ASHP Survey of Health-System Specialty Pharmacy Practice: Practice Models, Operations, and Workforce - 2022.

PURPOSE: The results of the 2022 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Survey of Health-System Specialty Pharmacy (HSSP) Practice: Practice Models, Operations, and Workforce are presented. METHODS: A total of 273 leaders in HSSPs were contacted by email to complete a survey hosted using Qualtrics. The survey sample was compiled from ASHP member lists, the presence of a specialty pharmacy indicated in previous ASHP surveys, and outreach to ASHP member organizational leaders. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 35.9%. Most HSSPs dispense 30,000 or fewer specialty prescriptions annually. Most respondents have an annual revenue of $100 million or less, are part of a 340B-covered entity, operate one location, have 1 to 2 specialty pharmacy accreditations, dispense both nonspecialty and specialty medications, and employ an average of 15.5 pharmacists and 17.6 technicians. The majority (66.7%) dispense 50% or less of prescriptions written by internal providers due to payor and manufacturer network restrictions. Over one-third employ nonpharmacist and nontechnician professionals. Specialty pharmacists are involved in treatment decisions and therapy selection before prescription generation (69.8%), and 47.7% of respondents report pharmacists operating under collaborative practice agreements. Most (82.6%) offer experiential or formal education in specialty pharmacy. The top point of pride remains patient satisfaction and level of service. Top challenges include access to payor networks, the ability to hire and retain qualified staff, and shrinking reimbursement from payors. CONCLUSION: The HSSP is a continually maturing integrated advanced practice model focused on providing patient-centric care to all patients and employees of the health system regardless of network status. HSSPs are raising the standards for quality in specialty pharmacy care.

Low rates of primary medication nonadherence in patients prescribed oral oncology agents across health system specialty pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: New oral oncology medications bring novel challenges when patients are initiating treatment. Rates of primary medication nonadherence (PMN), the rate at which a medication is prescribed but not obtained, of up to 30% have been reported for oral oncology medications. More research is needed to identify causes and develop strategies for health system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) to improve cancer treatment initiation rates. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and reasons for PMN to specialty oral oncology medications in an HSSP setting. METHODS: We performed a multisite retrospective cohort study across 7 HSSP sites. Patients were included if they had an orally self-administered oncology medication referral generated by the health system of the affiliated specialty pharmacy between May 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Data collected at each site using pharmacy software and the electronic health record were deidentified and aggregated for analysis. After identifying unfilled referrals within a 60-day fill window, a retrospective chart review was performed to identify final referral outcomes and reasons for unfilled referrals. Referral outcomes were categorized as unknown fill outcomes (because of being referred to another fulfillment method or if received for benefits investigation only), filled by the HSSP, or not filled. The primary outcome was PMN for each PMN-eligible referral and secondary outcomes included reason for PMN and time to fill. The final PMN rate was calculated by dividing the number of unfilled referrals by total referrals with a known fill outcome. RESULTS: Of 3,891 referrals, 947 were PMN eligible, representing patients with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range = 55-73), near equal distribution between male and female (53% vs 47%), and most commonly with Medicare pharmacy coverage (48%). The most referred medication was capecitabine (14%), and the most common diagnosis was prostate cancer (14%). Among PMN-eligible referrals, 346 (37%) had an unknown fill outcome. Of the 601 referrals with known fill outcome, 69 referrals were true instances of PMN, yielding the final PMN rate of 11%. Most referrals were filled by the HSSP (56%). Patient decision was the most common reason for not filling (25%; 17/69 PMN cases). The median time to fill after initial referral was 5 days (interquartile range = 2-10). CONCLUSIONS: HSSPs have a high percentage of patient initiation of new oral oncology medication treatments in a timely manner. More research is needed to understand patient reasons for deciding not to start therapy and to improve patient-centered cancer treatment planning decisions. DISCLOSURES: Dr Crumb was a planning committee member with Horizon CME for the Nashville APPOS 2022 Conference. Dr Patel received funding and support for attending meetings and/or travel from the University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy.

Comparison of provider satisfaction with specialty pharmacy services in integrated health-system and external practice models: A multisite survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to obtain insight into providers' satisfaction with services offered by health-system integrated specialty pharmacies and to determine whether providers' perceptions of services offered under an integrated model differ from perceptions of external specialty pharmacy services. METHODS: A multi-site, cross-sectional, online survey of specialty clinic healthcare providers at 10 academic health systems with integrated specialty pharmacies was conducted. The questionnaire was developed by members of the Vizient Specialty Pharmacy Outcomes and Benchmarking Workgroup and was pretested at 3 pilot sites prior to dissemination. Prescribers of specialty medications within each institution were identified and sent an email invitation to participate in the study that included a link to the anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 10 statements regarding quality of services of integrated and external specialty pharmacies on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An analysis to determine differences in providers' overall satisfaction with the integrated and external specialty pharmacy practice models, as well as differences in satisfaction scores for each of the 10 statements, was performed using paired-samples t tests. RESULTS: The mean (SD) score for overall satisfaction with integrated specialty pharmacies was significantly higher than the score for satisfaction with external specialty pharmacies: 4.72 (0.58) vs 2.97 (1.20); 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.87; P < 0.001. Provider ratings of the integrated specialty pharmacy model were also higher for all 10 items evaluating the quality of services (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The study results confirm that the health-system integrated specialty pharmacy practice model promotes high rates of provider satisfaction with services and perceived benefits.

Establishing clinical pharmacist telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: After community transmission of the novel virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in the State of Washington in February 2020, innovative measures, such as telehealth appointments, were needed to safely continue to provide optimal pharmaceutical care for patients with chronic conditions and cancer. SUMMARY: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations limited the scope of telehealth pharmacist services. However, enactment of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, followed by guidance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services, allowed currently credentialed providers (including pharmacists) to continue to provide patient care services via telehealth with fewer restrictions. Our health system has numerous credentialed pharmacists across multiple ambulatory care clinics. In this article, we highlight our process of expediting the implementation of telehealth services. This process included obtaining authorization for the credentialed pharmacists to provide telehealth services, completion of training modules, implementation of new technology platforms, development of new workflows, and utilization of resources for providers and patients to facilitate successful completion of telehealth visits. We also highlight the consent and documentation components crucially important to the telehealth visit and share some of our successes, as well as identified limitations, in providing pharmacist services via telehealth. CONCLUSION: In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, our institution was able to swiftly implement clinical pharmacist telehealth services for many patients, offering a safe and effective way to continue providing a high level of care. This article discusses our experience with and potential limitations of telehealth to assist other pharmacists seeking to implement and/or expand their telehealth services.