Persistence to Basal Insulin: Association With Health Outcomes in a Population With Type 2 Diabetes.

This study examined the association between persistence to basal insulin and clinical and economic health outcomes. The question of whether a persistence measure for basal insulin could be leveraged in quality measurement was also explored. Using the IBM-Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015, a total of 14,126 subjects were included in the analyses, wherein 9,898 (70.1%) were categorized as persistent with basal insulin therapy. Basal insulin persistence was associated with lower A1C, fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits, and lower health care expenditures. Quality measures based on prescription drug claims for basal insulin are feasible and should be considered for guiding quality improvement efforts.

Association between adherence with oral anticancer medications and short-term health care resource utilization: A 2010-2018 claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the effect of adherence to oral anticancer medications on health care resource utilization (HRU) among patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between adherence to oral anticancer medication and subsequent HRU. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart commercial claims database. Patients who initiated an oral anticancer medication between 2010 and 2017 were included. Proportion of days covered was used to calculate medication adherence in the first 6 months after oral anticancer medication initiation. All-cause HRU in the following 6 months was assessed. Multivariable negative binomial regressions were used to determine the association between oral anticancer medication adherence and HRU, after controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Of 37,938 patients, 51.9% were adherent to oral anticancer medications. Adherence with oral anticancer medication was significantly associated with more frequent physician office and outpatient visits for several cancer types with the strongest association among those with liver cancer (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.18-1.52 and aIRR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.13-1.55, respectively). Oral anticancer medication adherence was associated with more emergency department visits only among patients with lung cancer (aIRR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.01-1.48). Oral anticancer medication adherence was significantly associated with a higher rate of inpatient hospitalizations and longer stays among patients with liver cancer (aIRRs were 1.45 [95% CI = 1.02-2.05] and 2.15 [95% CI = 1.21-3.81], respectively), whereas hospitalizations were fewer and length of stay was shorter among patients with colorectal cancer who were adherent with oral anticancer medication (aIRRs were 0.77 [95% CI = 0.68-0.86] and 0.77 [95% CI = -0.66 to 0.90], respectively). Other measures did not reveal statistically significant differences in HRU among adherent and nonadherent patients for the cancer types included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: HRU following the initial phase of oral anticancer medication therapy was generally similar among adherent and nonadherent patients. We observed a slightly higher rate of office and outpatient visits among adherent patients, which may reflect ongoing monitoring among patients continuing oral anticancer medication. Further studies are needed to determine how oral anticancer medication adherence may affect HRU over a longer time period.

A checklist for a consistent, comprehensive medication review.

INTRODUCTION: Medicare Advantage Part D plans and stand-alone Part D prescription drug plans are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to have qualified providers, including pharmacists, and offer annual comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) for eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Although guidance on the components of a CMR is available, providers have flexibility in how to deliver the CMR to patients and which content to cover. With the variety of patient needs, CMR content is not always consistently delivered in practice. Our research group performed an extensive evaluation to create and test an ideal CMR content coverage checklist for CMR provision. CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST: The CMR Content Checklist can be used for quality improvement purposes to evaluate the comprehensiveness of pharmacist services-to assess either within pharmacist variation across patients or within organization variations between pharmacists or sites. INCORPORATING THE CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST INTO PRACTICE: Testing in a real-world setting demonstrated where gaps in service coverage existed. The CMR Content Checklist could be used as the first step for quality improvement given that it provides details on the key aspects of the service that can inform quality measure development.

It is time for a new comprehensive medication review quality measure.

Medication therapy management (MTM) services include comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs), which have been completed with millions of patients since their inception in the United States. The current MTM quality measure focuses on whether CMRs were completed (ie, the CMR completion rate). However, this process measure does not assess quality of care, or patient-reported or other outcomes of CMRs, and, therefore, does not reward MTM providers for improving health outcomes. In this viewpoint article, we present 3 reasons that shape our argument for new MTM quality measures and offer recommendations on next steps to achieve this. DISCLOSURES: Dr Vaffis is an employee of Clinical Outcomes Solutions and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Dhatt is an employee of Janssen and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Anderson is an employee of The Freedom Fund and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Black is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Campbell received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx and discloses this work was completed previously during his employment at the University of Arizona. Dr Kolobova is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Hines is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Castora-Binkley is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Nelson is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Axon received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx. Dr Warholak received funding from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and SinfoniaRx and discloses this was work was completed previously during her employment at the University of Arizona.

