Financial impact of the hospital pharmacy's participation in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost of the hospital pharmacy's participation in clinical trials (CTs) and to compare it to the amount received in compensation from sponsors.To analyse the financial impact of CTs that end without recruiting any patients and without any financial compensation from promoters. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analysed data from 5 years (2014-2018) at a tertiary university hospital.We established an allocation formula taking into account direct costs related to the pharmacy department's CT area's activity (reception, safekeeping, preparation, devolution, and destruction of medication, as well as patient monitoring) and indirect costs (facilities, resources, support staff). We calculated the costs to the department and the compensation received both overall and based on the type of promoter, clinical department involved in the trial, and the number of patients included. RESULTS: We included 134 trials. Costs added up to €207 372.95 and the compensation to €149 128.93 (€58 244.02 loss for the department). Trials ending without recruiting patients (33.6%) and without compensation accounted for 57.45% of the deficit. The mean cost of trials ending without recruiting patients was €875. We plan to charge a reimbursable setup fee for opening CTs to safeguard against these losses (€875 for trials in all departments except oncology; €1100 for oncology because 38% of their trials end without recruiting patients) and to compensate for the costs incurred in participating in trials for cooperative groups without financial compensation (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Billing sponsors based on costs incurred for each trial would be a fairer system than the current approach based on the number of patients included. Establishing an initial fee would make up for losses from trials that fail to recruit any patients.

Design of a relative value unit-based tool for the measurement and reimbursement of pharmacy services for clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a relative value unit (RVU)-based tool for the measurement and reimbursement of pharmacy services for clinical trials. METHODS: A portfolio of activities was agreed by consensus in four tertiary hospitals. Related activities were pooled into several categories or intermediate products. We recorded the duration of each activity by multiple determinations. We then calculated the average time of all determinations. The reference activity was assigned a value of 1. All other activities were compared to the reference activity to obtain the RVU. To establish which items should be invoiced to third parties for the activities performed, we defined the final products (different types of clinical trials according to their complexity). RESULTS: Ten intermediate products and five final products were differentiated. Six intermediate products could be repeated over the course of a clinical trial and seven were performed whether or not the clinical trial had included patients. Each final product consisted of different categories. The total number of RVUs produced for a clinical trial was the sum of each constant category value plus the repetitive category values multiplied by the number of repetitions. CONCLUSION: The application of RVU methodology in investigational drug services allows a more precise quantification of services performed. After a prospective validation to confirm the applicability of this tool, it may contribute to more appropriate invoicing to third parties for these services.