Community Health Center 340B Program: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Patients with Diabetes.

Background: The 340B Drug Pricing Program provides discounted drug prices to safety-net entities which help stretch scarce resources to expand comprehensive services and treat more vulnerable patients. The program has received criticism questioning whether the original intentions are being accomplished. Objective: This qualitative study aimed to understand lived experiences of patients accessing high-cost injectable diabetes medication(s) through a 340B Prescription Cash Discount Program (PCDP) provided at a community health center. Methods: This qualitative study utilized semi-structured individual interviews. We invited patients ≥18 years old with diabetes for >1 year who utilized the 340B PCDP to fill an injectable diabetes medication at least twice between 3/1/2020-3/1/2021 to participate. Trained personnel interviewed ten participants in 11/2021-2/2022 and completed thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. Results: Themes included 340B feedback, benefits of 340B, consequences of being without 340B, community pharmacy experience, and use of other services. Participants deemed the 340B program as a "lifesaver." Perceived benefits of the program included improved diabetes control and savings that made their prescriptions more affordable. Consequences of being without the program include that medication was too expensive to take as prescribed and rationing/skipping doses. Participants were pleased with the accessibility of the network of contract pharmacies and described benefiting from services supported by 340B savings. Conclusions: Recent criticisms question whether the 340B program accomplishes its original intentions of stretching scarce federal resources to help safety-net entities expand services and treat more patients. This study provides insight into the personal impact of the 340B program on underserved patients with chronic disease accessing high-cost medication(s). Findings highlight crucial strengths of the program from the patient perspective, which policymakers and other stakeholders should consider to provide support for the continuation of these services.

Pharmacist-led telehealth tobacco cessation services compared with usual care in a community health center.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies regarding tobacco cessation services (TCS) concluded that pharmacist interventions lead to higher or similar quit rates compared with usual care; however, little is known about patient satisfaction with these services. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed 30-day point prevalence abstinence and patient satisfaction of TCS provided by pharmacists compared with primary care providers (PCPs) in a community health center. Secondary objectives assessed the number of encounters and time spent counseling and medications prescribed at each visit. METHODS: Patients at the age of 18 years or older with tobacco use disorder and a new quit attempt were invited to complete a 9-question survey via e-mail, phone, and mail 7 months after their initial tobacco cessation visit. The survey assessed 30-day point prevalence abstinence and patient satisfaction. Chart reviews were conducted to assess time spent counseling and prescribing patterns. RESULTS: The response rate was 38.8% (50/129) overall, 43.9% in the pharmacist group and 36.3% in the PCP group. A 30-day point prevalence abstinence was reached by 22.2% (4/18) in the pharmacist group and 9.4% (3/32) in the PCP group (P = 0.23). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the pharmacist group with regard to discussion around medications used to quit smoking (100% vs. 65.6%, P = 0.004), understanding how to properly use the medications (100% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.002), identifying behavioral changes to assist with quitting (94.4% vs. 65.6%, P = 0.036), and frequent follow-up visits (83.3% vs. 46.9%, P = 0.016). Pharmacists spent more time counseling patients and were more likely to prescribe dual nicotine replacement therapy and prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: There was not a statistically significant difference in abstinence rates, and patient satisfaction with TCS provided by pharmacists and PCPs was high. Pharmacists provide a more intensive service by spending more time counseling patients and providing more follow-ups and are more likely to diversify medications prescribed to quit smoking.

