Associations between the use of a real-time benefit tool and measures related to prescription obtainment found in order type subgroups.

BACKGROUND: The use of real-time benefit tool (RTBT) may help increase transparency of patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, thereby reducing patients' OOP spend and increasing prescription obtainment. OBJECTIVE: We have previously reported on the potential benefit of RTBT in electronic health records at a large health system. We explore the benefit of RTBT by subgroups of prescriptions (i.e., order types). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort, we reviewed orders generated with and without RTBT use. We compared the 2 groups on key metrics related to prescription obtainment (fill rate, modification rate, cancellation rate, time to ready, time to sold, abandonment rate, and cancellation and transfer rate). Subgroup analysis included orders without over-the-counter (OTC) medications, orders without specialty medications, and orders without OTC and specialty medications. RESULTS: Fill rate, cancellation rate, time to ready, time to sold, abandonment rate, and cancellation and transfer rate were statistically significantly different between the RTBT and non-RTBT groups, favoring the RTBT group (all, P < 0.01). Differences in modification rates were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: RTBTs have the potential to increase prescription obtainment. A consistent difference in key outcome measures between the RTBT and the non-RTBT groups was apparent among prescription orders regardless of whether OTC and specialty medications were included in the analysis.

Claims-based pharmacy markers for comprehensive medication management program case identification: Validation against concurrent and prospective healthcare costs and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Three claims-based pharmacy markers (complex, costly and risky medications) were developed to help automatically identify patients for comprehensive medication management. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between newly-developed markers and healthcare outcomes. METHODS: This was a two-year retrospective cohort study using PharMetrics Plus patient-level administrative claims in 2014 and 2015. We included all claims from 1,541,873 individuals with: (1) 24-month medical and pharmacy enrollment in 2014 and 2015, (2) aged between 18 and 63 in 2014, and (3) known gender. Independent/control variables came from 2014 while outcomes came from 2014 (concurrent analysis) and 2015 (prospective analysis). Three pharmacy markers, separately or together, were added to four base models to predict concurrent and prospective healthcare costs (total, medical, and pharmacy) and utilization (having any hospitalization, having any emergency department visit, and having any readmission). We applied linear regression for costs while logistic regression for utilization. Measures of model performances and coefficients were derived from a 5-fold cross-validation repeated 20 times. RESULTS: Individuals with 1+ complex, risky or costly medication markers had higher comorbidity, healthcare costs and utilization than their counterparts. Nine binary risky category markers performed the best among the three types of risky medication markers; the Medication Complexity Score and three-level complex category both outperformed a simpler complex medication indicator. Adding three novel pharmacy markers separately or together into the base models provided the greatest improvement in explaining pharmacy costs, compared with medical (non-medication) costs. These pharmacy markers also added value in explaining healthcare utilization among the simple base models. CONCLUSIONS: Three claims-based pharmacy indicators had positive associations with healthcare outcomes and added value in predicting them. This initial study suggested that these novel markers can be used by pharmacy case management programs to help identify potential high-risk patients most likely to benefit from clinical pharmacist review and other interventions.

