title: A comparison of mail-service and retail community pharmacy claims in 5 prescription benefit plans.
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%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pharmacy Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA. bclark@creighton.edu
authors.forename: Bartholomew E
authors.initials: BE
authors.lastname: Clark
authors.forename: Mark V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Siracuse
authors.forename: Robert I
authors.initials: RI
authors.lastname: Garis
mesh_terms: D003157:Community Pharmacy Services / Q000191:economics*; D017047:Cost Sharing / Q000191:economics; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D016527:Drug Costs; D016568:Drugs, Generic / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D007356:Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services / Q000191:economics*; D011177:Postal Service / Q000191:economics*; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D016568:Drugs, Generic