Actual versus projected cost avoidance for clinical pharmacy specialist-initiated medication conversions in a primary care setting in an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinical pharmacy specialists (PCCPSs) are positioned to promote effective, safe, and affordable medication use. Documentation of performed interventions is difficult because the diversity of performed interventions in a variety of disease states in some practice settings. Validation of cost-avoidance projections is also difficult because traditional projection methods have several limitations. OBJECTIVE: To (1) compare projected medication cost avoidance (MCA) to actual MCA for medication conversions related to hyperlipidemia, hypertension, depression, and chronic pain initiated by PCCPS, and (2) estimate medication discontinuation that might be attributable to serious adverse drug events (ADEs) possibly associated with medication conversions. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal study conducted in a not-for-profit, integrated health system comprising approximately 470,000 members. Using a portable documentation tool, PCCPSs recorded projected annual MCA for medication conversions in 4 disease conditions (i.e., hypertension, dyslipidemia, depression, and chronic pain) in the 6-month period from December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. Actual annual MCA for these interventions for a 1-year follow-up period was calculated using integrated, electronic data from an administrative pharmacy database. Comparisons were made between projected MCA and actual MCA. Cost was defined as actual drug acquisition cost. In addition, an assessment of serious ADEs potentially related to the conversions was undertaken by reviewing electronic medical records of converted, nonpersistent patients. RESULTS: There were 704 medication conversions for 656 patients, of which 47 (6.7%) were for members who disenrolled in the health plan during the 12 months following the medication conversion date. The total projected MCA was $327,337 in 2004 dollars, or an average of $465 per conversion. For the 657 medication conversions in 609 patients that were evaluable (i.e., the member remained enrolled through 12 months follow-up), 466 (70.9%) persisted at 12 months, 138 (21.0%) discontinued the medication or converted to an alternative therapy, and 53 (8.1%) reverted to the original medication. Drug cost information was not available for some members, leaving approximately half (n = 331, 50.4%) of the 657 evaluable medication conversions with complete cost information available. For these 331 conversions, the overall projected MCA overestimated the actual MCA by 14.1% ($24,888 in aggregate or an average of $75 per conversion, P < 0.001). For persistent medication conversions with complete cost information (n = 278), the projected MCA ($160,225) was not significantly different compared with the actual MCA ($166,546, P = 0.477). For medication conversions that reverted to previous therapy (n = 53), the projected MCA ($41,644) overestimated by 4-fold the actual MCA ($10,435, P < 0.001). There were no emergency department visits or hospital admissions related to nonpersistent medication conversions. Compared with patients who were either nonpersistent or disenrolled at the 12-month follow-up, persistent patients did not significantly differ in chronic disease score but were slightly older (mean = 62.6 years, standard deviation = 13.1 for persistent patients vs. 59.2 [SD = 15.5] for nonpersistent or disenrolled patients). CONCLUSIONS: Projected medication cost avoidance for pharmacistinitiated medication conversions is valid for the 66% of medication conversions that persist but not for nonpersistent conversions or for patients who leave the health care system. The projected medication cost avoidance overestimated the actual cost avoidance by approximately 14%, suggesting that there is opportunity for improvement in the tool used to document medication conversions to more accurately measure cost outcomes from clinical pharmacy interventions.

Design and implementation of population-based specialty care programs.

PURPOSE: The development, implementation, and scaling of 3 population-based specialty care programs in a large integrated healthcare system are reviewed, and the role of clinical pharmacy services in ensuring safe, effective, and affordable care is highlighted. SUMMARY: The Kaiser Permanente (KP) integrated healthcare delivery model allows for rapid development and expansion of innovative population management programs involving pharmacy services. Clinical pharmacists have assumed integral roles in improving the safety and effectiveness of high-complexity, high-cost care for specialty populations. These roles require an appropriate practice scope and are supported by an advanced electronic health record with disease registries and electronic surveillance tools for care-gap identification. The 3 specialty population programs described were implemented to address variation or unrecognized gaps in care for at-risk specialty populations. The Home Phototherapy Program has leveraged internal partnerships with clinical pharmacists to improve access to cost-effective nonpharmacologic interventions for psoriasis and other skin disorders. The Multiple Sclerosis Care Program has incorporated clinical pharmacists into neurology care in order to apply clinical guidelines in a systematic manner. The KP SureNet program has used clinical pharmacists and data analytics to identify opportunities to prevent drug-related adverse outcomes and ensure timely follow-up. CONCLUSION: Specialty care programs improve quality, cost outcomes, and the patient experience by appropriating resources to provide systematic and targeted care to high-risk patients. KP leverages an integration of people, processes, and technology to develop and scale population-based specialty care.

Liver function test abnormalities and pruritus in a patient treated with atorvastatin: case report and review of the literature.

The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (also known as statins) are associated with elevated transaminase levels in 1-3% of patients. Therapy with these drugs requires monitoring of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels because animal studies and premarketing clinical trials showed signs of hepatotoxicity that were primarily minor elevations of ALT. Nevertheless, postmarketing experience suggests that hepatotoxicity is rare, and that elevated ALT levels are reversible with continued therapy and probably are related to cholesterol lowering. Based on the low occurrence of ALT elevations and the lack of clinical evidence of hepatotoxicity, some clinicians are calling for a change in the current practice of monitoring liver function tests. We report, however, the case of a 71-year-old woman who was receiving atorvastatin and experienced elevated transaminase levels on two occasions, and developed pruritus on rechallenge with the drug. Thus, clinicians should be aware of asymptomatic elevations in liver function tests in patients receiving atorvastatin who do not have known risk factors for liver damage.