Comparing and validating medication complexity from insurance claims against electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Patient effort to comply with complex medication instructions is known to be related to nonadherence and subsequent medical complications or health care costs. A widely used Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) has been used with electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who could benefit from pharmacist intervention. A similar claims-derived measure may be better suited for clinical decision support, since claims offer a more complete view of patient care and health utilization. OBJECTIVE: To define and validate a novel insurance claims-based medication complexity score (MCS) patterned after the widely used MRCI, derived from EHRs. METHODS: Insurance claims and EHR data were provided by HealthPartners (N = 54,988) (Bloomington, Minnesota) and The Johns Hopkins Health System (N = 28,589) (Baltimore, Maryland) for years 2013 and 2017, respectively. Yearly measures of medication complexity were developed for each patient and evaluated with one another using rank correlation within different clinical subgroupings. Indicators for the presence of individually complex prescriptions were also developed and assessed using exact agreement. Complexity measures were then correlated with select covariates to further validate the concordance between MCS and MRCI with respect to clinical metrics. These included demographic, comorbidity, and health care utilization markers. Prescribed medications in each system's EHR were coded using the previously validated MRCI weighting rules. Insurance claims for retail pharmacy medications were coded using our novel MCS, which closely followed MRCI scoring rules. RESULTS: EHR-based MRCI and claims-based MCS were significantly correlated with one another for most clinical subgroupings. Likewise, both measures were correlated with several covariates, including count of active medications and chronic conditions. The MCS was, in most cases, more associated with key health covariates than was MRCI, although both were consistently significant. We found that the highest correlation between MCS and MRCI is obtained with patients who have similar counts of pharmacy records between EHRs and claims (HealthPartners: P = 0.796; Johns Hopkins Health System: P = 0.779). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest good correspondence between MCS and MRCI and that claims data represent a useful resource for assessing medication complexity. Claims data also have major practical advantages, such as interoperability across health care systems, although they lack the detailed clinical context of EHRs. DISCLOSURES: The Johns Hopkins University holds the copyright to the Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) system and receives royalties from the global distribution of the ACG system. This revenue supports a portion of the authors' salary. No additional or external funding supported this work. The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Development of measurable criteria to identify and prioritize patients for inclusion in comprehensive medication management programs within primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists optimize medication use and ensure the safe and effective delivery of pharmacotherapy to patients using comprehensive medication management (CMM). Identifying and prioritizing individual patients who will most likely benefit from CMM can be challenging. Health systems have far more candidates for CMM than there are clinical pharmacists to provide this service. Furthermore, current evidence lacks widely accepted standards or automated mechanisms for identifying patients who would likely benefit from a pharmacist consultation. Existing tools to prioritize patients for pharmacist review often require manual chart review by a pharmacist or other clinicians or data collection by patient survey. OBJECTIVES: To (1) create new medication risk markers for identifying and prioritizing patients within a population and (2) identify patients who met these new markers, assess their clinical characteristics, and compare them with criteria that are widely used for medication therapy management (MTM). METHODS: Along with published literature, a panel of subject matter experts informed the development of 3 medication risk markers. To assess the prevalence of markers developed, we used Multum, a medication database, for medication-level characteristics, and for patient-level characteristics, we used QuintilesIMS, an administrative claims database derived from health plans across the United States, with data for 1,541,873 eligible individuals from 2014-2015. We compared the health care costs, utilization, and medication gap among patients identified through MTM criteria (both broad and narrow, as these are provided as ranges) and our new medication management score markers. RESULTS: We developed 3 claims-derivable markers: (1) instances when a patient filled a medication with high complexity that could affect adherence, (2) instances where a patient filled a medication defined as costly within a therapeutic category that could affect access, and (3) instances when a patient filled a medication defined as risky that could increase incidence of adverse drug events. In the QuintilesIMS database, individuals with 2 new medication risk markers plus at least 3 conditions and more than $3,017 in medication costs when compared with individuals meeting narrow MTM eligibility criteria (≥ 8 medications, ≥ 3 conditions, and > $3,017 medication costs) had increased costs ($36,000 vs $26,100 total; $24,800 vs 21,400 medical; $11,300 vs $4,800 pharmacy); acute care utilization (0.328 vs 0.256 inpatient admissions and 0.627 vs 0.579 emergency department visits); and 1 or more gaps in medication adherence(41.5% vs 34.7%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel markers of medication use risk that can be determined using insurance claims and can be useful to identify patients for CMM programs and prioritize patients who would benefit from clinical pharmacist intervention. These markers were associated with higher costs, acute care utilization, and gaps in medication use compared with the overall population and within certain subgroups. Providing CMM to these patients may improve health system performance in relevant quality measures. Evaluation of CMM services delivered by a pharmacist using these markers requires further investigation. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. All authors are Johns Hopkins employees. The Johns Hopkins University receives royalties for nonacademic use of software based on the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) methodology. Chang, Kitchen, Weiner, and Kharrazi receive a portion of their salary support from this revenue. The authors have no conflicts of interests relevant to this study.

