Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose The purpose of this study is to obtain insight into providers’ satisfaction with services offered by health-system integrated specialty pharmacies and to determine whether providers’ perceptions of services offered under an integrated model differ from perceptions of external specialty pharmacy services. Methods A multi-site, cross-sectional, online survey of specialty clinic healthcare providers at 10 academic health systems with integrated specialty pharmacies was conducted. The questionnaire was developed by members of the Vizient Specialty Pharmacy Outcomes and Benchmarking Workgroup and was pretested at 3 pilot sites prior to dissemination. Prescribers of specialty medications within each institution were identified and sent an email invitation to participate in the study that included a link to the anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 10 statements regarding quality of services of integrated and external specialty pharmacies on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An analysis to determine differences in providers’ overall satisfaction with the integrated and external specialty pharmacy practice models, as well as differences in satisfaction scores for each of the 10 statements, was performed using paired-samples t tests. Results The mean (SD) score for overall satisfaction with integrated specialty pharmacies was significantly higher than the score for satisfaction with external specialty pharmacies: 4.72 (0.58) vs 2.97 (1.20); 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.87; P < 0.001. Provider ratings of the integrated specialty pharmacy model were also higher for all 10 items evaluating the quality of services (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion The study results confirm that the health-system integrated specialty pharmacy practice model, implemented at institutions across the United States, promotes high rates of provider satisfaction with services and perceived benefits.

BACKGROUND:Patients who are prescribed specialty medications require close monitoring, including assessment of laboratory parameters, toxicities, and adherence. Specialty pharmacies integrated within a health system are able to access records, assess therapy, and efficiently communicate with prescribers. OBJECTIVE:To analyze interventions made by clinical pharmacists within the Cleveland Clinic Specialty Pharmacy (CCSP) regarding cost avoidance for the health care system and improvements in patient safety. METHODS:This was a retrospective, observational study that analyzed pharmacist interventions regarding specialty hematolo-gy/oncology medications. Interventions were measured with pharmacist documentation within the electronic health record (EHR). The primary endpoint was the cost-avoidance effect of clinical pharmacist interventions resulting from pharmacist access to the EHR. Secondary endpoints included pharmacist interventions that led to additional ancillary or supportive care, time taken to perform interventions, total interventions according to new or refill status, and total interventions performed according to insurance subtype. RESULTS: 547 interventions were identified during the study period, with a total cost avoidance of $1,508,131. The intervention with the highest overall cost savings was discontinuation of therapy ($290,091). The highest cost savings, based on intervention type, was lack of follow-up ($30,892). The medication with the highest overall cost savings was abiraterone ($273,160). Gilteritinib was associated with the highest cost saving per intervention ($28,350). The indication with the highest overall cost savings was prostate cancer ($402,601), while cutaneous T-cell lymphoma had the highest cost savings per intervention ($25,424).

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Adherence to self-administered biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) is necessary for therapeutic benefit. Health-system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) have reported high adherence rates across several disease states; however, adherence outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) populations have not yet been established. Methods We performed a multisite retrospective cohort study including patients with RA and 3 or more documented dispenses of bDMARDs from January through December 2018. Pharmacy claims were used to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC). Electronic health records of patients with a PDC of <0.8 were reviewed to identify reasons for gaps in pharmacy claims (true nonadherence or appropriate treatment holds). Outcomes included median PDC across sites, reasons for treatment gaps in patients with a PDC of <0.8, and the impact of adjusting PDC when accounting for appropriate therapy gaps. Results There were 29,994 prescriptions for 3,530 patients across 20 sites. The patient cohort was mostly female (75%), with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range [IQR], 42-63 years). The original(ie, prereview) median PDC was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-0.99). Upon review, 327 patients had no appropriate treatment gaps identified, 6 patients were excluded due to multiple unquantifiable appropriate gaps, and 420 patients had an adjustment in the PDC denominator due to appropriate treatment gaps (43 instances of days’ supply adjusted based on discordant days’ supply information between prescriptions and physician administration instructions, 11 instances of missing fills added, and 421 instances of clinically appropriate treatment gaps). The final median PDC after accounting for appropriate gaps in therapy was 0.95 (IQR, 0.87-0.99). Conclusion This large, multisite retrospective cohort study was the first to demonstrate adherence rates across several HSSPs and provided novel insights into rates and reasons for appropriate gaps in therapy.