Related Experiment Videos
Extent of services provided by pharmacists in the Iowa Medicaid Pharmaceutical Case Management program
Barry L Carter1, Elizabeth A Chrischilles, David Scholz
1Division of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, lowa City 52242, USA. barry-carter@uiowa.edu
Objective:
To summarize the start-up experience with patients identified as eligible during the first four quarters of the Iowa Pharmaceutical Case Management (PCM) program and to characterize the extent of the services proved by pharmacists in the program.
Design:
Prospective pharmaceutical care intervention project.
Setting:
One hundred seventeen community pharmacies in Iowa.
Patients:
Medicaid patients at high risk for drug-related problems based on using 4 or more nontopical medications and having 1 of 12 specific disease states.
Intervention:
To become eligible to provide PCM services, licensed pharmacists had to undergo training and submit five care plans to the Iowa Department of Human Services. Community pharmacists were provided names of newly eligible patents each calendar quarter for 1 year. For each patient, pharmacists were asked to indicate by fax whether they had met with the patient, performed a written work-up of the patient, sent recommendations to the patient's physician, and whether the physician replied. When pharmacists were unable to provide the service, they were asked to state the reason. Both the pharmacist and the physician receive $75 for the initial assessment, with additional payments after each follow-up visit performed.
Main Outcome Measures:
An intensity score and the percentage of eligible patients for whom all steps were completed were calculated for each pharmacy.
Results:
Fax survey results were retumed for 2,834 (96.7%) of the 2,931 patients eligible for PCM services. Pharmacists met with 943 (33.3%), worked up 763 (26.9%), sent recommendations to physicians for 500 (17.6%), and received replies from physicians for 327 (11.5%) patients. Pharmacists were unable to provide PCM services for 1,891 (66.7%) patients. The primary reasons given for this inability to provide services were patient access issues for 438 (23.2%) patients, pharmacy staffing or start-up issues for 419 (22.2%) patients, or no reason specified for 575 (30.4%) patients. A PCM intensity score was developed to represent the scope of services provided and the number of patients served. A higher intensity score indicated pharmacies that provided PCM to more patients and/or that offered higher levels of care (e.g., provided a written set of recommendations to the physician rather than simply assessing the patient without preparing or sending recommendations). Future evaluations will determine the validity of the score on the basis of patient outcomes.
Conclusion:
Some pharmacies implemented PCM services very effectively. However, 40% to 60% of the pharmacies provided little or no PCM services within 3 months of notification of patient eligibility. Future investigations will evaluate the quality of prescribing and quality of life for patients who received PCM services.