Bartholomew E. Clark

A comparison of mail-service and retail community pharmacy claims in 5 prescription benefit plans

BACKGROUND Little evidence has been presented to date that would either support or refute a widely held belief that mail-service pharmacy utilization routinely produces savings in drug benefit costs for prescription benefit plan sponsors. OBJECTIVE To present a comparative analysis of mail-service and community pharmacy service drug benefit costs for 5 employer-sponsored prescription drug benefit plans. METHODS A cross-sectional comparison of 17,725 matched transaction pairs of community and mail-service prescriptions from a data set comprised 484,987 prescription claims from a convenience sample of 5 employer-sponsored prescription benefit plans. Differences between community pharmacy and mail-service prescription transactions were examined at the per-unit level of analysis for drug ingredient costs, dispensing fees, co-payments, dollar amounts paid by plan sponsor, and total dollar amounts. RESULTS Overall, the total cost of prescriptions was lower through mail-service pharmacies for all 5 plans studied. Two of 5 plans had co-payment incentives to use mail-service, yet plan sponsors paid more for mail-service drugs; respectively, 4.5% and 8.3% more overall, 25.0% and 21.4% more for generic medications; and 3.0% and 7.0% more for brand name medications. Mail-service co-payments were 48.9% and 51.7% lower. Mail-service utilization rates were 15.2% and 31.5% of the total number of prescriptions dispensed in the period studied. Three of 5 plans had no co-payment incentive to use mail-service and paid less for mail-service drugs; respectively, 18.7%, 6.6%, and 15.7% less overall; 17.4%, 15.6%, and 7.9% less for generic medications; and 18.8%, 5.2%, and 16.6% less for brand name medications. Mail-service co-payments were 10.5% more, 5.2% less, and 1.8% more than community pharmacy co-payments, respectively. Mail-service utilization rates were 0.8%, 1.2%, and 4.4%. CONCLUSION Co-payment incentives to use mail-service pharmacies instead of community pharmacies were associated with higher mail-service utilization rates and with higher costs to plan sponsors. Absence of a co-payment incentive to use mail-service pharmacies was associated with lower mail-service utilization rates and with lower costs to plan sponsors.

Description and evaluation of an interprofessional patient safety course for health professions and related sciences students

Objectives: The structure, process, and outcomes associated with planning, developing, and offering an interprofessional course on the foundations of patient safety is described, including how organizational, structural, cultural, and attitudinal barriers were overcome. Methods: Seventeen faculty members from 7 colleges and schools and medical center participated-from the fields of decision sciences and systems, dentistry, medicine, law, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, social work, health care administration, and outcomes management in health systems. Student assessment included theme analysis of open-ended questions, descriptive analysis of multiple- response option questionnaires, and criterion-based assessment of student performance on case studies. Triangulation of student comments, final course evaluation, and student performance evaluations were performed to learn overarching themes of student experience with the course. Results: The students learned a different way of thinking, found the instructional design and active learning methods useful to learning, and felt prepared to solve problems in the future. Students believed that the content was an essential core knowledge for all health professionals (87%) and should be required for all health professions students (78%). Students achieved an application level of learning (77%) within the cognitive domain and the valuing level within the affective domain. Students agree (96%) that they can define and apply the basic principles and tenets of patient safety, including identification of tools needed to work effectively within the health system and to improve safety and strongly agree (100%) that they value patient safety as a professional practice framework. Conclusion: The universitywide implementation case may offer important lessons to others nationally in health care education.

The Spread: Pilot Study of an Undocumented Source of Pharmacy Benefit Manager Revenue

OBJECTIVE To document the difference between what pharmacy benefits management companies (PBMs) charge employers and what they pay dispensing pharmacies for the drug ingredient portion of prescription transactions (the spre DESIGN Descriptive, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS Two large employer groups, each of which used a different PBM, and six independent community pharmacies participating in these plans during 2002. INTERVENTIONS Two sets of financial records issued by each of two PBMs were reviewed retrospectively, including 129 line-item prescription transactions billed to the employer and the line-item transaction information that accompanies the PBM payment to the dispensing pharmacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Spread between drug ingredient cost billed to the employer by the PBM and drug ingredient cost paid to the dispensing pharmacy by the PBM for brand name versus generic drug products. RESULTS For both PBMs, the mean (+/- SD) spread was dollar 12.29 +/- 27.93 per prescription, with a range of -dollar 1.67 to dollar 201.65. Considering all 129 transactions, the mean spreads for brand name and generic medications were significantly different from one another, with mean (+/- SD) spreads of dollar 4.65 +/- 10.47 and dollar 23.45 +/- 39.47 per prescription, respectively. The two PBMs differed significantly in their spreads for brand name drugs (dollar 3.20 +/- 2.85 and dollar 5.93 +/- 14.12), but the spreads for generic products did not achieve statistical significance in absolute dollars (dollar 10.83 +/- 13.58 and dollar 31.74 +/- 48.11) because of their greater variation (as reflected in the larger standard deviations). However, the percentages difference for generic products differed significantly. CONCLUSION This pilot study indicates the possibility of substantial and widely varying differences in the spread and spread percentage between PBMs for brand name and generic medications. A more transparent business model for the PBM industry could produce better relations with PBM clients and business partners, including community pharmacies.

Examining barriers to health information technology adoption

Results of a previous study showed that use of health information technology (HIT) significantly reduced potential medication prescribing errors. However, the results also revealed a less than 100% rate of HIT adoption by primary care physicians. The current study reports on personal interviews with participating physicians that explored the barriers they faced when attempting to fully adopt a particular HIT. Content analysis of qualitative interviews revealed three barrier themes: time, technology, and environment. Interviews also revealed two other areas of concern; specifically, the compatibility of the HIT with the physicians patient mix and the physicians own attitude toward the use of HIT. A theoretical model of technology acceptance and use is used to discuss and further explain the data derived from the physician interviews. With a better understanding of these issues, health care administrators can develop successful strategies for adoption of HIT across their health care organizations.