- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 62
Yeah, either way, $5 per month or $10 for 60 days, it's all the same. I suppose if you think about it, making it into two transactions is more work and expense, you're filling another rx, you need to waste an extra vial on them, another label, another patient info packet, another receipt from the register, and the manpower to do it all twice. Seems like that could add up if you did that for every patient, considering the pharmacy isn't earning more by doing so. I've wondered if that was part of the reason why pharmacies had the push to 90 day rxs instead of the traditional 30.
Of course, maybe the extra cost is offset by more front-end purchases and traffic due to the patient being in the store more. Tough to say.
The fixed costs on dispensing one script is almost a wash, but you are right to consider those costs because they add up. But in this case it the only difference would be two separate Rx numbers and the only added cost would be the time it takes for the technician to enter the titration and then the maintenance. (not very long at all) And from then it is business as usual, the maintenance dose goes on hold and you fill the titration dose first for 30 day supply, then when they come in for their refill you take the other one off of hold it fills like a refill. No extra vial, it would be the same as a patient coming in every 30 days.
I would think in an independent or chain pharmacy setting, the 90 day supply would be more beneficial in terms of reducing fixe costs of dispensing. Stores like Walmart and the grocery store chains would do better on 30 day supplies because they would have more traffic for their retail products. I don't know about other markets, but at Walmart, you are not getting your rx in 15-20 mintutes, it is a minimum 45-60 minutes wait time.....oh look they are having a sale on......anything.