Implementation and evaluation of social determinants of health practice models within community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: While community pharmacies are an ideal setting for social needs screening and referral programs, information on social risk assessment within pharmacy practice is limited. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to describe 2 social determinant of health (SDOH) practice models implemented within community pharmacies. The secondary objective was to evaluate implementation practices utilizing the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Two pharmacy groups participated in a 3-month study, one in New York (9 pharmacies) and another in Missouri (1 pharmacy). The New York pharmacies implemented an SDOH specialist practice model, in which pharmacy staff members facilitate the program. The Missouri pharmacy implemented a community health worker (CHW) model by cross training their technicians. Each pharmacy developed their program using the Community Pharmacy Enhanced Services Network Care Model. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Both programs expanded the technician role to take on additional responsibilities. The SDOH specialist model partnered with a local independent practice association to create a social needs referral program using a technology platform for closed-loop communication. All workflow steps of the self-contained CHW program were completed within the pharmacy, placing additional responsibility on the CHW and pharmacy staff. EVALUATION METHODS: RE-AIM framework dimensions of Reach, Effectiveness, and Adoption. RESULTS: Social challenges were identified in 49 of 76 (65%) generated SDOH screenings. The most prevalent social needs reported were affordability of daily needs (33%) and health care system navigation (15%). While most pharmacy staff indicated that workflow steps were clearly defined, assessments and referral tools were identified as potential gaps. While approximately 50% of pharmacy staff were comfortable with their assigned roles and in addressing SDOH challenges, physical and mental health concerns required additional education for intervention. CONCLUSION: The successful implementation of community pharmacy SDOH programs connected patients with local resources. Community pharmacies are ideally positioned to expand their public health footprint through SDOH interactions that consequently improve patient care.

Addressing social determinants of health in community pharmacy: Innovative opportunities and practice models.

Social determinants of health (SDoH) account for up to 90% of health outcomes, whereas medical care accounts for only 10%-15%; despite this disparity, only 24% of hospitals and 16% of physician practices screen for the 5 social needs. Community-embedded and highly accessible, pharmacies are uniquely positioned to connect individuals to local community and social resources and thereby address SDoH. In this article, we explore novel community pharmacy practice models that address SDoH, provide real-world examples of these models, and discuss pathways for reimbursement and sustainability. A number of innovative community pharmacy practice models that focus on social issues are currently being explored. These include integrating community health workers (CHWs) or SDoH specialists, wherein CHWs are frontline public health workers who can effectively bridge the health care system and their community, whereas SDoH specialists are pharmacy team members trained with substantial SDoH knowledge and how to use it to connect pharmacy patients to community resources. Three community pharmacy networks have implemented pilot programs using either a CHW or SDoH specialist model. An essential component for program success in all cases has been partnership development and increased interdependence between the pharmacies, local community organizations, and the public health sector. New payment models and financial incentives will be necessary to expand and sustain these programs. A potential Approach may be the use of Z codes, a subset of ICD-10-CM codes specific to assessing SDoH. Although opportunities are developing for community pharmacies to play a major role in sustainably addressing SDoH, additional work is needed before there is a widespread acceptance of pharmacies becoming service referral destinations for patients with social needs. Evaluation of these models on a wider scale will be necessary to fully evaluate their effectiveness, costs, and implementation within different community pharmacy settings.

