Reconsidering the residency training pathway for ambulatory care pharmacists.

Ambulatory care, commonly found in primary care settings, is a growing area of pharmacy practice supported by an expanding number of residency training opportunities in this setting. As this practice expands, the profession has chosen to adopt structures that define it as a specialty practice area, a departure from the medical profession. A key example of this definition is the profession's alignment of residency training for this setting within postgraduate year 2 standards. In this commentary, we explore the implications of this approach and share experience from more than 20 years of statewide ambulatory care residency training in Minnesota. We question whether current training expectations are rooted in an objective evaluation of the knowledge and skills required for ambulatory care pharmacy practice. Ultimately, we call on practice leaders to take account of the impact on current training expectations for learners and pharmacy workforce development and seek a rationalization of the training pathway for ambulatory care practice.

Building health plan-pharmacist provider partnerships to optimize medication outcomes.

Over the years, the practice of medication management has taken on various terms and definitions. As a result, health plans have developed different approaches to identifying beneficiaries for medication therapy management (MTM), engaging pharmacists to provide MTM, and adopting standards for documentation and quality assurance. This variation leads to inconsistent delivery of MTM and potential quality concerns. Therefore, an environment needs to be created that allows for health plans to discuss and share approaches, challenges, and best practices. To achieve this, the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy has served as an organizer and facilitator of an ongoing series of Minnesota Health Plan Summits to drive sustainable and mutually beneficial MTM programs and payment models across the state. In less than 2 years, the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy has hosted and organized 4 Health Plan Summits with the objective of sharing ideas and identifying mutual goals (short- and long-term) across health plans and pharmacy providers of MTM services to optimize medication outcomes for the citizens of Minnesota and beyond. These meetings have led to several productive discussions and takeaways, including: (1) having a convener is essential for these types of connections and discussions, (2) health plans and pharmacists find value in these summits, (3) there is a range of experience in MTM program development across health plans, and (4) there are important opportunities to enhance understanding between health plans and pharmacist providers. In addition, 3 workgroups have been established in the following areas: (1) improve consistency in the design of MTM benefits across health plans for service and delivery, including provider credentialing, (2) increase transparency and education between plans and providers on the "fixed points" (such as CMS requirements) vs modifiable portions of plan design, and (3) create agreement on a single quality metric to target, collect data, and demonstrate value of MTM. For change to occur, it often must start locally, suggesting that the formal, facilitated convening of local health plan leaders and pharmacist providers to discuss building consistent and high-quality MTM programs is an essential strategy for MTM program adoption and growth. Including both groups of stakeholders should not only focus on payment, but also the mechanisms necessary to support implementation and create a win-win for both groups. In sharing our experience in Minnesota, we aim to inspire others to form regional initiatives that create structured, facilitated conversations that can produce new partnerships. Strategies that have supported our success are described and can be adopted once a regional entity, such as a school of pharmacy or other trusted entity, chooses to convene a group of invested stakeholders.

Guidance for Pharmacy Curricula to Incorporate Health, Wellness, and Health Inequities Stemming From Climate Change: The Report of the 2022-2023 AACP Argus Commission.

The 2022-2023 American Association of College of Pharmacy Argus Commission was charged to provide guidance to schools, curriculum committees, and faculty on how to incorporate health, wellness, and health inequities stemming from climate change into pharmacy curricula. The Argus Commission does not advocate for major changes in the curriculum or standards but suggests a concerted effort across the Academy to enhance the awareness of graduating students of the potential impact of climate change on health both now and in the future. Various examples, along with recommendations and suggestions, are provided of how the impact of climate change on health is currently being integrated into curricula in member schools, as well as a list of resources faculty can use to enhance their awareness of issues related to climate change and health. The Commission was also charged to provide guidance to the American Association of College of Pharmacy regarding future fundraising and business development opportunities. Recommendations in that regard are also included in this report.

Implementation outcomes associated with a value-based care model of comprehensive medication management in community pharmacies.

OBJECTIVE: Although the delivery of comprehensive medication management (CMM) in community pharmacies has been shown to improve health outcomes, inconsistent adoption hinders the benefit patients receive. Our objective was to examine the implementation of a novel value-based care model and the impact of educational and coaching support for pharmacists on patient access to CMM. The underlying care model provides a payment for CMM services combined with incentives to document and improve clinical outcomes and patient engagement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In addition to fee-for-service payments, performance-based incentives were provided to 12 participating pharmacy organizations to promote pharmacist documentation of clinical values (blood pressure and tobacco status for patients with vascular disease and additionally hemoglobin A1c [HbA1C] for patients with diabetes). To promote patient engagement, pharmacies that engaged a higher proportion of attributed patients received additional incentives. OUTCOME MEASURES: Implementation outcomes included penetration (the proportion of eligible patients who received CMM), adoption (variation in penetration across organizations), and fidelity (documentation of all required clinical values). Comparisons were made using t-tests and chi-square testing. RESULTS: Among 1240 eligible patients, 478 (35.8%) had documentation of any service by a participating pharmacist during a one-year implementation period. Using diabetes as an example, documentation was consistently highest for tobacco status (38.1%), followed by blood pressure (29.7%), and HbA1C (38.1%). CMM recipients on average were older, used more medication, and were more likely to have at least one comorbid condition than non-recipients. 41.8% of patients with vascular disease had documentation of both blood pressure and tobacco status while 24.4% of patients with diabetes had blood pressure, tobacco, and HbA1C documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Improving pharmacist access to a patient's medical records could help improve access to CMM services for patients under value-based care models that rely on patient targeting and clinical measurements.