Qualitative analysis of telephonic comprehensive medication review content and delivery.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are offered to eligible Medicare beneficiaries to improve patient medication knowledge, identify, and address medication concerns, and empower medication self-management. However, the specific content of real-world CMRs is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess CMR content and delivery among telephonic CMR providers. METHODS: This qualitative thematic analysis used transcriptions of audio-recorded patient interactions during CMRs from 3 telephonic medication therapy management provider organizations. Data were qualitatively analyzed using the inductive saturation model to code emergent themes by independent reviewers who met to agree themes through consensus. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Krippendorf alpha. RESULTS: Overall, 32 CMR transcripts from 3 organizations were analyzed in 13 rounds of coding. Intercoder reliability was >95%. A total of 21 themes were identified across 4 stages: call opening (4 themes), medication reconciliation (5 themes), clinical assessments and guidance (8 themes), and call closing (4 themes). The call opening stage included: service explanation; insurance coverage/cost; identity/privacy/recording; and patient's medication management. Medication reconciliation included: drug name, dose, frequency, and indication; medication deletion and addition; over-the-counter and vaccination assessment; drug efficacy assessment; and prescribing provider assessment. Clinical assessments and guidance included 4 core clinical assessments: allergy assessment; drug therapy problem assessment; drug-related adverse events; and medication modification; and 4 additional assessments: clinical/therapeutic guidance; cost savings guidance; diet/exercise/lifestyle guidance; and optional clinical and behavioral assessments. Call closing included: documentation; primary care provider confirmation; patient satisfaction; and call transfer. There were variations among organizations in the depth that CMR components were covered. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest provider organizations are including components that meet Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services goals for CMRs. Yet, variations among organizations indicate a need for standardization and patient-centered measures to ensure appropriate CMR components are covered, while maintaining flexibility for pharmacists to provide patient-oriented CMRs that meet patients' clinical needs.

Associations between pharmacy choice and influenza vaccination: Mail order vs community pharmacy users.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of vaccines, US adult vaccination rates remain low. This is especially true for the influenza vaccine, which is recommended annually and widely available. The accessibility of community pharmacies as convenient places to receive influenza vaccines has been shown to increase uptake. However, use of mail order pharmacies may reduce in-person pharmacist encounters and reduce the likelihood that users receive annual influenza vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the type of pharmacy a patient uses and their likelihood of receiving an influenza vaccine. METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study used the 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to observe noninstitutionalized US adult pharmacy users. Pharmacy type was dichotomized into community use only vs any mail order pharmacy use. Multivariable weighted logistic regression was used to identify associations between the type of pharmacy used and influenza vaccination, adjusting for sociodemographic, health status, and health care access and utilization confounders. All analyses were stratified by age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years). RESULTS: The aged younger than 65 years and aged 65 years and older samples had 8,074 and 4,037 respondents who represented 95,930,349 and 40,163,276 weighted observations, respectively. Compared with community pharmacy users, mail order users were more likely to be aged 65 and older, be White, have high income, and have a usual source of care (P < 0.0001). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for influenza vaccination were significantly lower among community pharmacy users than mail order users among individuals aged younger than 65 years (AOR=0.71; 95% CI = 0.580.87) but was not significant among those aged 65 years and older (AOR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.69-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy users aged younger than 65 years are less likely to receive the influenza vaccine than their mail order pharmacy user counterparts. These counterintuitive results could be caused by residual confounding due to differences in factors that influence pharmacy use type and vaccination likelihood. Further exploration is needed to account for differences between these populations that independently drive vaccination choice. DISCLOSURES: Dr Burbage was a fellow in the Real World Evidence, Population Health and Quality Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in collaboration with University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy and Pharmacy Quality Alliance, and supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs at the time of this study. She is now employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr Parikh is an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Campbell was employed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of the study. He is now employed by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Dr Ramachandran has received an unrelated research contract with Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Dr Gatwood has received vaccine-related research grants from Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to this project and consulting fees for a vaccine-related expert panel with Merck & Co. unrelated to this manuscript and is an advisory board member with Janssen Scientific Affairs. Dr. Urick was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the time of this writing and is currently employed by Prime Therapeutics. He has received community pharmacy-related consulting fees from Cardinal Health and Pharmacy Quality Solutions unrelated to this work. Dr Ozawa has a research grant from Merck & Co. unrelated to this project. This project did not receive funding from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Specialty pharmacy turnaround time impediments, facilitators, and good practices.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving specialty medications have conditions that are often complex, high cost, and high need. Prompt treatment initiation is essential for the appropriate management of many conditions treated by specialty products. Improving the turnaround time (TAT) of specialty pharmacy prescriptions helps ensure patients receive the medication they need in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. Despite a clinical justification for improved TAT, there is a gap in the literature describing what factors impact these times. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that may influence specialty pharmacy TATs and to identify good practices that specialty pharmacies use to improve TAT. METHODS: This qualitative study used 4 focus groups with specialty pharmacy subject matter experts. Each focus group represented different specialty pharmacy types, including health system, payer-associated, retail chain, and independent specialty pharmacies. Attitudes, beliefs, and experiences regarding specialty pharmacy TAT were captured. Open-ended questions and prompts eliciting impediments, facilitators, and good practices associated with specialty pharmacy TAT were asked of participants. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Fifteen individuals participated across 4 focus groups: payer-associated (n = 4), independent (n = 3), health system (n = 5), and retail chain (n = 3) specialty pharmacies. Average TATs varied across specialty pharmacy type and by prescription type (clean vs intervention). Several interconnected themes were identified, including barriers with health benefits formulary management, prior authorization delays, differences in requirements between managed care organizations, and miscommunication with physicians, among others. Five subthemes were identified during the discussion of factors influencing TAT, including patient characteristics, pharmacy characteristics, provider characteristics, clinical situations, and health benefit design and formulary considerations. Pharmacy workflow improvements through technology integration are thought to improve TAT. In addition, participants noted facilitators including specialization among pharmacists and technicians in certain diseases, particularly hepatitis C and cancer. Some good practices included using patient financial advocates, technology integration, and a structured patient onboarding process, which were found to minimize delays caused by prior authorization, communication, and formularies. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of factors impacting specialty pharmacy prescription TAT were identified. Multidisciplinary coordination between pharmacies, physicians, and managed care organizations is essential to ensure patients receive medications in the necessary time frame to optimize health outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted with support from Pfizer.

