Evaluating the Cost-Benefit of Automated Dispensing Cabinets in Long-Term Care and Closed-Door Pharmacies
Author(s)
Eric P. Borrelli, PhD, PharmD, MBA1, Ashley Taneja, PharmD2, Mia Weiss, MPH2, Taylor Diani, MSN, MBA, RN3, Doina Dumitru, PharmD, MBA, FASHP3, Julia Lucaci, PharmD, MS2.
1Manager, HEOR, Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA, 2Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA, 3Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA.
1Manager, HEOR, Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA, 2Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA, 3Becton, Dickinson and Company, San Diego, CA, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) have been shown to improve medication safety, operational efficiency, and economic outcomes in hospital settings. However, their uptake in long-term care (LTC) facilities remains limited, with many LTCs relying on manual emergency-kits (E-Kits) for medication dispensing. With over 15,000 LTCs in the U.S. serving more than 1.5-million patients, there is a substantial opportunity to enhance medication delivery systems. This study evaluates the cost-benefit of ADC implementation for closed-door pharmacies (CDPs) and LTCs.
METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was performed to assess the financial and operational impacts of ADC adoption. A base-case scenario considered one CDP deploying ADCs in two LTC facilities, replacing manual E-Kits. Input parameters included implementation costs, reductions in STAT deliveries and on-hand inventory, and labor efficiencies reallocated from dispensing and billing tasks. The data were derived from an observational pre-post study, with the model having a 7-year time-horizon. Key outcomes included time to break even, net financial impact, annual labor savings, reduced STAT delivery costs, and inventory-related cost reductions. Scenario analyses explored the cost-benefit across varying numbers of LTC locations.
RESULTS: The implementation of ADCs in two LTC facilities resulted in a break-even period of 1.4 years and a total net financial impact of $286,946 over 7 years. STAT deliveries were reduced by 84%, yielding annual savings of $26,640 ($186,480 over 7 years). On-hand inventory reductions generated a one-time cost savings in year 1 of $6,022, while approximately 57 staff hours per year were reallocated to higher-value activities.
CONCLUSIONS: ADC implementation in CDPs serving LTCs is cost saving, achieving a break-even within 1.4 years. Modeled benefits include significant reductions in STAT delivery costs, lower on-hand inventory levels, and improved labor efficiency, supporting broader adoption of ADCs in this setting.
METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was performed to assess the financial and operational impacts of ADC adoption. A base-case scenario considered one CDP deploying ADCs in two LTC facilities, replacing manual E-Kits. Input parameters included implementation costs, reductions in STAT deliveries and on-hand inventory, and labor efficiencies reallocated from dispensing and billing tasks. The data were derived from an observational pre-post study, with the model having a 7-year time-horizon. Key outcomes included time to break even, net financial impact, annual labor savings, reduced STAT delivery costs, and inventory-related cost reductions. Scenario analyses explored the cost-benefit across varying numbers of LTC locations.
RESULTS: The implementation of ADCs in two LTC facilities resulted in a break-even period of 1.4 years and a total net financial impact of $286,946 over 7 years. STAT deliveries were reduced by 84%, yielding annual savings of $26,640 ($186,480 over 7 years). On-hand inventory reductions generated a one-time cost savings in year 1 of $6,022, while approximately 57 staff hours per year were reallocated to higher-value activities.
CONCLUSIONS: ADC implementation in CDPs serving LTCs is cost saving, achieving a break-even within 1.4 years. Modeled benefits include significant reductions in STAT delivery costs, lower on-hand inventory levels, and improved labor efficiency, supporting broader adoption of ADCs in this setting.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE452
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis, Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies, Value of Information
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Geriatrics