Qualitative analysis of telephonic comprehensive medication review content and delivery.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are offered to eligible Medicare beneficiaries to improve patient medication knowledge, identify, and address medication concerns, and empower medication self-management. However, the specific content of real-world CMRs is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess CMR content and delivery among telephonic CMR providers. METHODS: This qualitative thematic analysis used transcriptions of audio-recorded patient interactions during CMRs from 3 telephonic medication therapy management provider organizations. Data were qualitatively analyzed using the inductive saturation model to code emergent themes by independent reviewers who met to agree themes through consensus. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Krippendorf alpha. RESULTS: Overall, 32 CMR transcripts from 3 organizations were analyzed in 13 rounds of coding. Intercoder reliability was >95%. A total of 21 themes were identified across 4 stages: call opening (4 themes), medication reconciliation (5 themes), clinical assessments and guidance (8 themes), and call closing (4 themes). The call opening stage included: service explanation; insurance coverage/cost; identity/privacy/recording; and patient's medication management. Medication reconciliation included: drug name, dose, frequency, and indication; medication deletion and addition; over-the-counter and vaccination assessment; drug efficacy assessment; and prescribing provider assessment. Clinical assessments and guidance included 4 core clinical assessments: allergy assessment; drug therapy problem assessment; drug-related adverse events; and medication modification; and 4 additional assessments: clinical/therapeutic guidance; cost savings guidance; diet/exercise/lifestyle guidance; and optional clinical and behavioral assessments. Call closing included: documentation; primary care provider confirmation; patient satisfaction; and call transfer. There were variations among organizations in the depth that CMR components were covered. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest provider organizations are including components that meet Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services goals for CMRs. Yet, variations among organizations indicate a need for standardization and patient-centered measures to ensure appropriate CMR components are covered, while maintaining flexibility for pharmacists to provide patient-oriented CMRs that meet patients' clinical needs.

Relative contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to shared quality measures.

Background: Alternative payment models are common for both primary care providers and pharmacies. These models rely on quality measures to determine reimbursement, and pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute to performance on a similar set of medication-related measures. Therefore, payers need to decide which provider to incentivize for which measures when both are included in alternative payment models. Objectives: To explore the relative contribution of pharmacies and primary care group practices to a range of quality measures. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare Part A, B, and D claims for a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2014-2016. Eight quality measures were selected from the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and Medicare Part D Stars Ratings. Measures included medication adherence measures, appropriate prescribing measures such as high-risk medication use in the elderly, statin use in persons with diabetes (SUPD), and others. The residual intraclass correlation coefficient (RICC) was used to estimate the contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to measure variation. To estimate the relative contribution across provider types, the pharmacy RICC was divided by the group practice RICC to yield a RICC ratio. Results: Due to varying measure eligibility requirements, the number of patients per measure ranged from 179,430 to 2,226,129. Across all measures, the RICC values were low, ranging from 0.013 for SUPD to 0.145 for adult sinusitis. Adherence measures had the highest RICC ratios (1.15-1.44), and the annual influenza vaccination measure had the lowest (0.56). Discussion and conclusions: The relative contributions of pharmacists and primary care providers vary across quality measures. As payers design payment models with measures to which pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute, the RICC ratio may be useful in aligning incentives to the providers with the greatest relative contributions. Additional research is needed to validate this method and extend it to additional sets of providers.

Key informant perspectives about telephonic comprehensive medication review services in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) are provided by providers such as pharmacists to eligible beneficiaries. Although CMRs have been shown to provide value to patients, little is known about the service uniformity, quality, and content of CMRs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the current state of CMR services from diverse stakeholder perspectives and describe variation in responses to content and delivery of telephonic CMR services. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 key informants. The interview guide contained 6 key questions with additional probing questions. Transcripts were analyzed using the inductive saturation model and phenomenological approach to code emergent themes, which were iteratively refined until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Key informants included CMR payers (n = 3), providers (n = 5), and standards-setting organizations (n = 2). Ten themes about CMRs emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) definition, (2) organizational goals, (3) content, (4) eligibility, (5) frequency, (6) acceptance and completion, (7) process and personnel, (8) quality assurance, (9) preparation, and (10) future directions. CMR content descriptions were consistent across perspectives. Key informants described scenarios appropriate for expanded CMR eligibility criteria, although none were consistently reported. Providers emphasized patient CMR acceptance rates whereas payers and standard-setting organizations emphasized completion rates. Completion rates and adherence to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services standards were characterized as core organizational goals (n = 8), whereas patient satisfaction was less frequently identified (n = 4). A lack of incentive for CMR providers to follow-up with patients was a barrier to expanded services. Overall, key informants were dissatisfied with the CMR completion rate measure and would prefer measures focused on service quality and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: CMR services largely met perceived guidelines, with variation in value-added services. Key informants desired adoption of an actionable measure that is focused on quality rather than completion rate. To inform a quality measure, future research should analyze completed CMRs to determine the extent of variation in content and delivery.

The patient's medication access journey: a conceptual framework focused beyond adherence.

BACKGROUND: It is well known that medication accessibility reduces morbidity and mortality and increases health-related quality of life; however, despite efforts to improve health care access, many Americans still face challenges in accessing medications. Several health care access and utilization conceptual frameworks have been created and used for decades to illustrate key relationships and interdependencies between elements of the system. However, none of these frameworks have focused exclusively on medication access and associated factors. Medication access is a complex, multidimensional issue that must consider not only patient-specific challenges, but also health system limitations, among others. A better understanding of medication access, beyond the proxy marker of adherence, is needed to identify opportunities to improve accessibility. OBJECTIVE: To develop a conceptual framework that defines a patient's medication access journey and characterizes barriers frequently encountered while seeking medication access. METHODS: A multistakeholder roundtable composed of 15 experts from across the health care continuum was convened in 2018 by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance to develop a conceptual framework for medication access. The roundtable participants were convened through in-person and telephonic meetings. To inform their work, 2 literature reviews and an environmental scan were conducted to identify medication access barriers, interventions affecting medication access, and medication access quality measures. RESULTS: The resulting framework included 7 nodes that represent the major access points encountered by patients when attempting to access medications: perceived need, help seeking, encounter, prescribing, prescription adjudication, prescription dispensing, and adherence. Also, 18 barriers were identified. Patient health literacy, cost, insurance, and organizational health literacy were predominant barriers across multiple nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The framework that was developed provides a patient-focused, holistic view of medication access, incorporating access nodes and corresponding barriers. It also provides a structure to consider key opportunities for interventions and measurement to address medication access challenges. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted with grant support from the National Pharmaceutical Council, which served as a collaborator in the study. Westrich is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Nelson is employed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance, which was contracted to conduct this study. Pickering, Campbell, and Holland were employed by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance at the time of this study. This research was presented as a professional poster at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in October 2019, Philadelphia, PA.

Traversing the Quality Chasm: Revisiting the Framework for Pharmacy Services Quality Improvement.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this reflection. The authors have nothing to disclose.