Relative contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to shared quality measures.

Background: Alternative payment models are common for both primary care providers and pharmacies. These models rely on quality measures to determine reimbursement, and pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute to performance on a similar set of medication-related measures. Therefore, payers need to decide which provider to incentivize for which measures when both are included in alternative payment models. Objectives: To explore the relative contribution of pharmacies and primary care group practices to a range of quality measures. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare Part A, B, and D claims for a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2014-2016. Eight quality measures were selected from the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and Medicare Part D Stars Ratings. Measures included medication adherence measures, appropriate prescribing measures such as high-risk medication use in the elderly, statin use in persons with diabetes (SUPD), and others. The residual intraclass correlation coefficient (RICC) was used to estimate the contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to measure variation. To estimate the relative contribution across provider types, the pharmacy RICC was divided by the group practice RICC to yield a RICC ratio. Results: Due to varying measure eligibility requirements, the number of patients per measure ranged from 179,430 to 2,226,129. Across all measures, the RICC values were low, ranging from 0.013 for SUPD to 0.145 for adult sinusitis. Adherence measures had the highest RICC ratios (1.15-1.44), and the annual influenza vaccination measure had the lowest (0.56). Discussion and conclusions: The relative contributions of pharmacists and primary care providers vary across quality measures. As payers design payment models with measures to which pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute, the RICC ratio may be useful in aligning incentives to the providers with the greatest relative contributions. Additional research is needed to validate this method and extend it to additional sets of providers.

Predictors of adherence to oral anticancer medications: An analysis of 2010-2018 US nationwide claims.

