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.

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.

Health Care Quality: Measuring Obesity in Performance Frameworks.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity affects over one-third of Americans and leads to several chronic and costly comorbid conditions. The national movement toward value-based care calls for a refocusing of efforts to address the US obesity epidemic. To help set the stage, the current landscape of obesity-specific quality measures was evaluated. METHODS: Seven quality measure databases and nine professional societies were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Measures were then classified by domain and by implementation in national public programs. RESULTS: Eleven obesity-specific quality measures in adults were identified (nine process and two outcome). Three measures received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement. Two measures were actively used within Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs. Only one measure was both NQF-endorsed and used by CMS. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations exist with respect to obesity-specific quality metrics. Such gaps provide opportunities for obesity care specialists to engage and offer valuable insights and pragmatic approaches toward quality measurement.

Got CER? Educating Pharmacists for Practice in the Future: New Tools for New Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how treatments work in the real world and in real patients is an important and complex task. In recent years, comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies have become more available for health care providers to inform evidence-based decision making. There is variability in the strengths and limitations of this new evidence, and researchers and decision makers are faced with challenges when assessing the quality of these new methods and CER studies. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe an online tool developed by the CER Collaborative, composed of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and the National Pharmaceutical Council, and (b) provide an early evaluation of the training program impact on learners' self-reported abilities to evaluate and incorporate CER studies into their decision making. METHODS: To encourage greater transparency, consistency, and uniformity in the development and assessment of CER studies, the CER Collaborative developed an online tool to assist researchers, new and experienced clinicians, and decision makers in producing and evaluating CER studies. A training program that supports the use of the online tool was developed to improve the ability and confidence of individuals to apply CER study findings in their daily work. Seventy-one health care professionals enrolled in 3 separate cohorts for the training program. Upon completion, learners assessed their abilities to interpret and apply findings from CER studies by completing on online evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: The first 3 cohorts of learners to complete the training program consisted of 71 current and future health care practitioners and researchers. At completion, learners indicated high confidence in their CER evidence assessment abilities (mean = 4.2). Learners reported a 27.43%-59.86% improvement in capabilities to evaluate various CER studies and identify study design flaws (mean evaluation before CER Certificate Program [CCP] scores = 1.86-3.14 and post-CCP scores = 3.92-4.24). Additionally, 63% of learners indicated that they expected to increase their use of evidence from CER studies in at least 1-2 problem decisions per month. CONCLUSIONS: The CER Collaborative has responded to the need for increased practitioner training to improve understanding and application of new CER studies. The CER Collaborative tool and certificate training program are innovative solutions to help decision makers meet the challenges they face in honing their skills to best incorporate credible and relevant CER evidence into their decision making. DISCLOSURES: The CER Collaborative, the development of the questionnaires and web-based tool, and the development of the CER Certificate Program were supported by grants and in-kind contributions from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), and the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). The University of Maryland School of Pharmacy conducted its work under a contract with the AMCP Foundation and grant funding from the NPC. Perfetto is employed by the University of Maryland and the National Health Council and serves as assistant editor for the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy, consults for Avelere, and serves as a member of advisory boards for the PQA and CMTP. Pickering received support from the NPC for activities related to this research. Eichelberger is employed by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. Eichelberger and Graff are with the CER Collaborative. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Perfetto, Graff, and Eichelberger, along with Anyanwu and assisted by Pickering and Ward Zaghab. Pickering and Ward Zaghab took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors, and data interpretation was performed by Perfetto, Graff, Pickering, and Ward Zaghab, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Perfetto and Anyanwu, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Graff, Perfetto, Anyanwu, and Pickering, assisted by Eichelberger and Ward Zaghab.

Assays for determination of ertapenem for applications in therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacokinetics and sample stability.

Carbapanems are a class of ß-lactam antibiotics with broad-spectrum potency and high ß-lactamase resistance. Ertapenem, a member of this class, sold under the trade name Invanz™, has been of interest in the world of antibiotic therapeutic drug monitoring owing to its highly standardized 1 g dose and its high degree of plasma protein binding. Owing to the relative newness of this drug, fewer than 30 methods for ertapenem quantification have been published. Among these about half utilize biological matrices at the sample type. Liquid-liquid extraction and protein precipitation prevail as the most frequently used sample preparation techniques, despite their low recoveries compared with solid-phase extraction. Additionally, high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) is the instrumentation choice for most ertapenem assays. While these approaches may not achieve the highest possible sensitivity for ertapenem quantification, they provide clinically relevant tools for monitoring ertapenem in real patients. Sample stability is an ongoing concern for laboratories that handle ertapenem analysis, with buffering being of paramount importance, as well as low temperature (<-70°C) storage, to ensure minimal drug degradation in situ.