OBJECTIVES: Commissioners from English clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) were surveyed to understand the processes for managing local formularies, the data required, the stakeholders involved and the expertise of stakeholders involved. METHODS: Commissioners registered with The Commissioning Review or Pulse who had a validated professional email address were invited to an online survey between June and October 2016. After removing duplicate entries from the same CCG, 32 respondents remained in the final sample. RESULTS: Clinical groups are part of (97%), or consulted by (84%), almost all CCGs’ formulary groups. Conversely, patients and patient representative groups are only part of, or consulted by, a minority of local formulary groups (22% to 41%). Most CCGs (73%) require both budget impact (BI) and cost-effectiveness (CE) data when evaluating drugs for inclusion on the local formulary. CCGs are more likely to require CE estimates based on national, than on CCG specific, data. Conversely, they are more likely to request that BI estimates are based on CCG specific data. Most formulary groups conduct a critical appraisal of clinical data in submissions (75%) and have at least one member on their formulary group with formal training in how to conduct such appraisal (83%). Conversely, only 25% of CCGs had a member of the formulary group with formal training in how to appraise health-economic data. CONCLUSIONS: There is demand for CCG specific BI data in formulary submissions, highlighting the importance of ensuring formulary submissions meet local needs. However, the importance of health-economic data for formulary decisions coupled with the absence of a formulary group member with training on how to appraise such data in most CCGs suggest that CCGs may require support in developing the necessary in-house expertise.