• Free Newsletters
  • Free Seminars and Podcasts from Industry Experts
  • Free Online Content and More

Satisfaction with mail-order pharmacies declines again: J.D. Power

Print
Email
Reprints
 
By Tristan Lejeune
October 1, 2012

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 took only a minor hit, from 818 down to 814 in 2012. 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.

Asked in an interview if declining satisfaction would just be a lump that people would have to take as businesses moved online, Millard compared pharmacies to booksellers – shops 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 said. “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."

5 Comments

Posted by: PJ O | October 1, 2012 5:52 PM

A few points: 1-A Major difference between the Pharmacy / bookstore analogy... Amazon is not setting the price that small bookstores must accept. Independent pharmacies are told what they will be reimbursed, and then are prohibited to serve Their customers who are forced to use mail service. But if something goes wrong with delivery of Mail order, local pharmaciists are asked to "clean up the mess". 2-Mail order does NOT SAVE MONEY! Patients may receive a lower copay, but the Employers pay all the hidden fees, and upcharges, while keeping a large portion of the Rebates on medications that the Employers pays for. 3-Did you ever ask you Doctor what he/she thinks about Mail Order? Doctors are routinley called/faxed by Mail order to change medications which financially benefit the PBM. If 90-day supplies are warrented, local pharmacies can dispense 3-month supplies,but again, are prohibited by the large PBMs because they control the network, and convince employers of false savings. If as an employer you do not demand a transparent contract, you are overpaying.

Report this Comment


Posted by: mrady | October 1, 2012 2:57 PM

As an Employee Benefits Specialist who is now forced under my husband's employers plan to use mail order for ALL maintenance prescriptions after one retail fill I can definitely comment to the amount of waste and ineffeciencies within the mail order system. Most people are lucky if the first prescription they fill is a long term fit for their medical needs. Thus I have a drawer filled with 3 months of presecriptions that did not work for me. However if I hadn't ordered when I did, I would have had a time lapse without a maintenance prescription. I have also had the mail order have be out-of-stock on my prescription and ask me to talk to my doctor about prescribing something different. They would not allow me to have more than 1 retail fill when they were out of stock. Thus leaving me without meds I did need. If you are going to do mandatory mail order make sure it is after at least 6 months of retail. I think I now need HBP meds after this experience...

Report this Comment


Posted by: straightup | October 1, 2012 2:22 PM

I am willing to use mail order. However, my current provider only offers miniscule savings with use of mail order program, so the hassle just isn't worth it. Companies are going to have to work harder on the front end making the prospect of switching to mail order convenient and hassle-free, and then follow up with the same good customer service we can receive monthly from our pharmacy, and at a significant savings to make the switch worthwhile.

Report this Comment


Posted by: Carolyn W | October 1, 2012 1:56 PM

As a benefits administrator I understand how mail order pharmacies can be more cost effective to the insurance company as well as the member.As a consumer, I voluntarily used the mail-order program and received less than acceptable service. These pharmacies act as monopolies and subject the consumer to nothing but hassles.The added cost of prescriptions at a local pharmacy is worth the better service.

Report this Comment


Posted by: ScottJ | October 1, 2012 1:36 PM

I think that people who use a mail order program willingly are going to be positive about their experience. However, participants who are being forced to use the service are going to shift their unsatisfaction from not being able to use their corner pharmacy in a negative manner, not from the cost, value, or service aspect, but not from being able to use their corner pharmacy.

Report this Comment

Add Your Comments...

Already Registered?

If you have already registered to Benefit News, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.

Forgot your password?

Not Registered?

You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.