BACKGROUND: Various factors, including patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, therapy-related factors, clinical characteristics, and health-system factors, can affect patient adherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients initiating oral anticancer therapy who were adherent to OAMs and to identify significant predictors of adherence to OAMs, including patient OOP costs and patient demographics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims database for 2010-2018. Patients with a new pharmacy claim for an OAM between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were followed for 6 months to ascertain their medication adherence, which was defined as a proportion of days covered value of at least 0.8. Average monthly patient OOP costs for OAM prescriptions were categorized as lower OOP costs (quartiles 1-3) and higher OOP costs (quartile 4). Separate multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify predictors of OAM nonadherence for each cancer type. RESULTS: Out of 37,938 patients with cancer, 51.9% were adherent to OAMs, with adherence ranging from 32.8% among those with liver cancer to 70.4% among those with brain tumor. The average monthly OOP costs of OAMs also differed by cancer type, ranging from $749 (SD = $1,014) among patients with blood cancer to $106 (SD = $439) among those with prostate cancer. Higher patient OOP costs were associated with higher odds of OAM nonadherence for many cancer types, including renal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.91; 95% CI = 2.80-5.47) and breast cancer (AOR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.13-1.41). Additionally, patients with inpatient hospitalizations during the 6 months following OAM initiation had significantly higher odds of OAM nonadherence for all cancer types except for stomach cancer. Among patients with stomach cancer, male sex was associated with lower odds of OAM nonadherence (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.37-0.97). Among patients with renal or stomach cancer, those who had Medicare low-income subsidy had higher odds of OAM nonadherence compared with those with commercial insurance coverage. Among patients with blood cancers, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of OAM nonadherence compared with White patients (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.25-1.75 and AOR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13-1.68, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall adherence to OAMs was suboptimal, and for several cancer types, adherence was worse among patients with higher OOP costs, those who were hospitalized, and those who received Medicare low-income subsidy. Policies addressing cost and access to OAMs and health-system strategies to address barriers to the effective use of OAMs are needed to improve patient access to these vital medications. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by joint funding from the Pharmacy Quality Alliance and the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Drs Vyas and Kogut were partially supported by this joint funding. Mr Descoteaux was supported by this joint funding for performing data analysis. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of PQA or NPC. Dr Campbell completed this work during his employment at Pharmacy Quality Alliance; he is now an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ.

Procurement and use of social determinants of health data among key health care stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence supports the need for health systems to shift towards addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) as part of routine care. However, little is known about the state of the industry in terms of procurement and use of SDoH data. OBJECTIVES: To assess stakeholders' perceptions and experiences in collecting and utilizing SDoH data. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using a 24-item electronic survey. The pilot-tested survey was distributed to a diverse convenience sample of 94 health care stakeholder organizations that are members of the Pharmacy Quality Alliance organization. Survey responses were collected from November to December 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: A total of 25 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 26.6%). More than half (n = 14, 56.0%) collected and tracked SDoH data, and of those, most (n = 6, 42.85%) reported using organization-specific tools instead of standardized SDoH tools. Economic stability and health and health care indicators were the most frequently identified types of SDoH data collected. Participants reported that both identifying (mean = 3.88 ± SD = 0.88; 1 = not important to 5 = extremely important) and addressing (3.88 ± 0.93) patients' SDoH were moderately important to their organization. Lack of standard data format (72.0%), lack of time (52.0%), and lack of technological capabilities (44.0%) were the most commonly reported barriers to collecting SDoH data. However, value-based payment programs that reward addressing SDoH needs (76.0%) and a coding structure or reimbursement mechanism for identification and management of SDoH (60.0%) were most commonly reported as mechanisms to overcome SDoH data collection barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Health care stakeholders consider patient SDoH indicators important but report significant challenges in collecting these data. Solutions that address data standardization, time burden, technological barriers, and the offering of incentives could facilitate its collection and effective use. DISCLOSURES: Pharmacy Quality Alliance received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer, Inc, to support this work.

Key informant perspectives about telephonic comprehensive medication review services in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are provided by providers such as pharmacists to eligible beneficiaries. Although CMRs have been shown to provide value to patients, little is known about the service uniformity, quality, and content of CMRs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the current state of CMR services from diverse stakeholder perspectives and describe variation in responses to content and delivery of telephonic CMR services. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants. The interview guide contained 6 key questions with additional probing questions. Transcripts were analyzed using the inductive saturation model and phenomenological approach to code emergent themes, which were iteratively refined until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Key informants included CMR payers (n = 3), providers (n = 5), and standards-setting organizations (n = 2). Ten themes about CMRs emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) definition, (2) organizational goals, (3) content, (4) eligibility, (5) frequency, (6) acceptance and completion, (7) process and personnel, (8) quality assurance, (9) preparation, and (10) future directions. CMR content descriptions were consistent across perspectives. Key informants described scenarios appropriate for expanded CMR eligibility criteria, although none were consistently reported. Providers emphasized patient CMR acceptance rates whereas payers and standard-setting organizations emphasized completion rates. Completion rates and adherence to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services standards were characterized as core organizational goals (n = 8), whereas patient satisfaction was less frequently identified (n = 4). A lack of incentive for CMR providers to follow-up with patients was a barrier to expanded services. Overall, key informants were dissatisfied with the CMR completion rate measure and would prefer measures focused on service quality and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CMR services largely met perceived guidelines, with variation in value-added services. Key informants desired adoption of an actionable measure that is focused on quality rather than completion rate. To inform a quality measure, future research should analyze completed CMRs to determine the extent of variation in content and delivery.