Provider Responsiveness to Pharmacist Recommendations in a Population Health Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Geriatric patients are more sensitive to medications and are at risk for polypharmacy, requiring a medication review. It is hypothesized that a justin-time message to the primary care provider (PCP) recommending a change to potentially inappropriate medications may increase the rate of acceptance of pharmacist recommendations.
DESIGN: Prospective, quality improvement study.
SETTING: Health-system-based primary care facilities.
INTERVENTIONS: Providers were contacted two business days prior to the patient's appointment with a recommendation based on a Beers criteria-derived algorithm. If a PCP was colocated with a pharmacist in the clinic, the preferred method of communication was queried.
PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Medical records of patients 65 years of age or older enrolled in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients Accountable Care Organization were evaluated for tricyclic antidepressant use in neuropathy, insomnia, and depression; and benzodiazepine use in anxiety and insomnia if prescribed by the PCP.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was to determine the number of recommendations accepted by the PCP.
RESULTS: A total of 252 recommendations were made with a total of 26.2% recommendations being accepted (22.1% for benzodiazepines and 22.7% for tricyclic antidepressants). Of the 26.2% of recommendations accepted, 56% had a pharmacist in the clinic. A total of 96.7% of PCPs preferred a message to be sent through the patient's medication record.
CONCLUSION: A just-in-time approach in making recommendations to PCPs was successful in leading to medication changes. There was no statistical difference between physician acceptance of pharmacist recommendations in relation to a pharmacist being embedded in the clinic.

Implementation of patient education software in an anticoagulation clinic to decrease visit times for new patient appointments.

OBJECTIVE: Patient education on high-risk medications such as warfarin is important, and they require quick follow-up after initiation to maximize efficacy and safety. In our Anticoagulation Clinic, two 60-minute new patient appointments are available each day, contributing to prolonged lead-time. We instituted standardized warfarin video education to shorten in-clinic-room visit time, to potentially increase new patient appointments. METHODS: Patients viewed the video in the waiting area with a goal to decrease visit times by 15 min (25%), before pharmacists completed their visit. Data collected included time spent in the clinic room, education comprehension, and patient feedback. RESULTS: Ninety patient visits were evaluated in one pre-intervention and two post-intervention phases. Patients who received video education spent less time in the clinic room versus those who had not (52.4 vs 39.4 min, p = 0.001), and two-thirds of all post-intervention visits achieved 25% reduction in visit time. There were no significant differences in education comprehension and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Video education significantly decreased in-clinic-room visit time, and most patients achieved a goal of 25% reduction in time spent, without a change in comprehension or patient satisfaction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of video education can reduce clinic times in many patients without significantly impacting patient satisfaction.

Population health management: Review of concepts and definitions.

PURPOSE: The terms population health, population health improvement, and population health management are discussed. SUMMARY: A key concept in defining population health activities is clearly delineating the population(s) of focus. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI's) Triple Aim Initiative uses the term population health management to describe the work by healthcare organizations to improve outcomes for individual patients to maximize population health. The National Academy of Medicine favors the term population health improvement and uses this term to describe work to identify and improve aspects of or contributors to population health, expanding the focus beyond traditional healthcare delivery systems. As organizations like IHI and the National Academy of Medicine continue to focus on population health, the terms and definitions used to describe these activities will continue to evolve. CONCLUSION: The use of consistent, clear definitions for population health activities is critical to the practice of pharmacy and healthcare delivery.

Evaluation of a Standardized Perioperative Management Protocol in the Adult Hematology Anticoagulation Management Service.

BACKGROUND: In North America, 250,000 patients on vitamin K antagonists require surgical procedures each year. Temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation and perioperative bridging therapy with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin are recommended by the American College of Chest Physicians 2012 for select patients. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives are to evaluate adherence and nonadherence to the Johns Hopkins clinic guidelines for perioperative management of anticoagulation and identify bleeding or thromboembolic events during perioperative management of anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients who required perioperative management of anticoagulation for an invasive procedure from May 2009 to March 2014. Individualized perioperative anticoagulation management plans were prospectively developed for each patient according to the standardized Johns Hopkins perioperative bridging recommendations and documented in the medical record. Adherence to these standardized Johns Hopkins clinic guidelines, the incidence of thromboembolic events, and bleeding and adverse events during perioperative management were retrieved from the medical record. RESULTS: In 294 perioperative management cases, there was 1 (0.3%) thromboembolism, 3 (1%) major bleeds, and 21 (7%) minor bleeds. One patient experienced facial swelling after starting enoxaparin. There was no difference in thromboembolic (0 vs 1, P = 1.00), major (1 vs 2, P = 1.00), or minor bleeding (14 vs 7, P = 1.00) events in patients managed by providers who were adherent to guidelines when compared with providers who were nonadherent. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that using a standardized guideline for perioperative management of anticoagulation to inform but not to dictate clinical practice leads to low rates of both thromboembolism and bleeding.

