Customer satisfaction with mail-order pharmacies declined for the second year in a row, according to a new survey from J.D. Power and Associates, and that could spell trouble for health plans that insist on their usage. Those who are required to get their prescription medications by mail order were significantly more likely to give the service a low rating than those who elected the option themselves.

On a 1,000-point scale, J.D. Power says, overall satisfaction with mail-order pharmacies fell to 792 this year, down from 814 in 2011. Satisfaction with brick-and-mortar pharmacies, meanwhile, took only a minor hit to 814 in 2012, down from 818 in 2011. Categories such as cost, service and process were used to evaluate approval.

"The erosion in customer satisfaction with mail-order pharmacies may foretell challenges to their business model, as prior to 2011 customer satisfaction was more equivalent to the brick-and-mortar experience," says Rick Millard, senior director of the health care practice at J.D. Power. "Acceptance of mail-order programs grew by offering customers convenience and lower costs. While this has been a successful approach, the mail-order business needs to continue to adapt to meet customers' increasing expectations."

The survey reported only a nominal bump in the proportion of customers who say they are required to use mail ordering (42% instead of 2011's 41%), but those who do so willingly give the largely Web-based service an 810. Those for whom it is mandatory: 768. And in terms of cost competitiveness, the same groups give mail-order a 773 and 714, respectively.

"Customers who are given a choice tend to perceive they are paying less than they would at a store pharmacy, or are deriving a better value for their purchase," says Millard.

 

Online vs. retail experience

Asked if declining satisfaction would just be a lump that people would have to take as businesses increasingly move online, Millard compared pharmacies to booksellers - bookstores persist even as Amazon thrives.

"What's so interesting about this sector is we have these two business models, both of which can be satisfying but for completely different reasons," he says. "And it seems to me that there's a segment of customers who would prefer to sacrifice the convenience that mail-order provides in order to have that face-to-face encounter and the store experience."

Health plans that insist on mail-order drugs run the risk of incurring the wrath of participants, Millard says, if they don't keep that service shipshape.

"I think that that could be an incipient problem for health plans if they don't address it, because satisfaction with health plans tends to be low as it is," Millard comments. "But what's going to be key is what sort of mail-order experience they're delivering. If it were possible for customer ratings of mail-order to be as enthusiastic as best-in-class online retailers, then one might conclude that health plans would be able to establish requirements for mail-order with less penalty.

"Consider the importance of customer choice. ... Members of health plans tend to have higher levels of satisfaction if they were able to select their health plan, ideally, or at least selecting their coverage."

As for those whose plans still include physical pharmacies, Millard recommends they take advantage of one of their most central assets: the pharmacist.

"Pharmacists, who are viewed as one of the most highly esteemed professional groups, are there to provide customer service, not just dispense prescriptions," Millard says. "It's surprising that more customers don't utilize the opportunity, given that pharmacists provide free health advice, and you don't have to make an appointment."

 

 

Pharmacy flu shots better value: study

A recent study published by Walgreens found that in a typical U.S. population, an influenza immunization program will be cost beneficial for employers when more than 37% of individuals receive the vaccine in a non-traditional setting, such as a pharmacy, as opposed to a physician's office.

In a scenario where 50% of people are vaccinated in non-traditional settings, estimated net savings were $6 per vaccinated employee or dependent. Immunization programs targeted at high-risk individuals and administered in non-traditional settings, meanwhile, produced $83 in savings per vaccinated member.

"The higher the risk of your population, the greater the value the employer will get from the vaccination," says Michael Taitel, senior director, clinical outcomes and analytics with Walgreens. "If you have employers with older than average workers they will see greater savings."

Employers can plug their own data into the model (www.walgreensflu.com) and tailor it to fit their employee population. "Most employers do offer flu shots through their benefits plans. Many are offering it through the medical side of the plan, as opposed to through the pharmacy benefit," says Taitel. "If left on their own, employees may go to their doctor and go to the most expensive place to get it - their copay may be the same - but it's much more expensive for the health plan if the employee goes the more traditional route."

Register or login for access to this item and much more

All Employee Benefit News content is archived after seven days.

Community members receive:
  • All recent and archived articles
  • Conference offers and updates
  • A full menu of enewsletter options
  • Web seminars, white papers, ebooks

Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access