Psychometric evaluation of a comprehensive medication management service experience instrument.

BACKGROUND: The Health-Systems Alliance for Integrated Medication Management (HAIMM) instrument was developed to estimate patient experience following pharmacist-delivered comprehensive medication management (CMM). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper was to assess the psychometric properties and factor structure of the HAIMM instrument. METHODS: Data were collected from 5 members of the HAIMM collaborative. A one-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was used to assess instrument dimensionality. A partial-credit item response theory model was used to assess the psychometric properties of the ten-item HAIMM patient experience instrument, consisting of tests for rating scale functioning, person and item fit, and content validity. RESULTS: Among 516 respondents, there was a strong skew toward high satisfaction, including a strong ceiling effect. CFA results suggest a unidimensional construct. Item difficulty was spread across a low range and content redundancies were identified. The mean-square values for both infit and outfit all fell within the recommended range, whereas the z-standard fit was within the recommended range for most items. The 5-point Likert scale used in the HAIMM instrument did not distinguish between participants' level of experience following the pharmacist-delivered CMM service. CONCLUSION: The psychometric analysis showed the HAIMM survey tool does not cover all of the content that should be assessed to fully evaluate CMM experiences. In its current form, the HAIMM instrument should not be used to make comparisons about the quality of CMM services provided, although it may be useful to monitor patient satisfaction for quality improvement purposes. Further research is required to develop an improved instrument that contains expanded content coverage, response options, and aspects of CMM to be useful by health care providers, health systems, and other decision makers.

The patient's medication access journey: a conceptual framework focused beyond adherence.

BACKGROUND: It is well known that medication accessibility reduces morbidity and mortality and increases health-related quality of life; however, despite efforts to improve health care access, many Americans still face challenges in accessing medications. Several health care access and utilization conceptual frameworks have been created and used for decades to illustrate key relationships and interdependencies between elements of the system. However, none of these frameworks have focused exclusively on medication access and associated factors. Medication access is a complex, multidimensional issue that must consider not only patient-specific challenges, but also health system limitations, among others. A better understanding of medication access, beyond the proxy marker of adherence, is needed to identify opportunities to improve accessibility. OBJECTIVE: To develop a conceptual framework that defines a patient's medication access journey and characterizes barriers frequently encountered while seeking medication access. METHODS: A multistakeholder roundtable composed of 15 experts from across the health care continuum was convened in 2018 by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance to develop a conceptual framework for medication access. The roundtable participants were convened through in-person and telephonic meetings. To inform their work, 2 literature reviews and an environmental scan were conducted to identify medication access barriers, interventions affecting medication access, and medication access quality measures. RESULTS: The resulting framework included 7 nodes that represent the major access points encountered by patients when attempting to access medications: perceived need, help seeking, encounter, prescribing, prescription adjudication, prescription dispensing, and adherence. Also, 18 barriers were identified. Patient health literacy, cost, insurance, and organizational health literacy were predominant barriers across multiple nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The framework that was developed provides a patient-focused, holistic view of medication access, incorporating access nodes and corresponding barriers. It also provides a structure to consider key opportunities for interventions and measurement to address medication access challenges. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted with grant support from the National Pharmaceutical Council, which served as a collaborator in the study. Westrich is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Nelson is employed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance, which was contracted to conduct this study. Pickering, Campbell, and Holland were employed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of this study. This research was presented as a professional poster at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in October 2019, Philadelphia, PA.

Medicare Advantage-pharmacy partnership improves influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a collaborative effort of a Medicare Advantage and prescription drug (MAPD) plan and community pharmacies to improve vaccination rates for pneumonia and influenza. STUDY DESIGN: This quasiexperimental, cluster-randomized intervention study used MAPD data to assess the impact of community pharmacists on vaccination rates. Pharmacies in specific regions (districts) were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. Intervention pharmacies received reports of patients with a gap in influenza (aged 19-89 years) and/or pneumococcal (aged 65-89 years) vaccinations based on medical and pharmacy claims history. Vaccine-naïve patients were offered vaccinations. METHODS: The vaccination rates for the previously vaccine-naïve patients utilizing intervention and control pharmacies were compared 6 months post randomization. Inverse probability weighted hierarchical generalized linear models determined the odds of receiving pneumonia and influenza vaccinations for intervention and control groups, controlling for baseline clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Intervention and control groups had similar ages in the pneumococcal older-adult cohort (mean age, 73.0 vs 73.4 years, respectively; P = .1255). The intervention group was older than the control group in the influenza cohort (mean age, 67.7 vs 66.4 years, respectively; P = .0006). Slightly more than half of each cohort were women, and the proportion of women was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups in each cohort. In multivariable analyses, intervention pharmacies were associated with higher odds of delivering pneumococcal (odds ratio [OR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.26-2.87) and influenza (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.37-3.46) vaccinations than control pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: A health plan-enabled, pharmacist-led intervention was effective in increasing the number of older adults receiving pneumococcal vaccination and individuals receiving influenza vaccination.

