No products in the cart.
MODULE 32: FORMULARY, NON-FORMULARY & THERAPEUTIC INTERCHANGE—WITHOUT FRICTION
Section 32.2: Making a Swap the Team Accepts (Evidence, Cost, Stock)
The art of the clinical pitch: combining evidence, economics, and logistics into an irresistible recommendation.
SECTION 32.2
Making a Swap the Team Accepts
Transforming formulary enforcement into a value-added clinical consultation.
32.2.1 The “Why”: From Gatekeeper to Value Creator
In a dysfunctional hospital system, the pharmacy department is often viewed as a purely operational, cost-saving entity—a gatekeeper whose primary function is to say “no” to non-formulary requests. This is a profound misunderstanding of the pharmacist’s value. Your role is not to be a barrier; it is to be a guide. A therapeutic interchange is the single most common and powerful intervention you will make to demonstrate this. It is your opportunity to pivot from a perception of obstruction to one of expert consultation. When you recommend a formulary alternative, you are not simply “enforcing a policy.” You are actively engaging in a high-level clinical decision that impacts patient safety, clinical outcomes, and the responsible use of healthcare resources.
A poorly executed interchange feels punitive to the provider. It is a “no” without a “why,” or a swap based on a reason that feels purely administrative (“because it’s cheaper”). This approach creates friction and reinforces the image of pharmacy as a gatekeeper. A masterfully executed interchange, however, is a clinical work of art. It is a concise, evidence-based, and compelling argument that makes the provider feel that by accepting your recommendation, they are making a smarter, safer, or more efficient choice for their patient. It makes them feel like you are a knowledgeable partner who just made their job easier and improved their patient’s care. It builds trust and establishes your credibility as a drug therapy expert.
This section will deconstruct the anatomy of a successful swap. We will move beyond the simple fact of the formulary and into the art of the clinical pitch. You will learn that every successful recommendation is built upon a foundation of three distinct but interconnected pillars: compelling evidence, responsible cost stewardship, and the undeniable reality of stock on hand. Mastering how and when to deploy each of these arguments will elevate your practice from a series of individual tasks to a strategic contribution to the quality and value of care at your institution.
Retail Pharmacist Analogy: The “Better Value” Recommendation
A customer comes to your counter with a prescription for 20mg Crestor (rosuvastatin). You run it through their insurance, and it comes back with a $150 copay and a note: “Tier 3 – Non-Preferred. Atorvastatin is Tier 1.” Your formulary alternative is atorvastatin. How you present this information determines whether you are a helpful expert or a frustrating obstacle.
The Gatekeeper Approach (Friction): “Your insurance doesn’t want to pay for this. It’s going to be $150. You’re supposed to use atorvastatin instead.” This frames the insurance company as the enemy and you as the powerless messenger. It creates a problem for the patient without offering a clear solution.
The Value Creator Approach (Frictionless): “Hi Mrs. Jones. I’ve just checked this with your insurance. It looks like they prefer a different medication in the same class called atorvastatin, which would be a much lower copay for you. Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are both ‘statins,’ and they work the same way to lower cholesterol. In fact, we can switch you to a dose of atorvastatin that is clinically equivalent in strength to the Crestor your doctor ordered. Would you like me to call your doctor’s office right now to suggest this switch? It could save you a significant amount of money each month while giving you the exact same health benefit.”
In the second scenario, you have done several key things:
- You explained the why (cost savings for the patient).
- You established clinical evidence of equivalence (“they work the same way,” “clinically equivalent in strength”).
- You respected the prescriber’s role while making the process easy (“Would you like me to call your doctor’s office?”).
32.2.2 The Three Pillars of a Successful Swap
Every compelling argument for a therapeutic interchange rests on one or more of these three pillars. Understanding them allows you to construct your “pitch” in a logical and persuasive way. You may not need to use all three for every swap, but you should always know what they are and be prepared to deploy them.
