Cost evaluation model to compare in house repackaging, repackaging vendors, and sourcing unit dose medications from manufacturers for oral liquids

PURPOSE: Unit-dose packaging systems are widely used and accepted practices in many hospitals in the US. When adopting a unit-dose, there are three different avenues in which pharmaceuticals can be obtained. Products can be purchased from a manufacturer-produced source, outsourced to repackaging by a 3rd-party repackaging service or repackaged in-house by investing in the technology and the resources to do so. Prior literature has suggested that manufacturer-based unit-dose purchasing was associated with a 1% cost savings over repackaged unit-dose. In this study, we hope to take a more extensive look at the cost and concerns associated specifically with unit dose liquids when purchased from a manufacturer, outsourced to a third party repackager, or repackaged from bulk bottles with in-house technology and resources. METHODS: A cost evaluation model, which factored in cost associated with used and expired product, was utilized to estimate and compare the cost of the three systems. RESULTS: Overall cost between the three systems was largely similar, although manufacturer-based repackaging was determined to be the most cost effective system. CONCLUSION: The results of this decision model analysis suggests that the cost associated with purchasing unit dose liquids from manufacturers, third party repackagers, and in-house repackaging are similar. Therefore, utilizing a specific system is unlikely to make a significant impact on the overall pharmaceutical budget for a large hospital or health system.