These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of mail-service and retail community pharmacy claims in 5 prescription benefit plans.
    Author: Clark BE, Siracuse MV, Garis RI.
    Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm; 2009 Jun; 5(2):133-42. PubMed ID: 19524861.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Little evidence has been presented to date that would either support or refute a widely held belief that mail-service pharmacy utilization routinely produces savings in drug benefit costs for prescription benefit plan sponsors. OBJECTIVE: To present a comparative analysis of mail-service and community pharmacy service drug benefit costs for 5 employer-sponsored prescription drug benefit plans. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of 17,725 matched transaction pairs of community and mail-service prescriptions from a data set comprised 484,987 prescription claims from a convenience sample of 5 employer-sponsored prescription benefit plans. Differences between community pharmacy and mail-service prescription transactions were examined at the per-unit level of analysis for drug ingredient costs, dispensing fees, co-payments, dollar amounts paid by plan sponsor, and total dollar amounts. RESULTS: Overall, the total cost of prescriptions was lower through mail-service pharmacies for all 5 plans studied. Two of 5 plans had co-payment incentives to use mail-service, yet plan sponsors paid more for mail-service drugs; respectively, 4.5% and 8.3% more overall, 25.0% and 21.4% more for generic medications; and 3.0% and 7.0% more for brand name medications. Mail-service co-payments were 48.9% and 51.7% lower. Mail-service utilization rates were 15.2% and 31.5% of the total number of prescriptions dispensed in the period studied. Three of 5 plans had no co-payment incentive to use mail-service and paid less for mail-service drugs; respectively, 18.7%, 6.6%, and 15.7% less overall; 17.4%, 15.6%, and 7.9% less for generic medications; and 18.8%, 5.2%, and 16.6% less for brand name medications. Mail-service co-payments were 10.5% more, 5.2% less, and 1.8% more than community pharmacy co-payments, respectively. Mail-service utilization rates were 0.8%, 1.2%, and 4.4%. CONCLUSION: Co-payment incentives to use mail-service pharmacies instead of community pharmacies were associated with higher mail-service utilization rates and with higher costs to plan sponsors. Absence of a co-payment incentive to use mail-service pharmacies was associated with lower mail-service utilization rates and with lower costs to plan sponsors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]