Pillar 1: EVIDENCE
The argument of clinical and safety equivalence (or superiority). This is the foundation of your professional authority.
Pillar 2: COST
The argument of financial stewardship and value. This demonstrates your commitment to the health of the institution.
Pillar 3: STOCK
The argument of logistics and immediate availability. This is often the most pragmatic and undeniable reason for a swap.
Your ability to weave these three pillars into a coherent and concise recommendation is the core skill of effective formulary management. The most successful swaps often lead with Evidence and are supported by Cost or Stock. Let’s do a deep dive into how to build each of these arguments.
32.2.3 Masterclass on Pillar 1: Arguing with EVIDENCE
This is your home turf. The evidence-based argument is where you demonstrate your value as a doctor of pharmacy. Your goal is to quickly and confidently establish that the formulary alternative is, for this specific patient and this specific indication, clinically non-inferior (or even superior) to the ordered drug. This requires you to have a solid grasp of the comparative pharmacology of common drug classes.
You will not have time to conduct a full literature review for every interchange. This knowledge must be part of your working clinical toolkit. For common interchanges, you should know the key talking points by heart.
Masterclass Table: Common “Evidence-Based” Swaps & Your Talking Points
| Drug Class & Swap | The Non-Formulary Order | The Formulary Alternative | Your Evidence-Based Pitch (What to Say) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proton-Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) | Esomeprazole (Nexium) IV | Pantoprazole (Protonix) IV | “Hi Dr. Jones, this is pharmacy. I’m calling about the esomeprazole order. Per our hospital’s therapeutic interchange protocol, we’ll be using our formulary pantoprazole instead. All the major guidelines show equivalent efficacy for acid suppression and GI bleed when used at equipotent doses. This also helps us avoid the CYP2C19 interaction esomeprazole has with clopidogrel. I’ll make the change. Thanks!” |
| Statins | Rosuvastatin (Crestor) PO | Atorvastatin (Lipitor) PO | “Hi Dr. Lee, this is pharmacy. I see the order for rosuvastatin on your new admission. Our formulary statin is atorvastatin. We can achieve the same high-intensity statin effect by using atorvastatin 40mg or 80mg, which is consistent with the ACC/AHA guidelines for this patient. Would it be okay to make that switch?” |
| ACE Inhibitors | Benazepril PO | Lisinopril PO | “Hi, just calling about the benazepril order. As a class, ACE inhibitors have equivalent effects on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes. Our formulary agent is lisinopril. I’ll swap to the equivalent daily dose of lisinopril per our protocol. Thanks!” |
| Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) | Irbesartan PO | Losartan PO | “Hi Dr. Garcia, this is pharmacy. I see the order for irbesartan. Our formulary ARB is losartan. I’ll switch to the therapeutically equivalent dose of losartan. One clinical benefit is that losartan also has an indication for stroke prophylaxis in patients with hypertension and LVH, which is relevant for this patient.” |
| Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics | Moxifloxacin IV | Levofloxacin IV | “Hi Dr. Patel, ID pharmacist here. I’m looking at your order for moxifloxacin for this community-acquired pneumonia. Based on our hospital’s antibiogram and our CAP treatment pathway, our preferred respiratory fluoroquinolone is levofloxacin. It has excellent coverage for Strep pneumo and the atypicals. To help with our antimicrobial stewardship efforts, would you be okay with switching to levofloxacin 750mg IV daily?” |
32.2.4 Masterclass on Pillar 2: Arguing with COST
The cost argument is powerful, but it is also the most delicate. It can be easily misinterpreted as prioritizing money over patient care. Therefore, it should rarely be your opening argument unless it is truly dramatic. More often, it is a powerful secondary argument used to bolster a primary argument of clinical equivalence. When you do use the cost argument, you must frame it correctly. You are not “saving the pharmacy money.” You are practicing good stewardship of limited healthcare resources, which allows the hospital to invest in other critical areas of patient care, like nursing staff, new equipment, or other life-saving services.