Patient outcomes from implementing an enhanced services pharmacy network.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of implementing a network of community pharmacies on medication adherence, health service utilization, and health care spending. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental difference-in-difference analysis with a nonequivalent control group. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eligible Medicaid-enrolled patients in North Carolina were attributed to intervention pharmacies between March 2015 and December 2016. A control group was propensity score-matched. Interventions consisted of enhanced services and a more intensive, comprehensive initial pharmacy assessment (CIPA). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included hospitalizations; emergency department (ED) visits; health care spending for total medical, inpatient, outpatient, and ED services; and adherence to renin-angiotensin system antagonists (RASA), statins, noninsulin diabetes medications (NIDM), and multiple medications for chronic conditions (MMCC). RESULTS: There were 31,509 patients who met eligibility criteria and were attributed to a participating pharmacy. Of these, 3897 received a CIPA. Before matching, patients attributed to participating pharmacies had greater Medicaid enrollment through aged, blind, or disabled status (49.2% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001); greater case management (10.3% vs. 7%, P < 0.001); and worse rates of chronic disease (P < 0.001). Successful matching removed these differences. Adherence to RASA medications and MMCC increased by 9.5% and 10.3% (P < 0.05), respectively. Adherence did not change for statins and NIDM. The analysis also revealed a slower decline in average total medical spending of 5.7% (P < 0.01) relative to the control group over the same period, owed to a 9.6% (P < 0.001) slower decline in outpatient spending. ED utilization also decreased more slowly relative to controls by 4.8% (P < 0.05) following the intervention. CONCLUSION: The pharmacy intervention resulted in a statistically significant improvement in medication adherence to RASA and multiple chronic medications, but did not change or may have worsened utilization and spending outcomes. More research is needed to explore patient selection and variation in implementation and heterogeneity of treatment effects when evaluating pharmacy interventions.

Payment Reform Meets Pharmacy Practice and Education Transformation.

The pharmacy profession has for the greater part of four decades been associated with dispensing activities and product reimbursement. This has hindered the ability of pharmacists to evolve their roles in their respective sites of care. Payment reform efforts that create an outcomes marketplace offer an opportunity for professional transformation.

Pharmacist engagement in medical home practices: report of the APhA-APPM Medical Home Workgroup.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that have led to successful involvement of pharmacists in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices, identify challenges and suggested solutions for pharmacists involved in medical home practices, and disseminate findings. DATA SOURCES: In July 2011, the American Pharmacists Association Academy of Pharmacy Practice & Management convened a workgroup of pharmacists currently practicing or conducting research in National Committee for Quality Assurance-accredited PCMH practices. DATA SYNTHESIS: A set of guiding questions to explore the early engagement and important process steps of pharmacist engagement with PCMH practices was used to conduct a series of conference calls during an 8-month period. CONCLUSION: Based on knowledge gained from early adopters of PCMH, the workgroup identified 10 key findings that it believes are essential to pharmacist integration into PCMH practices.

Stages of Change: Moving Community Pharmacies From a Drug Dispensing to Population Health Management Model.

Given their clinical training and accessibility, community pharmacists are well positioned to support primary care, especially in providing medication management services. There is limited evidence, however, on implementation of community pharmacist-led services in coordination with other health care providers. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation process of community pharmacies in North Carolina participating in a Medicaid population health management intervention. We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 representatives from high- and low-performing community pharmacies from June to August 2017. We analyzed for themes organized around Rogers's Stages in the Innovation Process in Organizations. Community pharmacies employed numerous implementation strategies such as developing relationships with providers and redefining job responsibilities to ensure pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are working at the top of their license. Findings also revealed differences in the implementation process among high- and low-performing pharmacies. Continued research is needed to determine which implementation strategies improve program performance.

Pharmacist and physician satisfaction and rates of switching to preferred medications associated with an instant prior authorization program for proton pump inhibitors in the North Carolina Medicaid program.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the highest expenditure drugs covered by health care plans. During fiscal year 2001-2002, Medicaid programs nationwide spent nearly $2 billion on PPIs. Although the costs of individual PPIs vary widely, there is little variation in therapeutic effectiveness. On June 1, 2007, the North Carolina Medicaid program implemented an "instant approval" option simultaneously with a prior authorization (PA) program for PPIs with the goal of managing costs and maintaining high-quality care. Preferred PPIs included generic omeprazole and Prilosec OTC. This instant approval process (IAP) was expected to impose less administrative burden than is typically associated with PA programs by permitting physician and nonphysician prescribers to either write the PA criteria directly on a prescription form or use "MD Easy," a preprinted form that could be faxed by the prescriber to the dispensing pharmacy. A previous study found that from the prescriber's perspective the IAP reduced practice-related administrative burden and was associated with a reduced gap in PPI therapy when compared with traditional PA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of this IAP for PPIs as assessed by the outcome measures of (a) pharmacist satisfaction with the IAP; (b) physician and pharmacist satisfaction with the MD Easy form; and (c) utilization rates for preferred PPIs, comparing medical practices that used the MD Easy form with practices that did not. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used to assess pharmacist and physician satisfaction. A stratified random sample of 240 pharmacies was selected from 1,561 North Carolina pharmacies with claims in the Medicaid claims data file during state fiscal year 2006. Additionally, a stratified random sample of 240 medical practices was selected from 1,045 primary care practices serving Medicaid beneficiaries during 2006. Surveys were administered to pharmacists using either in-person interviews or self-administered questionnaires and to physicians using a mailed questionnaire with follow-up to nonrespondents. An interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the effect of the MD Easy form on switching to preferred PPIs using paid Medicaid claims of surveyed practices from calendar year 2007. Practices that reported both using the IAP and receiving the MD Easy form were defined as MD Easy users. Monthly market share data were analyzed using log negative binomial regression models to account for autocorrelation in the time series data. RESULTS: The pharmacy survey was completed by 202 (84.2%) pharmacies selected for participation. Of 198 permanently employed pharmacists, 140 (70.7%) reported experience with the IAP for PPIs. More than two-thirds (68.6%) of the pharmacist respondents with IAP experience indicated that the IAP is better (34.3%) or much better (34.3%) than traditional PA with RESEARCH respect to overall administrative burden of phone calls, faxes, patient interactions, and doctor contacts. Surveys were completed by 171 (71.3%) of selected physician practices, of which 56 (32.7%) reported experience with the MD Easy forms. Of practices that recalled receiving the MD Easy forms, 52 of 56 (92.9%) reported that the forms "very much" or "somewhat" helped prevent gaps in PPI therapy; 54 of 55 (98.2%) reported that they helped identify patients affected by Medicaid PPI PA; and 100% reported that they helped physicians to follow PA requirements. Immediately after implementation of the IAP and MD Easy form, the observed market share of preferred PPIs increased by 4.1 times (95% CI = 3.57-4.62). From May to June 2007, the preferred PPI market share increased by 64.0 percentage points, from 19.3% to 83.3% (P < 0.001), for practices that reported using the IAP and receiving the MD Easy form (n = 56) and by 55.4 percentage points, from 21.8% to 77.2% (P < 0.001), for practices that either (a) reported not receiving the MD Easy form (n = 25) or (b) reported not using the IAP (n = 84) or (c) did not respond to the survey item asking about the MD Easy form (n = 4). The overall increase in preferred PPI market share after implementation of the IAP was 1.29 times higher for practices that used the MD Easy form than for those that did not based on negative binomial regression modeling; this difference approached statistical significance (95% CI = 1.00-1.68; P = 0.053). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that an IAP for PPIs using either handwritten prescriptions or a preprinted form is an effective alternative to traditional PA. The IAP was associated with an increase in market share for preferred PPIs and was perceived by pharmacists as less administratively burdensome than traditional PA. Additional studies are needed to determine sustainability and the applicability to other prescription drugs.

A Sleeping Giant: Community Pharmacy's Potential Is Unrivaled.

DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the writing of this commentary. The author has nothing to disclose.

Scaling Community Pharmacy Transformation with the 'Flip the Pharmacy' Implementation Model: Program Origins.

The rising costs of healthcare, increased chronic illnesses, and healthcare provider burnout has led to an environment desperate for scalable solutions to ease practice burdens. With a projected shortage in the number of primary healthcare providers available to provide team-based care, community-based pharmacy practitioners are accessible and eager to assist. In order to provide enhanced patient care services to aid their clinician colleagues, community-based pharmacists will have to transform their practices to support the provision of enhanced services and medication optimization in value-based payment models. The purpose of this article is to define how multiple factors in pharmacy, healthcare, technology and payment models aligned to create an opportunity for the Community Pharmacy Foundation and CPESN® USA to implement a nationwide community pharmacy practice model called 'Flip the Pharmacy'. This new model aims to scale community pharmacy practice transformation and move beyond filling prescriptions at a moment-in-time to caring for patients over time through a 24-month step-wise program paired with in-person pharmacist coaching. Preliminary observations from the first six months of the program highlight community pharmacy as a site of care with community-based pharmacist practitioners providing and documenting targeted patient care interventions.

Accuracy of Prescription Claims Data in Identifying Truly Nonadherent Patients.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims data are increasingly used to identify nonadherent patients. This necessitates a comprehensive review and assessment of their accuracy in identifying nonadherent patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare administrative claims-based measures of adherence with nonadherence verified by patient interview; (b) determine if and to what extent patients classified as nonadherent based on prescription claims differ from patients classified as nonadherent based on interventions designed to gather multiple types of medication lists to compare against the prescription fill history; and (c) assess the various patient-reported reasons for nonadherence. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was used to identify patients from the Southern Piedmont Community Care Network of North Carolina who were enrolled with Medicaid between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2013, and were using prescription medications for 1 or more chronic conditions. Patients with more than a 30-day gap in refill history were identified using prescription claims and were interviewed by pharmacists to assess the reasons for nonadherence. Based on the patient-reported reasons for a gap in refill, patients were classified as interview-verified nonadherent patients or interview-verified adherent patients. The positive predictive value of prescription claims in identifying nonadherent patients was calculated, and descriptive statistics were reported. Characteristics of interview-verified nonadherent patients were compared with adherent patients using t-tests and chi-square statistics. RESULTS: 1,425 patients representing 2,936 patient-class of medication combinations were included in the final analysis. 824 (28.07%) of the 2,936 records that were flagged as nonadherent using claims analysis were confirmed as adherent during patient interviews. The positive predictive value of claims records in identifying nonadherent patients was 0.72. The 2 most common reasons for patients to be misclassified as nonadherent in claims data following self-report were discontinuation of medication on prescribers' directions (21.93%) and having an alternate channel for receiving the medication (6.13%). Among interview-verified nonadherent patients, side effects, patient beliefs, education, and socioeconomic barriers were the most common patient-reported reasons for gaps in refill. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription claims may underestimate adherence in patients. When interviewed directly by a pharmacist, most patients reported discontinuation of medication as per prescribers' directions. To determine the overall validity of prescription claims data, further analysis is required to assess its accuracy in identifying truly nonadherent patients among those who are identified as nonadherent by claims data. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Glassberg and Wei were employees at Community Care of North Carolina when this research was conducted. Trygstad is an employee of Community Care of North Carolina; Robinson is an employee of Community Care of Southern Piedmont, a subsidiary of Community Care of North Carolina. The geographies, health care professionals, and subjects involved in the study were related to the care coordination work that Community Care of North Carolina was charged with implementing through its informatics and subject matter expertise assistance provided to these local entities to augment primary care activities. Farley has received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the National Institutes of Health, and Community Care of North Carolina and has also received consulting funds from UCB. The other authors have nothing additional to report.

The role of network ties to support implementation of a community pharmacy enhanced services network.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on how to integrate community pharmacists into team-based care models, as the inclusion of community pharmacy services into alternative payment models is relatively new. To be successful in team-based care models, community pharmacies need to successfully build relationship with diverse stakeholders including providers, care managers, and patients. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to: (1) identify the role of network ties to support implementation of a community pharmacy enhanced services network, (2) describe how these network ties are formed and maintained, and (3) compare the role of network ties among high- and low-performing community pharmacies participating in an enhanced services network. METHODS: Using a semi-structured interview guide, we interviewed 40 community pharmacy representatives responsible for implementation of a community pharmacy enhanced services program. We analyzed for themes using social network theory to compare network ties among 24 high- and 16 low-performing community pharmacies. RESULTS: The study found that high-performing pharmacies had a greater diversity of network ties (e.g., relationships with healthcare providers, care managers, and public health agencies). High-performing pharmacies were able to use those ties to support implementation of NC-CPESN. High- and low-performing pharmacies used similar strategies for establishing ties with patients, such as motivational interviewing and assigning staff members to be responsible for engaging high-risk patients. High-performing pharmacies used additional strategies such as assessing patient preferences to support patient engagement, increasing patient receptivity towards enhanced services. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacies may vary in their ability to develop relationships with other healthcare providers, care management and public agencies, and patients. As enhanced services interventions that require care coordination are scaled up and spread, additional research is needed to test implementation strategies that support community pharmacies with developing and maintaining relationships across a diverse group of stakeholders (e.g., healthcare providers, care managers, public health agencies, patients).

Lessons Learned from Using Global Outcome Measures to Assess Community Pharmacy Performance.

INTRODUCTION: As value-based and alternative payment models proliferate, there is growing interest in measuring pharmacy performance. However, little research has explored the development and implementation of systems to measure pharmacy performance. Additionally, systems that currently exist rely on process and surrogate outcome measures that are not always relevant to patients and payers. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: This article describes the process used to design and implement a performance measurement program for a group of enhanced services pharmacies in North Carolina. This program was successful in measuring quality based on medication adherence, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and total cost of medical care for nearly all North Carolina pharmacies. Measures were scored and combined into a single 11-point composite pharmacy performance score. To demonstrate the measures, we compared performance scores for enhanced services pharmacies (n = 119) to other North Carolina pharmacies (n = 1,616) during the baseline measurement period (March 1, 2015-May 31, 2015). Adherence measure scores for enhanced services pharmacies exceeded those of other pharmacies (P values < 0.0001-0.003), but total scores were not significantly different, with enhanced services pharmacy mean total scores of 6.54 vs. 6.29 for all other pharmacies (P = 0.115). OBSERVATIONS: The program described provides an example of a composite performance measurement system that can be used to support alternative pharmacy payment models and shows that case-mix adjustment is possible for broad outcomes such as those used in this program. The measures used for the program depend on timely feeds of medical claims. Payers and pharmacy networks implementing a similar program may need to explore alternative structure or process measures. IMPLICATIONS: As pharmacy payment models evolve, there may be value in collaboration between academics, pharmacists, and payers to bring different areas of expertise and perspectives into the performance measurement process. This program demonstrates that global outcome measurement is possible over a broad set of pharmacies and invites additional research to explore the validity of this and other methods to measure pharmacy quality and performance. DISCLOSURES: The program described in this article was supported by Funding Opportunity Number 1C12013003897 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies. Community Care of North Carolina received the grant and subcontracted with the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy to carry out this project. Shasky, Pfeiffenberger, and Trygstad are employed by Community Care of North Carolina. Urick and Ferreri are employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Farley was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy during data collection for this project and reports consulting fees from UCB Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to this project. Pfeiffenberger reports membership on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) task force on pharmacy level measures; Trygstad is a PQA board member; Urick is a member of a scientific advisory committee for PQA.

Evaluation of a pilot medication therapy management project within the North Carolina State Health Plan.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a pharmacist-based medication therapy management (MTM) service for North Carolina State Health Plan enrollees. DESIGN: Before/after design with two control groups. SETTING: Community pharmacies and an ambulatory care clinic in North Carolina serving patients from October 2004 to March 2005. PARTICIPANTS: 67 patients who used a large number of prescription drugs, 10 community/ambulatory care pharmacists, and more than 600 participants from two control groups. INTERVENTIONS: Pharmacist-conducted MTM reviews for volunteering patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process measures (type and frequency of drug therapy problems detected and services performed), economic measures (number and cost of medications dispensed), and humanistic measures (patient satisfaction with services). RESULTS: Pharmacists identified an average of 3.6 potential drug therapy problems (PDTPs) per patient at the first visit. The most common PDTP categories were "potential underuse" and "more cost-effective drug available." Pharmacist actions were divided nearly equally between activities that would result in increased and decreased drug use. Pharmacists recommended a drug therapy change in about 50% of patients and contacted the prescriber more than 85% of the time. About 50% of patients with PDTPs had a change in drug therapy. Prescription use during the postintervention period decreased in both the study and control groups but was statistically significant only among the control groups. No significant differences were observed in patient co-payment or insurer prescription costs. Pharmacists provided the following educational services: medication use (90%), disease management (88%), adherence, and self-care (60%). Survey results indicated that patients highly valued the service. CONCLUSION: A voluntary MTM program targeted at ambulatory patients using a large number of medications reduced the number of PDTPs but did not necessarily result in reductions in prescription drug use or cost. Nearly all patients received some form of medication adherence or disease education associated with problem detection and resolution. Patient satisfaction levels with the service were very high.

Evaluation of product switching after a state Medicaid program began covering loratadine OTC 1 year after market availability.

OBJECTIVE: The conversion of loratadine from prescription (Rx)-only to over-the-counter (OTC) status on November 27, 2002, brought about the question of how OTC products may influence utilization of both OTC and Rx-only low-sedating antihistamines (LSAs) simultaneously. North Carolina (NC) Medicaid initially did not cover loratadine OTC but subsequently changed the policy 1 year after OTC conversion, on November 23, 2003. The objective of this study was to determine patterns of LSA utilization in relation to changes in OTC availability and Medicaid coverage policy and to assess the rate of product switching associated with these policies. METHODS: Administrative pharmacy claims from the NC Medicaid population of approximately 1.1 million eligible recipients were used to study the 3 years of LSA use between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2004. Two general methods were employed to evaluate the extent of product switching. First, monthly rates of incident use, new starts (i.e., no LSA use in the prior 12-month period) and product switching in time series were determined. These series were constructed to include a baseline period of no OTC availability, a period of OTC availability without coverage, and a period of OTC availability with coverage. Second, product switching was assessed through the use of rate-ratio calculations. Three equal 12-month periods were compared using rate ratios: (1) a baseline referent period (July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002) during which loratadine OTC was not yet available, (2) a noncoverage period (July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003) during which loratadine OTC was introduced to the market but not covered by NC Medicaid, and (3) a coverage period (July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004). The primary comparison periods for the 3 years were the 5-month periods from February to June of each year. RESULTS: The use of individual drugs within the LSA class responded to coverage changes as expected, with alternative LSAs replacing loratadine use in the loratadine noncoverage period. Switching behavior for individual drugs within the LSA class was strongly associated with coverage changes. Recipients using loratadine were 2.16 times more likely to switch to an alternative Rx-only antihistamine in the noncoverage period (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.10-2.22) as compared with the baseline period. Yet they were only 1.11 times as likely not to use an Rx LSA during the last 5 months of the noncoverage period (95% CI, 1.09-1.13), as compared with the baseline period, suggesting minimal OTC uptake. The largest 12-month percentage increase in market share was observed for cetirizine (13.4%) although desloratadine accounted for the largest switch rate from loratadine at 3.10 (95% CI, 2.91-3.30), as compared with the baseline period, with a total market share increase of 7.8%. This suggests that new users of LSAs were most likely to initiate therapy with cetirizine, while existing loratadine users were most likely to switch to desloratadine. Compared with baseline switch rates, LSA users were only 0.34 (95% CI; 0.32-0.37) times as likely to switch to loratadine OTC from another (Rx-only) LSA during the subsequent OTC coverage period. LSA expenditure per member per month (PMPM) was essentially constant over time, at dollar 3.03 in the 5-month pre-OTC period, dollar 2.96 in the 5-month loratadine noncoverage period, and dollar 2.93 in the 5-month coverage period for loratadine OTC. Total LSA utilization increased slightly, from 1.37 days PMPM in the 5-month pre-OTC period to 1.41 in the 5-month loratadine noncoverage period and 1.45 in the 5-month coverage period for loratadine OTC. Loratadine OTC accounted for only 4.1% of the total LSA days of therapy and 4.2% of the LSA patients in the 5-month OTC coverage period from February to June 2004. CONCLUSION: Medicaid recipients switched to another covered (Rx) LSA when loratadine became available as an OTC and was not covered. After the subsequent policy change 1 year later to cover loratadine OTC, there was little switching to loratadine OTC. Though the average cost per LSA claim dropped dollar 4.15 (6.6%), from dollar 62.79 in the baseline period to dollar 58.64 in the OTC coverage period, time-series and rate-ratio results suggest that an additional dollar 6.01 (10.2%) could have been saved per LSA claim had OTC coverage been in effect at the time of the conversion of loratadine to OTC status. Although coverage of loratadine OTC offers a substantial cost-savings opportunity for the Medicaid program compared with Rx-only LSAs, not covering the OTC product immediately at the time of OTC availability contributed to (a) increased switching to Rx-only LSA products and (b) little use of loratadine OTC in the subsequent OTC coverage period.

Health Information Technology: Meaningful Use and Next Steps to Improving Electronic Facilitation of Medication Adherence.

BACKGROUND: The use of health information technology (HIT) may improve medication adherence, but challenges for implementation remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to review the current state of HIT as it relates to medication adherence programs, acknowledge the potential barriers in light of current legislation, and provide recommendations to improve ongoing medication adherence strategies through the use of HIT. METHODS: We describe four potential HIT barriers that may impact interoperability and subsequent medication adherence. Legislation in the United States has incentivized the use of HIT to facilitate and enhance medication adherence. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) was recently adopted and establishes federal standards for the so-called "meaningful use" of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology that can directly impact medication adherence. RESULTS: The four persistent HIT barriers to medication adherence include (1) underdevelopment of data reciprocity across clinical, community, and home settings, limiting the capture of data necessary for clinical care; (2) inconsistent data definitions and lack of harmonization of patient-focused data standards, making existing data difficult to use for patient-centered outcomes research; (3) inability to effectively use the national drug code information from the various electronic health record and claims datasets for adherence purposes; and (4) lack of data capture for medication management interventions, such as medication management therapy (MTM) in the EHR. Potential recommendations to address these issues are discussed. CONCLUSION: To make meaningful, high quality data accessible, and subsequently improve medication adherence, these challenges will need to be addressed to fully reach the potential of HIT in impacting one of our largest public health issues.

Pharmacist response to alerts generated from Medicaid pharmacy claims in a long-term care setting: results from the North Carolina polypharmacy initiative.

OBJECTIVE: In response to burgeoning drug costs, North Carolina (NC) Medicaid encouraged pharmacists and prescribers to develop collaborative programs to reduce drug expenditures. One of these programs, the North Carolina Polypharmacy Initiative, was a focused drug therapy management intervention aimed at reducing polypharmacy in nursing homes. This intervention targeted patients with more than 18 prescription fills in 90 days, beginning in November 2002. These patients were believed to have a high likelihood of experiencing potential drug therapy problems (PDTPs). Consultant pharmacists were asked to utilize profiles displaying alerts generated from pharmacy claims to guide interventions in addition to usual-care drug regimen reviews. The pharmacists documented their reviews, recommendations, and resulting changes in drug therapy. Our objectives were to determine (1) the persistence of PDTP alerts following interventions by consultant pharmacists and (2) the impact of these interventions on patient drug costs from a payer perspective. METHODS: A before-after study with comparison group design was used. Medicaid prescription claims data were compared for the 90-day periods prior to the intervention (June-August 2002) and following the intervention (March-June 2003). The 90-day post-intervention period allowed for 2 to 3 follow-up prescriptions and reduced the drop-out rate. The 5 categories of potential problem alerts included potentially inappropriate medications (Beers criteria), substitution opportunity for a lower-cost drug, 16 drugs or drug classes with specific quality improvement opportunities (Clinical Initiatives list), therapeutic duplication, and length of drug therapy evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 253 nursing homes, involving 110 consultant pharmacists and 6,344 patients, were in the intervention arm, with 5,160 patients (81.3%) remaining at the end of the follow-up period. At baseline, study-group patients used an average of 9.7 prescriptions per month, costing the NC Medicaid program 517 US dollars per patient per month (PPPM). There were 6,360 recommendations offered for 3,400 patients, or an average of 1.87 recommendations per patient. Physicians concurred with 59.8% (3,801 of 6,360) of all recommendations to change drug therapy, about half involving a switch to a lower-cost drug. Two of 5 alert categories had significant (P <0.01) reductions in alert persistence: -10.8% for the study group versus -0.7% for the comparison group for the Clinical Initiatives list and -29.7% for the study group versus -14.1% in the comparison group for the drug substitution opportunity. Median drug costs per patient in the study group decreased by 12.14 US dollars (-0.92%), from 1,329.46 US dollars to 1,317.32 US dollars, and increased in the comparison group by 44.98 US dollars (3.35%), from 1,341.25 US dollars to 1,386.23 US dollars, creating a relative cost reduction of 57.12 US dollars per patient in the 3-month follow-up period, or 19.04 US dollars PPPM. CONCLUSION: A supplemental program of medication reviews for nursing home patients targeted by high drug utilization resulted in a reduction in the persistence of PDTP alerts and was cost beneficial based solely on drug cost savings. This intervention may be a model for future medication therapy management services provided by prescription drug plans under Medicare Part D for patients in long-term-care settings and possibly ambulatory patients.

Improving diabetes medication adherence: successful, scalable interventions.

Effective medications are a cornerstone of prevention and disease treatment, yet only about half of patients take their medications as prescribed, resulting in a common and costly public health challenge for the US health care system. Since poor medication adherence is a complex problem with many contributing causes, there is no one universal solution. This paper describes interventions that were not only effective in improving medication adherence among patients with diabetes, but were also potentially scalable (ie, easy to implement to a large population). We identify key characteristics that make these interventions effective and scalable. This information is intended to inform health care systems seeking proven, low resource, cost-effective solutions to improve medication adherence.

A pharmacy management intervention for optimizing drug therapy for nursing home patients.

BACKGROUND: A drug therapy management service was designed to reduce polypharmacy among Medicaid recipients. This service selectively focused on patients who were high users of prescription drugs and had potential drug therapy problems (PDTPs). OBJECTIVES: This article reports the results of the first phase of the North Carolina Polypharmacy Initiative. The goals of this study were to determine: (1) the frequency with which recommendations were made by pharmacists in response to targeted profile alerts aimed at high-risk patients, (2) the frequency and type of drug therapy changes, and (3) the impact on drug-related quality and costs. METHODS: A before-after design was used. Nursing home patient profiles with PDTP alerts for specific drugs and drug categories were provided to consultant pharmacists. Targeted patients had received 218 prescription fills within 90 days. Pharmacists were compensated for performing and documenting targeted drug regimen reviews. Interventions of pharmacists and results after physician consultation are described, and cost impacts of changes in drug therapy are reported. Monetary results are shown in year-2002 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Prescription profiles were generated from Medicaid claims data and sent to consultant pharmacists for 9208 patients in 253 nursing homes. Pharmacists returned 7548 (82%) of all profiles sent to them. After excluding 1204 patients (13%) who were discharged or deceased, 6344 patients (69%) remained for analysis. At baseline, patients used a mean (SD) of 9.52 prescriptions per month, costing the North Carolina Medicaid program a mean (SD) of 502.96 dollars (309.70). A mean of 1.58 recommendations were offered to prescribers. After physician consultation, > or =1 recommendation was implemented for 72% of patients with a change recommendation, 68% of whom experienced a switch to a lower-cost drug. Drug cost savings were a mean of 30.33 dollars/patient per month. Cost savings from 1 month alone covered the compensation paid to pharmacists for consultation efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This supplemental program of medication reviews for targeted nursing home patients resulted in a reduction of polypharmacy and was beneficial based solely on drug cost savings.