An economic evaluation of community pharmacy-dispensed naloxone in Canada.

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based intranasal (IN) and intramuscular (IM) naloxone distribution in Canada. Methods: We developed a state-transition model for pharmacy-based naloxone distribution, every 3 years, to illicit, prescription, opioid-agonist therapy and nonopioid use populations compared to no naloxone distribution. We used a monthly cycle length, lifetime horizon and a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health perspective. Transition probabilities, cost and utility data were retrieved from the literature. Costs (2020) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were discounted 1.5% annually. Microsimulation, 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Distribution of naloxone to all Canadians compared to no distribution prevented 151 additional overdose deaths per 10,000 persons, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50,984 per QALY for IM naloxone and an ICER of $126,060 per QALY for IN naloxone. Distribution of any naloxone to only illicit opioid users was the most cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that survival rates for illicit opioid users were most influenced by the availability of either emergency medical services or naloxone. Conclusion: Distribution of IM and IN naloxone to all Canadians every 3 years is likely cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $140,000 Canadian dollars/QALY (~3 × gross domestic product from the World Health Organization). Distribution to people who use illicit opioids was most cost-effective and prevented the most deaths. This is important, as more overdose deaths could be prevented through nationwide public funding of IN naloxone kits through pharmacies, since individuals report a preference for IN naloxone and these formulations are easier to use, save lives and are cost-effective. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2024;157:xx-xx.

Remunerated patient care services and injections by pharmacists: An international update.

OBJECTIVES: Recognizing pharmacists' increasing roles as primary care providers, programs offering remuneration for patient care services, and the administration of injections by pharmacists continue to be implemented. The objective of this article is to provide an update on remuneration programs available to pharmacists internationally for nondispensing services. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for relevant articles published from January 2013 to February 2018 across Pubmed (Medline), Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Econlit, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches, including targeted searches of websites of payers and pharmacy associations, were also performed. STUDY SELECTION: Programs were included if they were newly introduced or had changes to patient eligibility criteria and fees since previously published reviews and if they were established programs offered by third-party payers for activities separate from dispensing. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information on each program was extracted, including the program's jurisdiction (country and state, provincial, or regional level, as applicable), payer, service description, patient eligibility criteria, and fee structure. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period studied, 95 new programs for noninjection patient care services and 37 programs for pharmacist-administered injections were introduced. Large ranges in fees offered for similar programs were observed across programs, even within the same country or region, at an average of $US 71 for an initial medication review, $19 for follow-ups to these reviews, $18 for prescription adaptations, and $13 for injection administration. Apart from some smoking cessation programs in England, which offered incentive payments for successful quits, all services were remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, often in the form of a flat fee regardless of the time spent providing the service. CONCLUSION: Although funding for pharmacists' activities continues to show growth, concerns identified in previous reviews persist, including the great variability in remunerated activities, patient eligibility, and fees. These issues may limit opportunities for multijurisdictional program and service outcome evaluation.

How Appropriate Is All This Data Sharing? Building Consensus Around What We Need to Know About Shared Electronic Health Records in Extended Circles of Care.

BACKGROUND: The bulk of healthcare spending is on individuals who have complex needs related to age, income, chronic disease and mental illness. Care involves many different professions, and interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly essential. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to describe the use of a nominal group technique (NGT) to develop a stakeholder-centred research agenda for clinical interoperability in extended circles of care that include social supports. METHODS: We held a day-long meeting with 30 stakeholders, including primary care providers, social supports, patient representatives, health region managers, technology experts, health organizations and experts in privacy, law and ethics. Participants considered, "What research needs to be done to better understand how EHRs should be shared across large healthcare teams that include social supports?" Following sensitizing presentations from researchers and participants, we used an NGT to generate and rank research questions on a 9-point Likert scale. We retained research questions that had a mean score of at least 6.5/9 by at least 70% of the participants over two rounds of consensus-building. RESULTS: Participants identified and ranked 57 research questions. Five items achieved consensus, related to 1) the impact of information sharing on care team outcomes, 2) data quality/accuracy, 3) cost/benefit, 4) what processes use what data and 5) regulation/legislation. CONCLUSION: Healthcare reforms are increasingly focused on systems that integrate and coordinate multidisciplinary care, facilitated by EHRs. Research prioritization will ensure common concerns and barriers are addressed and resolved.

Cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary strategy to manage osteoarthritis of the knee: economic evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a pharmacist-initiated multidisciplinary strategy provides value for money compared to usual care in participants with previously undiagnosed knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Pharmacies were randomly allocated to provide either 1) usual care and a pamphlet or 2) intervention care, which consisted of education, pain medication management by a pharmacist, physiotherapy-guided exercise, and communication with the primary care physician. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined for patients assigned to each treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined. RESULTS: From the Ministry of Health perspective, the average patient in the intervention group generated slightly higher costs compared with usual care. Similar findings were obtained when using the societal perspective. The intervention resulted in ICERs of $232 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1,530, 2,154) per QALY gained from the Ministry of Health perspective and $14,395 (95% CI 7,826, 23,132) per QALY gained from the societal perspective, compared with usual care. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-initiated, multidisciplinary program was good value for money from both the societal and Ministry of Health perspectives.

Evaluating the labour costs associated with pharmacy adaptation services in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists' scope of practice has been steadily expanding across Canada to encompass clinical activities. In January 2009, pharmacists in British Columbia (BC) were given the authority to adapt prescriptions for renewals; change in dose, formulation or regimen; and therapeutic substitutions. This study evaluated the labour costs associated with pharmacy adaptation services in BC. > METHODS: Ten high-adapting pharmacies participated in the study. Through workflow observations, we measured the time incurred for adapted and nonadapted prescriptions. RESULTS: We observed 91 adapted prescriptions and 1081 nonadapted prescriptions. The total average time to provide adapted prescriptions was 6:43 minutes (SD 3:50) longer than to provide nonadapted prescriptions. The total average cost of an adapted prescription was $6.10 greater than a nonadapted prescription. Renewals took the least amount of time to complete, and therapeutic substitutions took the most time to complete. DISCUSSION: Through workflow observations, it was determined that 10 stages of activity occur when adapting a prescription, with the most time being expended during the documentation and processing phases. Labour costs associated with adapted prescriptions were higher than for nonadapted prescriptions.

Pharmacists' preferences for providing patient-centered services: a discrete choice experiment to guide health policy.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, most pharmacists are not paid to provide patient-centered services. In other areas of the world these services have suffered from poor adoption by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine pharmacists' preferences for providing patient-centered services. METHODS: Senior pharmacy students and pharmacists in British Columbia and Alberta were recruited to complete a discrete choice experiment. In 18 different choice-sets, respondents were asked to choose 1 of 3 options that included 2 different hypothetical patient-centered services and a status quo option. For each hypothetical service, we described the following attributes: service type and setting, personal income and job satisfaction, professional fee, and educational requirements. Multinomial logit and latent class regression models determined respondents' relative preference weights for each attribute. RESULTS: Of 539 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 49% were dispensary pharmacists or managers, 12% were dispensary owners or regional managers, 21% were clinical pharmacists, and 16% were students. When choosing new services, respondents were very averse to having their personal income or job satisfaction decrease. They also preferred a higher professional fee for the service (to be paid to the pharmacy) and preferred a weeklong course or a preceptorship over no education before embarking on new services. Respondents also preferred medication or disease management services, were not interested in screening, and were averse to typical pharmacy services. Finally, respondents preferred the clinic setting over the dispensary. Preferences differed according to several factors including respondents' employment and time in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists prefer to provide patient-centered services over typical pharmacy services. Most will need to be assured that their income and job satisfaction will be maintained or increased and that they will have access to suitable advanced education. Decision-makers should carefully consider these preferences to improve program success and sustainability.