Where each model wins on economics
A direct-compounder model can win when a clinic's formulary centers on the specific pharmacy's products, the direct relationship delivers strong rates on those SKUs, and the clinic values pharmacist collaboration on custom formulations. South Lake Pharmacy's direct compounding model — no intermediary, in-house quality program, pharmacist consultations — can offer genuine cost advantages on the SKUs it compounds. The limit is scope: South Lake only covers South Lake Pharmacy's own formulary, and pricing is confirmed after enrollment rather than visible during evaluation. A pass-through model wins when a clinic needs to quote cash-pay patients on landed cost before the consult, wants to batch refills across multiple 503A partners in one checkout, and values seeing cost on every SKU across a broader catalog before ordering.
Most cash-pay clinics that run GLP-1, hormone, and peptide programs together — across more than one compounder — care most about two things: knowing per-vial cost before they set patient pricing, and batching the whole refill day in one session. Those requirements tend to favor a pass-through multi-partner model, because a clinic agreement confirmed after enrollment cannot inform patient pricing set during evaluation, and a single-compounder portal cannot batch across multiple assigned compounders. But a clinic that only orders South Lake SKUs and values the direct pharmacist relationship may rationally prefer the direct model.