Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 1396–1402 | Cite as

The Comparative Effectiveness of Mail Order Pharmacy Use vs. Local Pharmacy Use on LDL-C Control in New Statin Users

  • Julie A. Schmittdiel
  • Andrew J. Karter
  • Wendy Dyer
  • Melissa Parker
  • Connie Uratsu
  • James Chan
  • O. Kenrik Duru
Original Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mail order pharmacies are commonly used to deliver CVD risk factor medications. Previous studies have shown that mail order pharmacy use is associated with greater medication adherence; however, no studies have examined whether mail order pharmacy use is related to improved CVD risk factor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative effectiveness of mail order pharmacy vs. local pharmacy use on LDL-C control in new statin users.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

PATIENTS

100,298 adult Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) members who were new users of statins between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007.

MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was LDL-C control in the 3–15 month period after statin therapy was initiated.

RESULTS

After adjustment for patient, clinical, and census-block characteristics, and for potential unmeasured differences between mail order and local KPNC pharmacy users with instrumental variables analysis, 85.0% of patients who used the mail order pharmacy to deliver their statin at any time achieved target LDL-C levels compared with 74.2% of patients who only used the local KPNC pharmacy to dispense the statin (p < 0.001). Greater adjusted rates of LDL-C control in mail order pharmacy users were seen across all gender and race/ethnicity subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mail order pharmacy use was positively associated with LDL-C control in new statin users. Future research should continue to explore the relationship between mail order pharmacy use and outcomes, and address how to appropriately target mail order services to patients most likely to benefit without compromising patient choice, care, and safety.

KEY WORDS

health services research hyperlipidemia pharmaceutical care 

References

  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Strategies Group, 2011. http://www.psgconsults.com/resources/pbm_101.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2011.
  2. 2.
    Federal Trade Commission. Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Ownership of Mail-Order Pharmacies. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Industry “Facts at a Glance.” http://www.nacds.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=6536. Accessed June 24, 2011.
  4. 4.
    Fein AJ. The impact of Walmart’s National Mail Pharmacy. Drug Channels, September 16, 2009. http://www.drugchannels.net/2009/09/impact-of-walmarts-national-mail.html. Accessed June 24, 2011.
  5. 5.
    Johnsrud M, Lawsen KA, Shepherd MD. Comparison of mail order with community pharmacy in plan sponsor cost and member cost in two large pharmacy benefit plans. J Manage Care Pharm. 2007;13(2):122–34.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll NV, Brusilovsky I, York B, Oscar R. Comparison of costs of community and mail service pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;45(3):336–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Valluri S, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL. Drug utilization and cost in a Medicaid population: a simulation study of community vs. mail order pharmacy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:122–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark BE, Siracuse MV, Garis RI. A comparison of mail-service and retail community pharmacy claims in 5 prescription benefit plans. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009;5(2):133–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motheral BR, Heinle SM. Predictors of satisfaction of health plan members with prescription drug benefits. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61(10):1007–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Hays RD, Sabers D, Jones P, Langley PC. A comparison of satisfaction with mail versus traditional pharmacy services. J Manag Care Pharm. 1997;3:327–37.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linton A, Garber M, Fagan NK, Peterson M. Factors associated with choice of pharmacy setting among DoD health care beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. JMCP. 2007;13(8):677–86.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberman JN, Wang Y, Hutchins DS, Slezak J, Shrank WH. Revealed preference for community and mail service pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2011;51(1):50–7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pittman DG, Tao Z, Chen W, Stettin GD. Antihypertensive medication adherence and subsequent health care utilization and cost. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):568–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Devine S, Vlahiotis A, Sundar H. A comparison of diabetes medication adherence and healthcare costs in patients using mail order pharmacy and retail pharmacy. J Med Econ. 2010;13(2):203–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duru OK, Schmittdiel J, Dyer W, Parker M, Uratsu C, Chan J, Karter A. Mail order pharmacy use and adherence to diabetes-related medications. Am J Manag Care. 2010;15(1):33–40.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duru OK, Gerzoff RB, Selby JV, et al. Identifying risk factors for racial disparities in diabetes outcomes: the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Study. Med Care. 2009;47(6):700–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shrank WH, Stedman M, Ettner SL, DeLapp D., Dirstine J, Brookhart MA, Fischer MA, Avorn J, Asch SM. Patient, physician, pharmacy, and pharmacy benefit design factors related to generic medication use. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(9):1298–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sokol MC, McGuigan KA, Verbrugge RR, Epstein RS. Impact of Medication Adherence on Hospitalization Risk and Healthcare Cost. Medical Care. 2005;43(6):521–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ho PM, Rumsfeld JS, Masoudi FA, McClure DL, Plomondon ME, Steiner JF, Magid DJ. Effect of medication nonadherence on hospitalizations and mortality among patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1836–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lau DT, Nau DP. Oral antihyperglycemic medication nonadherence and subsequent hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(9):2149–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JK, Grace KA, Taylor AJ. Effect of a Pharmacy Care Program on Medication Adherence and Persistence, Blood Pressure, and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol. A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dyer WT, Fairlie RW. Do family caps reduce out of wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey and Virginia. Population Research and Policy Review. 2004;23:441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer BD. Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 1995;13(2):151–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Gameren, E. Health insurance and use of alternative medicine in Mexico. Health Policy. 2010;98:50–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: The use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Publ Health. 1998;19:17–34.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenland S. An Introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J of Epidemiol. 2000;29:722–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McClellan MC, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA. 1994;272(11):859–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, Brewer HB Jr, Clark LT, Hunninghake DB, Pasternak RC, Smith SC Jr, Stone NJ; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baum CF, Shaffer ME, Stillman S. Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/generalized method of moments estimation and testing. The Stata Journal. 7(4):465–506.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steiner JF, Koepsell TD, Fihn SD, Inui TS. A general method of compliance assessment using centralized pharmacy records. Description and validation. Med Care. 26:814–23.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steiner JF, Prochazka AV. The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: methods, validity, and applications. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:105–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Choo PW, Rand CS, Inui TS, et al. Validation of patient reports, automated pharmacy records, and pill counts with electronic monitoring of adherence to antihypertensive therapy. Med Care. 1999;37(9):846–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choudry NK, Fischer MA, Avorn J, Liberman JN, Schneeweiss S, Pakes J, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. The implications of therapeutic complexity on adherence to cardiovascular medications. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):814–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richard C, Lussier MT. Nature and frequency of exchanges on medications during primary care encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):207–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Heritage J, Hays RD, Kravitz RL, Wenger NS. Physician communication about the cost and acquisition of newly prescribed medications. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(11):657–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raebel ME, Lyons EE, Andrade SE et al. Laboratory monitoring of drugs at initiation of therapy in ambulatory care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1120–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie A. Schmittdiel
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Karter
    • 1
  • Wendy Dyer
    • 1
  • Melissa Parker
    • 1
  • Connie Uratsu
    • 1
  • James Chan
    • 2
  • O. Kenrik Duru
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern CaliforniaOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Pharmacy Outcomes Research Group, Kaiser Permanente Northern CaliforniaOaklandUSA
  3. 3.David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations