Your browser doesn't support javascript.

BVS del Sindicato Médico del Uruguay

Portal de Búsqueda de la BVS

Home > Búsqueda > ()
XML
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportación:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mas contactos
| |

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.

Jacobson Vann, Julie C; Christofferson, Stephanie; Humble, Charles G; Wegner, Steven E; Feaganes, John R; Trygstad, Troy K.
J Manag Care Pharm ; 16(4): 250-63, 2010 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20433216

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.