suite 300
Organizationally, the AHCCCS Administration Phoenix, AZ 85016
assumes responsibility for the oversight of every day 866/560-4042
operations.
Health Choice Arizona
The AHCCCS Administration has overall Suite 260
responsibility for the following activity areas: 1600 West Broadway
Tempe, AZ 85282-1136
• Eligibility Oversight T: 480/968-6866
• Procurement of Health Plans F: 800/322-8670
• Quality Management
• Health Plan Oversight Maricopa Health Plan
• Provider, Member Call Center 2502 East University Drive
• Grievances and Complaints Phoenix, AZ 85034
• Fee-for-Service for IHS 800/582-8686
Arizona-3
National Pharmaceutical Council Pharmaceutical Benefits 2004
Pinal/Gila LTC
P.O. Box 2140
971 Jason Lopez Circle
Florence, AZ 85232-2140
800/624-3879
Arizona-4
National Phar