Virginia Commonwealth University, 410 N. 12th St., POB 980533, Richmond, VA 23298-0533.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014 Sep;20(9):959-67. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.9.959.
Plan sponsors encourage the use of mail order pharmacies because they believe mail order dispensing will lower their prescription drug costs. Health plans and pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) usually offer patients substantially lower copayments to incentivize them to use mail order pharmacies. A number of health plans and PBMs now require patients to use these pharmacies for maintenance prescriptions.
To (a) compare costs for prescriptions dispensed through mail order and retail pharmacies in Medicare Part D plans and (b) examine whether mail order or retail pharmacies provided lower all third-party costs for each of the top 300 products; the relationship between whether a product was available generically and whether mail order or retail pharmacies provided lower prices; and the generic substitution rates at mail order and retail pharmacies.
The sample for this study consisted of 2010 Medicare Part D prescription drug data for the 300 products with the highest sales at mail order pharmacies. The prescriptions included in the study were dispensed in the initial coverage limit phase of Part D by retail or mail order pharmacies to patients who were insured by Part D for 12 months in 2010, who received no Part D subsidies, and who were alive for the full year in 2010. Mean-per-unit costs were calculated for both mail order and retail prescriptions for each of the top 300 products. Products were defined by Medi-Span Generic Product Indentifier. Summary statistics for the overall costs of mail order and retail prescriptions were calculated as the weighted mean-per-unit costs of the top 300 products. The weighting factor for both mail order and retail prescriptions included both the mail order quantity dispensed per prescription and the number of prescriptions dispensed. Weighting both mail and retail prescriptions by mail order quantities dispensed and numbers of prescriptions ensured that the results reflected actual cost differences rather than differences in the mix or quantities of prescriptions dispensed. These calculations were made for total costs, costs covered by the Medicare Standard Benefit (MSB), costs paid by all third-party payers (including Medicare), and patient costs.
The top 300 products accounted for 84.8% of mail order costs. Among all prescriptions in the sample--both mail order and retail--mail order prescriptions accounted for 7.8% of prescriptions dispensed and 14.1% of total spending. Comparison of 90-day or greater supplies indicated that costs per unit of medication for retail pharmacies were lower for total costs ($0.94 for retail pharmacies vs. $0.96 for mail order pharmacies), MSB costs ($0.59 for retail pharmacies vs. $0.63 for mail order pharmacies), and all third-party payer costs ($0.64 for retail pharmacies vs. $0.72 for mail order pharmacies), but higher for patient costs ($0.31 for retail pharmacies vs. $0.24 for mail order pharmacies). Retail pharmacies had lower all third-party payer costs for 244 products, while mail pharmacies had lower costs for 56 products. Retail pharmacies were more likely to have lower costs for products that included generic alternatives, while mail order pharmacies were more likely to have lower costs for products that included only branded drugs. Generic substitution rates were 91.4% for retail pharmacies versus 88.8% for mail order pharmacies. Results from secondary analyses that compared all prescriptions which met the inclusion criteria, regardless of days supply, and that compared exactly 90-day supplies, yielded similar results.
Third-party payers, including Medicare, paid more for prescriptions dispensed at mail order pharmacies than for those dispensed at retail pharmacies in the Medicare Part D program. The higher payments appeared to result, for the most part, because of higher patient cost sharing at retail pharmacies. Further, total costs--including both third-party payer and patient payments--for 90-day and 90-day or greater supplies were lower at retail pharmacies than at mail pharmacies. These results suggest that, all other things being equal, Medicare Part D plan sponsors do not realize savings when patients use mail order pharmacies.
计划赞助商鼓励使用邮购药房,因为他们认为邮购配药会降低他们的处方药成本。健康计划和药房福利管理公司 (PBM) 通常会向患者提供大幅降低的共付额,以激励他们使用邮购药房。现在,许多健康计划和 PBM 要求患者维持处方使用这些药房。
(a) 比较医疗保险处方药计划中通过邮购和零售药房配药的成本,以及 (b) 检查邮购或零售药房是否为每个排名前 300 位的产品提供了更低的所有第三方成本;产品是否有可用的仿制药与邮购或零售药房提供更低价格之间的关系;以及邮购和零售药房的仿制药替代率。
本研究的样本包括 2010 年医疗保险处方药计划中前 300 种产品的处方数据。该研究包括在初始覆盖期内通过零售或邮购药房向 2010 年全年参加医疗保险的患者配药的处方,这些患者在 2010 年全年没有获得医疗保险补贴,并且在 2010 年全年都活着。为每个排名前 300 位的产品计算了邮购和零售处方的单位成本平均值。通过 Medi-Span 通用产品标识符定义产品。计算了邮购和零售处方总成本以及医疗保险标准福利 (MSB) 覆盖成本、所有第三方支付者(包括医疗保险)支付的成本和患者成本的汇总统计数据。邮购和零售处方的加权因素包括每处方配药的邮购数量和配药的处方数量。通过邮购配药数量和处方数量对邮购和零售处方进行加权,确保结果反映了实际的成本差异,而不是配药的组合或数量的差异。这些计算是针对总费用、MSB 覆盖的费用、所有第三方支付者(包括医疗保险)支付的费用和患者支付的费用进行的。
排名前 300 位的产品占邮购费用的 84.8%。在样本中的所有处方——无论是邮购还是零售——邮购处方占配药处方的 7.8%,占总支出的 14.1%。比较 90 天或更长时间的供应情况表明,零售药房的药物单位成本更低(零售药房为 0.94 美元,邮购药房为 0.96 美元)、MSB 成本(零售药房为 0.59 美元,邮购药房为 0.63 美元)和所有第三方支付者的成本(零售药房为 0.64 美元,邮购药房为 0.72 美元),但患者的成本更高(零售药房为 0.31 美元,邮购药房为 0.24 美元)。零售药房为 244 种产品提供了更低的所有第三方支付者成本,而邮购药房为 56 种产品提供了更低的成本。零售药房更有可能为包括替代仿制药的产品提供更低的成本,而邮购药房更有可能为仅包括品牌药物的产品提供更低的成本。仿制药替代率为零售药房的 91.4%,邮购药房的 88.8%。对满足纳入标准的所有处方进行比较(无论供应天数如何),以及对完全 90 天供应进行比较的二次分析结果相似。
包括医疗保险在内的第三方支付者为在医疗保险处方药计划中通过邮购药房配药的患者支付的费用高于通过零售药房配药的患者。较高的支付似乎主要是由于零售药房患者自付费用较高。此外,90 天和 90 天或更长时间供应的总费用——包括第三方支付者和患者的支付——在零售药房的成本低于邮购药房。这些结果表明,在其他条件相同的情况下,医疗保险处方药计划赞助商在患者使用邮购药房时不会实现节省。