Developing Telemental Health Partnerships Between State Medical Schools and Federally Qualified Health Centers: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape and Policy Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) deliver care to 26 million Americans living in underserved areas, but few offer telemental health (TMH) services. The social missions of FQHCs and publicly funded state medical schools create a compelling argument for the development of TMH partnerships. In this paper, we share our experience and recommendations from launching TMH partnerships between 12 rural FQHCs and 3 state medical schools. EXPERIENCE: There was consensus that medical school TMH providers should practice as part of the FQHC team to promote integration, enhance quality and safety, and ensure financial sustainability. For TMH providers to practice and bill as FQHC providers, the following issues must be addressed: (1) credentialing and privileging the TMH providers at the FQHC, (2) expanding FQHC Scope of Project to include telepsychiatry, (3) remote access to medical records, (4) insurance credentialing/paneling, billing, and supplemental payments, (5) contracting with the medical school, and (6) indemnity coverage for TMH. RECOMMENDATIONS: We make recommendations to both state medical schools and FQHCs about how to overcome existing barriers to TMH partnerships. We also make recommendations about changes to policy that would mitigate the impact of these barriers. Specifically, we make recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid about insurance credentialing, facility fees, eligibility of TMH encounters for supplemental payments, and Medicare eligibility rules for TMH billing by FQHCs. We also make recommendations to the Health Resources and Services Administration about restrictions on adding telepsychiatry to the FQHCs' Scope of Project and the eligibility of TMH providers for indemnity coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Establishing Clinical Pharmacy Services With Prescribing Privileges in a Federally Qualified Health Center Primary Care Clinic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the process and cost of establishing clinical pharmacy services with prescribing privileges in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) primary care clinic. SETTING: The primary care clinic was located in a low-income area of Southern California and served patients with Medicaid and Medicare. The primary care clinic had preventive medicine and family medicine physicians, a family medicine residency program, behavioral health services, and a registered dietician. PRACTICE INNOVATION: New clinical pharmacy services were established at this FQHC primary care clinic. The medication assistance program was a stepping stone to establish rapport with the physicians. Credentialing and privileging was implemented for clinical pharmacists. An open protocol collaborative practice agreement was developed to allow clinical pharmacists to manage ambulatory patients. RESULTS: From August 2014 to June 2015, the clinical pharmacist interacted with 392 patients and spent 336 hours educating patients and providing disease state management. The pharmacist also provided consults to residents and providers. Diabetic patients made up 76% of all clinical pharmacy encounters. There were 86 face-to-face clinical pharmacy appointments with the pharmacist. The average time for clinical pharmacy appointments was 77 minutes. CONCLUSION: By describing ways to develop rapport with providers, how to credential and privilege pharmacists, and explain resources and costs of setting up a service, the hope is that more clinical pharmacists will be able to incorporate into independent or FQHC primary care clinics for improved management of ambulatory patients.

ASHP national survey of hospital-based pharmaceutical services--1994.

The results of a national survey of pharmaceutical services in federal and nonfederal community hospitals conducted by ASHP during summer 1994 are reported and compared with the findings of earlier ASHP surveys. A simple random sample of community hospitals (federal and nonfederal) was selected from hospitals registered by the American Hospital Association. A questionnaire was mailed to each director of pharmacy. The adjusted gross sample size was 896. The net response rate was 44% (393 usable replies). The mean number of hours that respondents' pharmacies were open per week for inpatient services was 107.5. An increasing number of pharmacy directors were managing other departments within the institution. Of respondents, 18% indicated that a patient-focused-care model was in place. Complete unit dose drug distribution was offered by 92% of respondents, and 67% provided complete, comprehensive i.v. admixture services. A total of 29% provided decentralized inpatient pharmaceutical services. Automation of some type to support drug distribution was used by 55%. Provision of ambulatory care pharmaceutical services was indicated by 82% of nonfederal hospitals and by 98% of federal hospitals. Home infusion therapy services were offered by 27% of respondents. Some 89% had a computerized pharmacy system. The most commonly offered clinical pharmacy services for inpatients were drug-use evaluations and programs to monitor drug therapy, adverse drug reactions, and drug-food interactions. About half of respondents indicated that they did not provide pharmaceutical care. One third indicated that pharmacists had the authority to write drug orders or prescriptions. Pharmacokinetic consultations were provided by 65% and nutritional-support consultations by 35%. Of nonfederal respondents, 86% participated in quality assurance for inpatient dispensing and 28% did so for ambulatory care dispensing. A well-controlled formulary system was in place at 60% of the hospitals. About 74% of inpatient pharmacy expenditures went for drugs and fluids, 20% for staff activities, and 6% for other noncapital expenditures. Almost half of respondents indicated that staff reductions had occurred. About 9% of nonfederal hospitals had an ASHP-accredited residency program. The 1994 ASHP survey revealed a continuation of growth in some areas of hospital pharmacy (clinical services, computerization, formulary management techniques, and residency programs) and identified static areas (ambulatory care services, scope of drug distribution services, and quality assurance programs) that should be addressed by pharmacy leaders.