Hypertension, cholesterol and diabetes medication adherence, health care utilization and expenditure in a Medicare Supplemental sample.

ABSTRACT: Limited evidence exists regarding the relationships between adherence, as defined in Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) medication adherence measures, health care utilization, and economic outcomes. PQA adherence measures for hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes are of particular interest given their use in Medicare Star Ratings to evaluate health plan performance.The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between adherence and utilization and cost among Medicare Supplemental beneficiaries included in the aforementioned PQA measures over a 1-year period.Retrospective cohort study.Three cohorts (hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes) of eligible individuals from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Research Databases (2009-2015) were used to assess associations between adherence and health care expenditure and utilization for Medicare Supplemental beneficiaries.Generalized linear models with log link and negative binomial (utilization) or gamma (expenditure) distributions assessed relationships between adherence (≥80% proportion of days covered) and health care utilization and expenditure (in 2015 US dollars) while adjusting for confounding variables. Beta coefficients were used to compute cost ratios and rate ratios.Adherence for all 3 disease cohorts was associated with lower outpatient and inpatient visits. During the 1-year study period, adherence was associated with lower outpatient, inpatient, and total expenditures across the cohorts, ranging from 9% lower outpatient costs (diabetes cohort) to 41.9% lower inpatient costs (hypertension cohort). Savings of up to $324.53 per member per month in total expenditure were observed for the hypertension cohort.Our findings indicate adherence is associated with lower health care utilization and expenditures within 1 year.

Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial.

Personal genomic educational testing (PGET) has been suggested as a strategy to improve student learning for pharmacogenomics (PGx), but no randomized studies have evaluated PGET's educational benefit. We investigated the effect of PGET on student knowledge, comfort, and attitudes related to PGx in a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Consenting participants were randomized to receive PGET or no PGET (NPGET) during 4 subsequent years of a PGx course. All participants completed a pre-survey and post-survey designed to assess (1) PGx knowledge, (2) comfort with PGx patient education and clinical skills, and (3) attitudes toward PGx. Instructors were blinded to PGET assignment. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare pre-survey and post-survey PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed between PGET (n = 117) and NPGET (n = 116) participants. Among all participants, significant improvement was observed in PGx knowledge (mean 57% vs. 39% correct responses; p < 0.001) with similar results for student comfort and attitudes. Change in pre/post-PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes were not significantly different between PGET and NPGET groups (mean 19.5% vs. 16.7% knowledge improvement, respectively; p = 0.41). Similar results were observed for PGET participants carrying a highly actionable PGx variant versus PGET participants without an actionable variant. Significant improvement in Likert scale responses were observed in PGET versus NPGET for questions that assessed student engagement (p = 0.020) and reinforcement of course concepts (p = 0.006). Although some evidence of improved engagement and participation was observed, the results of this study suggest that PGET does not directly improve student PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes.

