Comparing Telepharmacy to Conventional Pharmacy Care: An Economic Evaluation

Telehealth has become a mainstream healthcare delivery methods driven by advances in health technology, evolving patient preferences, and the need for more accessible and affordable care. While traditional pharmacy models remain effective, they face numerous challenges, including medication access, patient privacy, and cost efficiency. To understand the impact of telepharmacy and perform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in three popular therapeutic areas - obesity, erectile dysfunction, and dermatological care. A cost-benefit analysis was performed from the patient cash-pay perspective, comparing telepharmacy to traditional in-person care for tirzepatide (Zepbound), sildenafil (Viagra), and tretinoin. Drug strength and quantities were picked based on literature and clinical guidelines. Costs included consultation fees and a 30-day supply. The primary outcomes were the absolute cost difference and percent saving between telepharmacy and in-person pharmacy service. Telepharmacy offers significant savings for higher-cost or branded products, but not for low-cost generics. For obesity management, Zepbound (tirzepatide, 2.5 mg), the supported starting dose, lowered the monthly cost by 53.6%. For erectile dysfunction, Viagra (sildenafil 50 mg), the first-line therapy, reduced the monthly cost by 27%. In contrast, tretinoin 0.05% cream was $30 more expensive through telepharmacy due to consult fee. Telepharmacy offers significant savings for diseases requiring high-cost medications when medication discounts exceed tele-platform fees. In contrast, for inexpensive generics, traditional pharmacy models remain more cost-effective unless patients value accessibility, privacy, and convenience more.