Effects of anticoagulation provider continuity on time in therapeutic range for warfarin patients.

Anticoagulation (AC) clinics use the percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range (%TTR) to characterize the quality of management for patients treated with warfarin. In order to guide policy and procedure changes, the purpose of this quality improvement (QI) study was to characterize the AC patient population at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH). We set out to investigate the impact of AC clinic provider continuity on the quality of anticoagulation management. This QI study is a retrospective chart review of 525 warfarin patients managed by pharmacists in the Hematology AC Management Clinic at JHH from June 28, 2013 to November 1, 2014. We recorded patient demographic and clinical characteristics and the quality of AC management using %TTR, and compared these parameters between patients with (Group A) and without a primary AC (Group B). Group A patients had a significantly higher %TTR than Group B patients (53.2 vs. 46.5 %, p = 0.008). In conclusion, we found that patients with a primary AC clinic provider had a higher %TTR than patients with multiple providers. If confirmed prospectively, this approach to warfarin management could represent one technique for AC clinics to optimize patient management and clinical outcomes.

Reducing errors through discharge medication reconciliation by pharmacy services.

OBJECTIVE: Adverse drug events are an important cause of admissions to hospitals. Discrepancies in admission and discharge medications can contribute significantly to these adverse events. Patients are at risk of discrepancies in medications any time they experience a transition of care. Medication discrepancies occur more commonly when patients are discharged. Prevention of errors by undergoing medication reconciliation with review by a pharmacist can help avoid medication discrepancy-related errors. The objective of this study was to determine whether integration of pharmacist review in the process of medication reconciliation at discharge identifies and corrects discrepancies. METHODS: In the study population of internal medicine patients cared for by hospitalist physicians, we prospectively collected data from medication lists via chart review and patient interview and identified, using a pharmacist, any medication discrepancies. We then counted the number of discrepancies for each patient and categorized them by severity of potential adverse effect to the patient. RESULTS: There were 63 medication discrepancies in 104 included patients found by pharmacist's review and 41% (43) of patients had at least one medication discrepancy. Patients with 8 or more discharge medications were found to be at an increased risk of discrepancy (OR 8.5, p <0.001, 95% CI 2.8,25.5). Most discrepancies were considered minimal risk, 44.4% (28/63), or moderate risk, 49.2% (20/63) for adverse effect. CONCLUSION: About 2 out of 5 patients on the hospitalist service studied have discrepancies in their medications at discharge that can be identified and corrected by pharmacist intervention. Inclusion of pharmacists could improve the process by correcting these discrepancies to help avoid preventable adverse drug events.

Pharmacist-managed international normalized ratio patient self-testing is associated with increased time in therapeutic range in patients with left ventricular assist devices at an academic medical center.

Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are at increased risk of bleeding and thrombotic complications making warfarin therapy particularly challenging. Patient self-testing (PST) using point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) devices has shown favorable outcomes in other populations, but the use of PST in LVAD patients has not been well described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-managed INR PST versus usual care (UC) in patients with LVADs at a single center. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients (in a 1:4 ratio PST versus UC) implanted with an LVAD (HeartMate II or HVAD) treated with warfarin from January 1, 2007, to January 31, 2013. We reviewed all INRs and bleeding/thrombotic events in LVAD patients whose anticoagulation was managed by clinical pharmacists via INR PST versus UC and calculated a percent time in therapeutic range (%TTR) by Rosendaal method. Fifty-five patients were studied. Demographic data were generally similar between the cohorts. Mean %TTR was higher in the PST cohort versus UC (44.4% vs. 30.6%, p = 0.026). There was no difference in the rate per patient-year of bleeding (0.23 vs. 0.33, p = 0.55) or thrombotic events (0.12 vs. 0.13, p = 0.88). Pharmacist-managed INR PST is associated with an increased %TTR in patients with LVADs.