A Prospective Trial of a Clinical Pharmacy Intervention in a Primary Care Practice in a Capitated Payment System

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that pharmacist interventions improve clinical outcomes. The few studies that address economic outcomes (a) often report estimated instead of actual medical costs, (b) report only medication costs, or (c) have been conducted in settings that are not typical of community-based primary care.OBJECTIVES: To (a) determine whether a clinical pharmacist's recommendations to physicians regarding optimizing medication therapy are related to medical costs in capitated patients in an internal medicine practice, and (b) compare what primary care physicians (PCPs) in a comparison group actually did proactively to optimize medication therapy versus what a clinical pharmacist would have recommended to them.METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled study comparing 2 internal medicine practices. Study enrollment was performed using a screening process carried out every 1-2 weeks on a rolling basis for 1 year from July 2001 through June 2002. Eligibility criteria for prospective enrollment were (a) 1 or more risk factors: at least 1 chronic disease or an event (e.g., emergency room visit, adverse drug reaction, medication nonadherence) or aged 50 years or older, (b) a scheduled visit to see a PCP within 2 weeks from the screening date or a diagnosis of diabetes without a PCP visit during the first 6 months of the study, (c) need for optimization of medication therapy as determined by a clinical pharmacist on the screening date, and (d) 12 months of continuous insurance eligibility before enrollment in the study. For inclusion in the final study analyses, patients were also required to have continuous insurance eligibility through 12 months from study enrollment. One clinical pharmacist made recommendations to optimize medication therapy in the intervention group. For the comparison group, the same pharmacist proposed recommendations that remained concealed from the physicians. The primary outcome measure was per patient per year (PPPY) medical cost, based on plan liability (gross allow able costs minus patient costs), excluding prescription drug cost. Additional outcome measures included numbers of outpatient visits, hospital admissions, emergency room (ER) visits per 1,000 patients, and hospital days; and percent of recommendations that were accepted by the PCPs. Changes in outcome measures from the pre-intervention to postintervention period were compared across study groups in a difference-indifference analysis, using the Student's t-test for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney U-test (nonparametric) for skewed data.RESULTS: There were 127 and 216 adult patients in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively. The primary outcome, change in mean PPPY medical (excluding pharmacy) cost, did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.711). The between-group difference in the change in ER visits per 1,000 patients approached statistical significance (P = 0.054). Intervention group patients were more likely than comparison group patients to have the following issues...

Pharmacist Recommendations to Improve the Quality of Diabetes Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Our intervention therefore relied on action being taken by the PCP during the office visit, potentially lessening its 21 This study included a control group for which the clinical pharmacist made recommendations for care improvement that were not disclosed to physicians. In this control group, nearly one-quarter of the concealed recommendations were enacted by physicians without pharmacist input.…”

Quality Improvement Opportunities in Prescriber Alert Programs

“…For example, Altavela et al (2008) found that 23.5% of drug therapy recommendations that would have been made by clinical pharmacists to physicians, but that were concealed from the physicians using a controlled research design, were adopted by the physicians anyway. 24 Also embedded in the significant questions left unanswered by research on the real effects of automated alerting systems on patient safety is rate of receipt of these messages by prescribers. Unlike an electronic prescribing system that requires an action by the prescriber at the point of care, we do not know what proportion of the mail or fax alerts were actually received and interpreted by the prescribers.…”

Report of the 2009–2010 Professional Affairs Committee: Pharmacist Integration in Primary Care and the Role of Academic Pharmacy

“…There were net cost savings in patient care for the group as a result of these interventions. 28 Pharmacists have demonstrated clinical, humanistic and economic benefits in improving patient care for a number of chronic diseases. Pharmacists receive extensive education in identifying medication-related problems and therapeutic appropriateness (ensuring safety and efficacy) of medications.…”