Cost evaluation model to compare in house repackaging, repackaging vendors, and sourcing unit dose medications from manufacturers for oral liquids.

PURPOSE

Unit-dose packaging systems are widely used and accepted practices in many hospitals in the US. When adopting a unit-dose, there are three different avenues in which pharmaceuticals can be obtained. Products can be purchased from a manufacturer-produced source, outsourced to repackaging by a 3rd-party repackaging service or repackaged in-house by investing in the technology and the resources to do so. Prior literature has suggested that manufacturer-based unit-dose purchasing was associated with a 1% cost savings over repackaged unit-dose. In this study, we hope to take a more extensive look at the cost and concerns associated specifically with unit dose liquids when purchased from a manufacturer, outsourced to a third party repackager, or repackaged from bulk bottles with in-house technology and resources.

METHODS

A cost evaluation model, which factored in cost associated with used and expired product, was utilized to estimate and compare the cost of the three systems.

RESULTS

Overall cost between the three systems was largely similar, although manufacturer-based repackaging was determined to be the most cost effective system.

CONCLUSION

The results of this decision model analysis suggests that the cost associated with purchasing unit dose liquids from manufacturers, third party repackagers, and in-house repackaging are similar. Therefore, utilizing a specific system is unlikely to make a significant impact on the overall pharmaceutical budget for a large hospital or health system.