Evaluating the relationship between quality measure adherence definitions and economic outcomes in commercial health plans: a retrospective diabetes cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a prevalent chronic condition in the United States that results in considerable morbidity and mortality, frequent use of the health care system, and high health care expenditures. Adherence to antidiabetic medications can help improve health outcomes and lower health care utilization and expenditures. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) Proportion of Days Covered (PDC): Diabetes All Class medication adherence measure was developed and endorsed to improve adherence to noninsulin antidiabetic medications; however, it has not been assessed in a commercial population of diabetes patients over a 1-year time frame. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between adherence, as defined in the PQA medication adherence measures, and health care utilization and expenditure among commercially insured individuals using antidiabetic medications. METHODS: This 1-year retrospective study evaluated a cohort of individuals from IBM MarketScan Research Databases (2009-2015) with noninsulin antidiabetic medications. Eligible study subjects included adults (aged ≥ 18 years at index date) with continuous enrollment in their health plans for 6 months before (i.e., baseline period) and 12 months after (i.e., study period) the index date and ≥ 2 prescriptions dispensed for any medication included in the PQA PDC Diabetes All Class medication adherence measure, with at least 150 days between the first and last fill during the study period. The index date was defined as the first fill for a medication included in the PQA PDC Diabetes All Class adherence measure after a 180-day baseline period. Generalized linear models with log link and gamma distribution (expenditure) or negative binomial distribution (utilization) assessed relationships between adherence (≥ 80% PDC) and health care utilization and expenditure while adjusting for potential confounders. Cost ratios (CR) and rate ratios (RR) were computed using beta coefficients. Cohort characteristics were compared using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, or chi-square tests with an alpha level of 0.001 set a priori. RESULTS: A total of 1,576,112 individuals were eligible; of these, 1,028,176 (65.2%) were adherent. Significant differences in demographic characteristics were observed between adherent and nonadherent groups (P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that adherence was associated with the following: (a) 16.6% fewer inpatient (RR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.819-0.850) and 3.6% more outpatient service visits (RR = 1.036, 95% CI = 1.032-1.039) and (b) 16.8% lower inpatient expenditures (CR = 0.833, 95% CI = 0.829-0.836); 2.6% lower outpatient expenditures (CR = 0.974, 95% CI = 0.970-0.978); 16.4% higher prescription drug expenditures (CR = 1.164, 95% CI = 1.159-1.169); and 4.2% lower total (CR = 0.958, 95% CI = 0.954-0.962) expenditures. Adherent subjects were associated with lower incremental per member per month expenditures for inpatient (-$31.74), outpatient (-$10.09), and total (-$30.82) expenditures, yet higher prescription drug expenditures ($25.60) compared with nonadherent subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to noninsulin antidiabetic medications was associated with more outpatient and fewer inpatient visits, as well as lower total expenditures compared with nonadherence. DISCLOSURES: Funding was provided by grants from Pharmacy Quality Alliance, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ), and SinfoniaRx. In addition, Chinthammit reports personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company, outside the submitted work. Axon reports grants from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy and the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the submitted work. Taylor reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the submitted work. Warholak reports grants from Novartis and the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the submitted work. Chinthammit and Campbell disclose that this work was completed during their employment at the University of Arizona. This research was presented as a poster at the AMCP Annual Meeting 2019; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Assessing the association between medication adherence, as defined in quality measures, and disease-state control, health care utilization, and costs in a retrospective database analysis of Medicare supplemental beneficiaries using statin medications.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medication, and related health and economic outcomes, is becoming increasingly important as populations age and as the number of Americans managing chronic conditions increases. The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) statin medication adherence measure is used in Medicare star ratings to evaluate health plan performance. Yet, limited evidence exists that investigates the association between statin medication adherence, as specified in the PQA adherence quality measure, and disease-state control, health care utilization, and costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between adherence (≥80% proportion of days covered) and disease-state control, health care utilization, and health care costs for Medicare supplemental beneficiaries using statin medications eligible for inclusion in the PQA statin adherence quality measure. METHODS: This retrospective study used a cohort of eligible beneficiaries for inclusion in the PQA statin adherence measure with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) laboratory values from IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Research Databases (2009-2015). A logistic regression model assessed the association between adherence and LDL control (controlled individuals had LDL levels ≤ 100 mg/dL). Health care utilization and costs during a 1-year period, from first statin medication claim, were compared between adherent and nonadherent groups using generalized linear models with log link and negative binomial distribution (utilization) or gamma distribution (costs), adjusting for covariates. Beta coefficients were used to compute cost ratios (CR) and rate ratios (RR). Cohort characteristics were assessed using t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, or chi-square tests. An a priori alpha level of 0.001 was used. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 77,174 beneficiaries, of whom 58,668 (76.0%) were classified as adherent to their statin medications. After controlling for other factors, odds of disease-state control were approximately 2 times higher among medication adherent beneficiaries compared with their nonadherent counterparts (OR = 2.192; 95% CI = 2.109-2.278). Multivariable analyses showed adherers experienced 4.7% fewer outpatient (RR = 0.953; 95% CI = 0.940-0.965) and 27.5% fewer inpatient (RR = 0.725; 95% CI = 0.687-0.766) visits; had 9.9% lower outpatient (CR = 0.901; 95% CI = 0.885-0.916) and 28.3% lower inpatient (CR = 0.717; 95% CI = 0.705-0.729) costs; 14.7% lower total costs (CR = 0.853; 95% CI =0.838-0.868); and 7.0% higher prescription drug costs (CR = 1.070; 95% CI = 1.052-1.089) than nonadherers. Adherence to statin medications was associated with a reduction in total costs of $157.32 per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective database analysis demonstrated that statin adherence was associated with approximately twice the odds of having a controlled disease state compared with nonadherence in a large Medicare sample. Adherent beneficiaries had fewer outpatient and inpatient visits (lower utilization), lower outpatient and inpatient costs, and lower total costs, a calculated savings of $157.32 per member per month, despite having higher prescription drug costs. Finally, these results provide important new information by demonstrating that adherence (≥ 80%) is associated with lower health care costs in a short (1-year) time frame. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Pharmacy Quality Alliance; Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); and SinfoniaRx. All authors except Pickering and Black were employed by the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy or the Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the time of this study. Pickering is employed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance, and Black is employed by Merck & Co. Chinthammit also reports employment with Eli Lilly and Company, and Campbell reports employment with the Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Axon reports grants from Arizona Department of Health Services, unrelated to this work. Warholak reports grants from Novartis and the Arizona Department of Health Services, unrelated to this work. This research was presented as a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Annual Meeting 2019, May 18-22, 2019, in New Orleans, LA.

