The poll found that 82% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 91% of Independents polled supported legislation to limit nonmedical switching.
WPA Intelligence, a national polling organization, recently conducted a telephone poll among 500 likely Texas voters from August 27, 2018 to August 29, 2018 to determine the importance of a candidate’s views on nonmedical switching before casting a vote.
Nonmedical switching is used by insurers to limit prescribing to preferred medications. These changes to a patient’s medication—including, in some cases, a switch from a reference biologic to a biosimilar—can particularly impact patients with chronic conditions who are controlling their disease on a given regimen.
Learn more about nonmedical switching and biosimilars.
WPA Intelligence randomly selected a sample of likely voters from the Texas voter file using Proportionate Probability Sampling. Additionally, the sample for the survey was stratified based on geography, age, and gender.
The poll revealed that the majority of people want consistent health plan coverage for their prescription medications, and are in fact more likely to support legislators who will protect that coverage.
Specifically, the poll found that:
The report also noted that concerns about nonmedical switching were not limited to any specific party, as 82% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 91% of Independents polled supported legislation to limit nonmedical switching.
Nonmedical switching has garnered more attention from legislators and voters alike as several states have enacted or are considering enacting laws to address the practice.
The most recent states to act against nonmedical switching include Maine, which in July passed a law that requires insurers to give 60 days’ notice to affected patients before changing its formulary, and notify patients of their right to request exemptions. Illinois passed a law just last month that similarly requires insurers notify patients and provide details about the exemption process.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.