Community pharmacists' experience relying on select implementation strategies in the delivery of comprehensive medication management.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation strategies are methods or techniques that facilitate adoption, implementation, and sustainability of a clinical program or practice. There has been a lack of widespread adoption of comprehensive medication management (CMM) in community pharmacies. The objective of this evaluation was to expand understanding of how select implementation strategies impacted pharmacists' experience implementing and delivering CMM in the community pharmacy setting. METHODS: A community pharmacy CMM initiative, Slice of Partners in Excellence (PIE), employed a number of implementation strategies and key elements from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series to support increased engagement and delivery of CMM within a local payer's CMM program. The program provides incentives to pharmacies for providing CMM to select patients and achieving predetermined quality metrics. To evaluate pharmacists' experience with the implementation strategies and the impact it had on implementing and delivering CMM, a focus group and survey were conducted. RESULTS: Some of the implementation strategies were more frequently highlighted as generating value to participants (coaching, community-wide problem-solving) than others (monthly webinars). Pharmacists identified a need for more formal education regarding billing, documentation and patient engagement supports. Pharmacists expressed a desire for ongoing implementation supports extending beyond this initaitive. CONCLUSION: Understanding the types of implementation strategies that are deemed as influential by pharmacists delivering clinical services in the community pharmacy setting is critical to maximizing patient access to these services in the future.

What is needed to sustain comprehensive medication management? One health plan's perspectives.

Implementation of comprehensive medication management (CMM) in the community pharmacy setting remains sporadic despite its prevalence in other pharmacy contexts. One health plan has been investing in CMM since 2010. Their experience and perceptions in the payer-provider partnership could offer unique insights into the sustainability of CMM in community pharmacy. As part of a broader academic-payer-provider partnership, perceptions of CMM sustainability were explored with key stakeholders in the health plan through a semistructured group interview. Five themes emerged: (1) distinction between CMM and other patient care opportunities, (2) building a CMM program that delivers value requires an investment in network development, (3) payment design influences sustainability, (4) lack of push from community pharmacies to pay for CMM, and (5) the importance of an ongoing facilitated learning and action collaborative. Given previously demonstrated positive return-on-investment, CMM in community pharmacies shows promise for being a sustainable practice model. However, increased reach and performance of networks, as well as number of payers in the market, will be critical to scaling CMM in the community pharmacy setting.

Adaptability, Agency, and Association to Influence Change: The Report of the 2020-21 AACP Argus Commission.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2020-21 AACP Argus Commission was charged to 1) review the 2019-2020 standing committee reports; 2) describe the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare delivery with an emphasis on health equity and social justice, 3) identify strategies to work with other health professions associations to advance interprofessional education and practice, and 4) offer recommendations for activities for the Center to Accelerate Pharmacy Practice Transformation and Academic Innovation (CAPT). Two work groups divided charges 2 and 3 and provided assessments of how health care and education might change due to all we have experienced over the 12-plus months of the pandemic. A review of plans for the first year of the CAPT activities and recommendations for additional activities are included in report. The Commission has proposed two new policy statements on digital health, five recommendations for AACP and five suggestions for colleges and schools of pharmacy. The Argus Commission affirms academic pharmacy's adaptability, agency, and association to influence changes in healthcare delivery and interprofessional education and practice.

Community pharmacists' perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a value-based care model for comprehensive medication management.