A retrospective cohort study evaluating the relationship between statin medication adherence and economic outcomes in commercial health plans.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to statin medications is suboptimal; however, the association of statin adherence, as defined in medication adherence quality measures, with healthcare service use and expenditure within one year has not been assessed in a commercially insured United States (US) population. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between statin adherence, as specified in the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) statin medication adherence quality measure, and healthcare resource utilization and expenditures within commercial health plans over a one-year period. METHODS: This one-year retrospective analysis involved a cohort of individuals from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Research Databases (2009-2015). Generalized linear models with log link and negative binomial distribution (use) or gamma distribution (expenditures) were used to assess relationships between medication adherence (≥80% proportion of days covered) and healthcare use and expenditures (adjusted to 2015 US dollars) while adjusting for covariates. Beta coefficients were used to compute cost ratios (CR) and rate ratios (RR). An alpha level of 0.001 was set a priori. RESULTS: Of 4,450,308 eligible individuals, 2,757,288 (61.9%) were classified as adherent. Multivariable analyses indicated adherent individuals had more outpatient (RR = 1.009, 95% CI = 1.007, 1.010) and fewer inpatient visits (RR = 0.756, 95% CI = 0.749, 0.762); and lower outpatient (CR = 0.965, 95% CI = 0.963, 0.967), inpatient (CR = 0.780, 95% CI = 0.779, 0.782), and total expenditures (CR = 0.975, 95% CI = 0.973, 0.977). Adherence was associated with lower per member per month total healthcare expenditures ($18.91) vs nonadherence. CONCLUSION: Within one year, statin adherence was associated with more outpatient and fewer inpatient visits, lower outpatient and inpatient expenditures, and lower total expenditures than nonadherence, within a commercially-insured population.

Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Medication Therapy Management in Administrative Data.

BACKGROUND: Three pharmacist-specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes exist to facilitate medication therapy management (MTM) reimbursement (codes 99605, 99606, and 99607). However, no studies have used CPT codes in administrative claims databases to identify subjects who have received MTM services. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of MTM services provided, using CPT codes identified in an administrative dataset. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a subset of Medicare Part D individuals from the IBM MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Research Databases (2009-2015). Researchers identified beneficiaries who received MTM services using CPT codes 99605, 99606, and 99607. RESULTS: Of the 16,483,709 individuals in the dataset, only 3,291 had CPT codes indicating that they received MTM services, representing an overall prevalence of 0.020%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPT codes as an indicator of MTM service provision resulted in far lower MTM utilization rates than in published literature. Reliance on CPT codes to identify MTM services in administrative claims is not recommended, given that it limited the researchers' ability to properly identify patient receipt of such services. More accurate methodologies are warranted for identifying MTM use and its effects on patient outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Pharmacy Quality Alliance; Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, NJ); and SinfoniaRx. The funding sources had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. Tate, Chinthammit, and Campbell completed this work during their employment at the University of Arizona. Pickering was an employee of Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of this study. Black is employed by Merck. Axon reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy; Campbell reports a grant from the Community Pharmacy Foundation; Chinthammit reports fees from Eli Lilly; Black has received a grant from Merck; Warholak reports grants from the Arizona Department of Health Services and Novartis, all unrelated to this study. Taylor reports grants from Tabula Rasa Op-Co, during the conduct of the study, and from the Arizona Department of Health Services, outside the conduct of this study. This research was accepted as a poster presentation at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL, but was not presented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An abstract was published in Value in Health, 2020;23(Suppl 1):S305.