When (and When Not) to Talk About Money
Use the Cost Argument When:
- The clinical evidence for equivalence between two agents is overwhelming and indisputable (e.g., PPIs, statins, ACE inhibitors).
- The cost difference is substantial (e.g., a new branded biologic vs. an older, equally effective agent).
- You are speaking with a hospitalist, administrator, or in a committee meeting where financial stewardship is an explicit goal.
Do NOT Use the Cost Argument When:
- There is even a small, but legitimate, clinical advantage to the non-formulary drug for a specific patient population (e.g., a chemotherapy agent with a slightly better side effect profile).
- The prescriber is a specialist who has a deep, evidence-based reason for their choice. Arguing cost in this context feels dismissive of their expertise.
- The total cost of therapy is low, and the argument could be perceived as petty.
The Art of the Cost-Value Pitch
The key is to connect cost to value. Your goal is to show that the formulary option provides the same (or better) clinical value for a lower cost, which is the definition of good stewardship.
Weak Pitch (Focus on Cost): “We need to switch from IV daptomycin to IV vancomycin because the daptomycin costs the hospital $400 a day.”
Strong Pitch (Focus on Value): “Hi Dr. Kim, this is your stewardship pharmacist. I’m looking at the patient in 512 with the MSSA bacteremia. The cultures are sensitive to both vancomycin and daptomycin. Since the MIC to vancomycin is low at 1, and the patient’s kidneys are in good shape, our stewardship guideline would recommend vancomycin as the most targeted and cost-effective therapy. This allows us to reserve broader-spectrum agents like daptomycin for resistant organisms like VRE. Would you be comfortable with streamlining to vancomycin?”
32.2.5 Masterclass on Pillar 3: Arguing with STOCK
This is the argument of last resort, but it is also the most powerful and irrefutable. The logistical realities of the pharmaceutical supply chain are a constant challenge. A drug may be non-formulary for a variety of logistical reasons, and sometimes, you simply do not have it in the building. A national drug shortage can also suddenly make a first-line agent unavailable. In these situations, your recommendation for an alternative is not just a suggestion; it is a clinical necessity.
This argument requires no diplomacy, only clarity and a solution-oriented mindset. You are not asking permission; you are reporting a critical operational reality and providing the immediate, actionable solution.
Turning a Shortage into a Stewardship Win
A drug shortage is a perfect opportunity to permanently change prescribing habits for the better. When a first-line agent is unavailable, you are forced to educate providers on the approved alternative. If that alternative is clinically effective during the shortage, you can often use that positive experience to make the alternative the new standard of care even after the shortage resolves. For example, a national shortage of piperacillin/tazobactam might force your institution to adopt better, more targeted antibiotic regimens. As the pharmacist, you should be at the forefront of leading this educational effort, turning a logistical crisis into a clinical quality improvement project.
The “No-Nonsense” Availability Script
When the issue is stock, your communication must be direct and unambiguous.
Scenario: A physician orders a continuous infusion of IV labetalol for a hypertensive emergency.
The Reality: IV labetalol is on national backorder, and your pharmacy has zero stock. The hospital’s approved alternative per the P&T committee is a continuous infusion of nicardipine.
The Script: “Hi Dr. Allen, this is pharmacy. I’m calling about your order for the labetalol drip on the patient in the ED. I need to let you know that IV labetalol is on a nationwide backorder and we have no stock in the hospital. Our institutional protocol for hypertensive emergencies in this situation is to use a nicardipine infusion. The starting dose is 5 mg/hr. I can get that prepared and sent right now. Can I go ahead and change the order for you?”
Notice the key elements:
- Direct Statement of Fact: “We have no stock.” This is not debatable.
- Citing the Protocol: “Our institutional protocol is…” This gives your recommendation the weight of official policy.
- Providing the Immediate Solution: “use a nicardipine infusion. The starting dose is 5 mg/hr.”
- Offering to Help: “Can I go ahead and change the order for you?” This makes it easy for the provider to say “yes.”