Pharmacist-Led Provider Education on Inappropriate NSAID Prescribing Rates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the most commonly used pain medications among US adults with about 70 million people regularly taking NSAIDs annually. Despite clear recommendations from current clinical practice guidelines and recent supporting literature, NSAIDs are continually prescribed inappropriately in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension (HTN), and heart failure (HF). The purpose of this project was to determine the impact of direct pharmacist-led education to providers on rates of inappropriate prescribing of NSAIDs in high-risk populations in a family medicine setting. METHODS: This study included all adult (aged 18 years or older) patient charts with NSAIDs prescribed, refilled, or recorded within the specified time periods. We defined inappropriate orders as oral and of chronic duration (at least 90 days) with at least one high-risk International Classification of Diseases-10 chart diagnosis (HTN, HF, CKD). This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of prescribing rates during a 3-month period before and after provider education delivered by a pharmacist. RESULTS: We identified a total of 325 charts from preintervention and 489 charts postintervention that met inclusion criteria. Of those, the charts with orders categorized as inappropriate were 90 versus 44, respectively. The rate of inappropriate prescribing of NSAIDs significantly decreased from 27.7% to 9.0% (P<.0001) postintervention. Among chronic NSAID users, both serum creatinine and systolic blood pressure significantly increased following NSAID initiation. CONCLUSIONS: A single pharmacist-led education intervention to primary care providers on inappropriate NSAID use in high-risk patient populations had a significant impact on minimizing inappropriate NSAID prescribing patterns within a family medicine outpatient office.

Impact of a Pharmacy-Initiated Inpatient Diabetes Patient Education Program on 30-Day Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: In October 2012, a pharmacy-driven Inpatient Diabetes Patient Education (IDPE) program was implemented at the University of Toledo Medical Center (UTMC). OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in 30-day hospital readmission rates for patients who receive IDPE compared to those who do not. METHODS: This retrospective cohort was completed at UTMC. Patients admitted between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013, were included if they were ≥18 years and had one of the following: (1) diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, (2) blood glucose >200 mg/dL (>11.11 mmol/L) on admission, or (3) hemoglobin A1C of >6.5% (>48 mmol/mol). Patients who received IDPE from a pharmacist or student pharmacist (intervention group) were compared to patients who did not receive IDPE (control group). RESULTS: The 30-day readmission rate was 13.2% for the intervention group (n = 364) and 21.5% for the control group (n = 149) (P = .023). Average time to 30-day readmission was 13.1 (±8.3) days for the IDPE group and 11.9 (±7.9) days for the control group. There was no significant difference in diabetes-related readmission between the intervention and control groups (25.5% vs 21.9%). CONCLUSIONS: An IDPE program delivered primarily by pharmacists and student pharmacists significantly reduced 30-day readmission rates among patients with diabetes.

Pharmacist-Driven Spirometry Screening to Target High-Risk Patients in a Primary Care Setting.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to determine the effect of proactive pharmacist identification of high-risk patients eligible for diagnostic spirometry testing on the percentage of appropriate spirometry referrals ordered and the percentage of spirometry tests completed in those that qualify. Methods: This prospective study compares spirometry referrals ordered and tests completed between an intervention site and control site within a federally qualified health center (FQHC) where pharmacists provide spirometry services. At both sites, all patients who had a primary care provider (PCP) appointment and qualified for spirometry screening on the designated intervention dates during a 12-week period were included in this study. At the intervention site, the pharmacist recommended a spirometry screening to the PCP prior to identified high-risk patients' appointments. At both sites, a chart review was completed to determine if referrals were ordered and tests were completed for patients who qualified. Results: The number of patients eligible for diagnostic spirometry testing at the intervention and control sites was 190 (n = 125 vs n = 65, respectively). Among eligible patients, the percentage of referrals ordered was significantly higher at the intervention site (47.2% vs 7.7%, P < .001). Among patients who qualified, completion of spirometry testing was significantly higher in the intervention site (23.2% vs 3.1%, P < .001). Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that pharmacists proactively identifying high-risk patients for spirometry screenings within an FQHC increases appropriate referrals ordered by PCPs and tests completed by high-risk patients. Pharmacists in the primary care setting can aid the PCP in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through significantly increased spirometry referrals and therapeutic clinical assessments and recommendations. They also can provide face-to-face motivational counseling for smoking cessation, inhaler education, and vaccine recommendations. This population health approach to spirometry testing represents an emerging role for pharmacists and could be adopted in other primary care settings.