Economic impact of pharmacist-reimbursed drug therapy modification

Look, Kevin A.; Mott, David A.; Kreling, David H.; Peterson, Elizabeth J.; Staresinic, Anthony G

doi:10.1331/japha.2011.09115

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 47 (41%) economic evaluations focused on general pharmacotherapeutic management (Table S1). Most studies used study designs with a high risk of bias—38% were single‐group posttest, 15% were nonrandomized posttest using a historical control group, and 11% were single‐group pretest‐posttest. Study designs with a medium risk of bias comprised the rest of the studies: 15% were nonrandomized pretest‐posttest and 11% were nonrandomized posttest.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in the United States: 2011‐2017

Talon

Pérez

Yan

et al. 2019

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) are needed to justify implementation and reimbursement. Through a systematic review, we describe services provided by pharmacists and their economic outcomes. We conducted a literature search of published studies in PubMed, Ovid, and Embase from January 2011 through December 2017. Manuscripts evaluating a CPS with patient-level economic outcomes and conducted in the United States were included. Study risks of bias were classified by study design characteristics. Economic evaluations were classified according to the presence of a comparator, and cost and outcome measures included. The quality of full economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize CPS characteristics. After screening, 115 studies wereincluded. Type of service provided included general pharmacotherapy (41%), disease management (30%), and targeted drug program (17%). Settings included hospital (34%), ambulatory care (28%), and community pharmacy (17%). Study designs were considered high risk of bias (use of a historical control group or no control group) in 69% of cases while 25% were medium risk of bias (non-randomized with a concurrent control group) and 6% were low risk of bias (randomized experimental or multigroup interrupted time series). Economic evaluation types were descriptive studies that measured cost and/or outcomes of a CPS (55%), comparative studies that measured cost or outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (37%), and full evaluations that measured cost and outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (8%). Among nine full evaluations, the median (range) QHES score was 74 (59-95) and four reported the CPS as being more effective at a lower cost. Few full economic evaluations were conducted, but supported the cost-effectiveness of CPS. Use of a comparator group and measurement of economic inputs and outcomes would strengthen the body of evidence. K E Y W O R D Scost-benefit analysis, health services research, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacy

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in the United States: 2011‐2017

Talon

Pérez

Yan

et al. 2019

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of pharmacist interventions on patient out-of-pocket expenses, health care systems, payers, and managed care environments is well-documented. 8 –11 The targeted medication interventions in this program were associated with an estimated cost avoidance (ECA) that was eventually reported by the third-party administrator/payer to the beneficiaries’ prescription drug plan. Upon submitting every targeted medication intervention claim, the pharmacist was prompted to select an ECA level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 –7 The effect of these interventions on patient out-of-pocket expenses, health care systems, and managed care environments is well documented. 8 –11 What is missing from the literature is information regarding a targeted medication intervention program and the financial aspects of such a program in a community pharmacy. There is a growing interest in MTM services in the community pharmacy setting, but few studies exist to document the return on investment (ROI) of these services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Economic Impact of a Targeted Medication Intervention Program

Rhodes¹,

Reynolds²,

Marciniak

et al. 2013

Journal of Pharmacy Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analyses of these programs show that drug choice issues are common reasons that pharmacists are paid for services. 17,21 In addition, formulary restrictions may require drug changes, and drug choice services are relatively easy to provide and can be identified and implemented by trained technical staff in a pharmacy, thus reducing the cost of providing the service. Given that the enhanced dispensing fees have not increased over the program duration, developing systems to involve lower-cost technical personnel in the provision of PC services is a potential strategy to make participation economically sensible.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study found considerable cost savings to payers and patients as a result of pharmacist-reimbursed drug therapy modification. 21 However, the financial impact of providing these services (i.e., cost to the pharmacies) has not been determined for pharmacies. Because drug therapy modification is associated with increased time and labor costs for pharmacists, 22 it is important that financial incentives for this type of program adequately compensate pharmacists to motivate participation.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%