BACKGROUND: HealthPartners is an integrated health plan offering comprehensive medication management (CMM) under a value-based care model called Partners in Excellence (PIE). In PIE, participating organizations are incentivized to conduct CMM visits and are eligible for bonus payments if they achieve quality and engagement metrics. Engagement in PIE from community pharmacies has been lacking. Implementation science, specifically the assessment of implementation outcomes, provides key insights into the uptake of patient care services, such as CMM, into practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the PIE program from the perspective of community pharmacists and pharmacy managers. METHODS: Semi-structured, one-on-one qualitative interviews were conducted with a group of 14 pharmacists and pharmacy managers participating in the PIE program. Interviews were coded inductively, and then codes were mapped to the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. RESULTS: Twelve codes emerged from the interviews. Four codes (targeted conditions of PIE, achieving PIE metrics, comprehensiveness of PIE, and confusion and barriers) were mapped to acceptability; 3 codes (CMM documentation and billing, fitting CMM into limited time with patients, and community pharmacy's role in patient care) were mapped to appropriateness; and 1 code (collecting clinical patient information) was mapped to feasibility. Four codes (CMM payment model, targeting patients for CMM, personnel for CMM, and patient/provider buy-in of CMM) were considered a combination of more than 1 outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the PIE program was generally positive, participants cited a number of implementation challenges related to documentation and billing and producing a sustainable CMM model. The results shed light on how a value-based care model for CMM is perceived within community pharmacies and could inform the development and implementation of similar quality-based CMM programs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) Foundation and the UNC Eshelman Institute for Innovation. Pestka is affiliated with the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy and reports grants from NACDS Foundation and UNC Eshelman Institute for Innovation for the conduct of the study; she has also received grants from UNC Eshelman Institute for Innovation and NACDS Foundation outside the submitted work. Stoa and Sorensen are also affiliated with the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy. Blanchard is employed at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This work was presented as a virtual poster at the 2020 American College of Clinical Pharmacy Annual Meeting, October 19-30, 2020.

Evaluating the Experience of Organizations Implementing Medication Management Services Using a Variety of Implementation Strategies.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to evaluate the experience of organizations who participated in a medication management learning collaborative and their perceptions of the different implementation strategies that were employed. METHODS: Using a utilization-focused evaluation approach, qualitative interviews were conducted with former participants (clinicians, managers, or other key stakeholders) of medication management learning collaboratives organized and delivered by Alliance for Integrated Medication Management (AIMM). The purpose of the learning collaboratives was to provide structure and facilitation to accelerate the implementation of medication management services. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were carried out with a lead member of 11 different organizations that participated in an AIMM collaborative about their experience in the collaborative and the different implementation strategies that were used. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (1) perspectives on the implementation strategies, (2) external facilitators, and (3) additional benefits of being in the collaborative. Certain implementation strategies used by AIMM, such as coaching, were considered beneficial by almost everyone while other strategies, such as webinars, had mixed opinions. Participants also highlighted the importance of external facilitators, like dedicated time to work on implementation strategies, as well as the additional benefits like the professional development that comes from being in a learning collaborative and learning different implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: Implementation strategies may help accelerate the adoption and expansion of medication management services within and across organizations. The results of this evaluation shed light on the experiences of different organizations using select implementation strategies in their medication management implementation efforts. The perspectives of participants in this study may help other organizations in selecting and developing similar implementation strategies.

How Comprehensive Medication Management Contributes to Foundational Elements of Primary Care.

Pharmacists are more often being recognized as a critical component of the primary care team. Previous literature has not clearly made the connection to how pharmacists and comprehensive medication management (CMM) contribute to recognized foundational elements of primary care. In this reflection, we examine how the delivery of CMM both supports and aligns with Starfield's 4 Cs of Primary Care. We illustrate how the delivery of CMM supports first contact through increased provider access, continuity through empanelment, comprehensiveness by addressing unmet medication needs, and coordination through collaborating with the primary care team and broader team. The provision of CMM addresses critical unmet medication-related needs in primary care and is aligned with the foundational elements of primary care.

Twenty Years of Experience and Counting: Strategies for Growing Medication Therapy Management Services.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this commentary. Brummel has consulted, presented, or was engaged in an advisory board for UCB, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Lilly. Sorenson has nothing to disclose.

Reinventing How Pharmacy Educators Connect as a Community.

The onset of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has added a new layer of complexity to an already difficult period for academic pharmacy. The need to follow social-distancing guidelines has resulted in rapid adoption of technology-enabled communication strategies. While these technologies provide unprecedented ways in which we can connect as an academic community, we must consider their effectiveness in not only promoting exchange of information, but also creating inspiration within the community and supporting the level of interdependence required to tackle the difficult challenges that lie ahead. As the connecting body within the community of pharmacy education, it is incumbent on the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) to consider how we will adapt during this period of disruption. We must adopt new strategies that will allow our members to connect in new, meaningful ways, ways that stimulate ideas, new partnerships, and an overall sense of hope for our future.

A Dentist, Pilot, and Pastry Chef Walk into a Bar Why Teaching PPCP is Not Enough.

For both education and practice, the dissemination of the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioner's Patient Care Process for Pharmacists has heightened attention to the need for a defined care process for pharmacists. Yet, when one compares this framework with those described in other disciplines, what makes it specific to pharmacy? Graduates must establish their unique role in patient care management among the health care team. Therefore, it is essential that pharmacy educators prepare students to contribute uniquely and communicate articulately about those contributions. This involves intentionally teaching an explicit clinical assessment process and a recognized taxonomy for communicating medication-related needs. In addition, educators must: ensure integration of patient care frameworks unique to pharmacists in curricula, commit to critical evaluation of care process instruction, and partner with external stakeholders to establish the distinct contributions of pharmacists to team-based care.