Comprehensive medication review service by embedded pharmacists in primary care: Innovations and impact.

BACKGROUND: Primary care may offer innovations in delivering comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) describe innovations to improve delivery and impact of CMR, (2) quantify CMR completion rates and patient satisfaction, and (3) characterize medication changes and impact on medication costs. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Board-certified ambulatory care pharmacists with collaborative practice agreements embedded in primary care provided CMRs in 5 clinics for eligible university prescription plan retirees. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Innovations included (1) physician review of potential CMR recipient list, (2) use of trained student pharmacists to recruit and set up CMR visits, (3) use of clinical information in a standardized CMR 2-visit approach by embedded pharmacists, and (4) enrollment into disease management programs or referrals to other providers. EVALUATION METHODS: Data from a retrospective cohort were collected. The CMR completion rate and therapeutic interventions were documented. Prescription fill data were available for 6 months before and after the CMR. An anonymous survey assessed patient satisfaction. Frequencies and descriptive statistics characterized completion rate, interventions, and patient satisfaction. The median cost to the plan of deleted versus added medications and per member per month total drug costs before and after the CMR were compared. RESULTS: Among 729 beneficiaries screened, 489 were eligible and 223 (46%) received a CMR. There were 388 medication interventions: the most common intervention was to delete medications (41.0%). One in 4 was enrolled into the pharmacists' disease management programs. Individuals reported 4.68 (SD 0.67) of 5 for helpfulness of the CMR. The ratio of median costs for medication deletions versus additions was $1.46 vs. $1.00. CONCLUSION: Innovations to deliver CMRs capitalized on well-established physician-pharmacist relationships and nonpharmacist personnel to recruit and prepare the intake. Almost half of eligible beneficiaries received a CMR, and the CMRs were impactful for patients and payers. The most prevalent intervention was to discontinue medications for efficacy reasons.

Low-Income Cancer Survivors' Use of Health-Promoting Behaviors.

This cross-sectional correlation study examined use of health-promoting (HP) behaviors and self-efficacy for engaging in HP behaviors. Participants reported higher HP behavior scores for health responsibility, interpersonal relationships, and spiritual growth, and lower scores for physical activity/exercise, nutrition, and stress management. Low physical activity, stress management, and nutrition scores suggest nurses can implement strategies that encourage use of these HP behaviors and enhance self-efficacy.

Health promotion for cancer survivors: adaptation and implementation of an intervention.

Randomized control trial of a health promotion intervention was implemented for low-income cancer survivors. The majority of participants were female, older, divorced, educated, and unemployed or on disability leave. Findings indicate the health promotion intervention improved cancer survivors' self-efficacy and increased their use of health-promoting behaviors.

An evaluation of the Charlson co-morbidity score for predicting sepsis after elective major surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Severe sepsis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality following major surgery. The Charlson co-morbidity score (CCS) has been shown to be associated with severe sepsis following major surgery for cancer. This prospective observational study investigated the effect of patient factors (CCS, gender, age and malignancy) and intraoperative factors (duration of surgery and allogeneic blood transfusion) on the incidence of sepsis after elective major surgery, and the impact of patient co-morbidities on length of stay in critical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively identified a cohort of 101 patients undergoing elective major surgery in a university teaching hospital. The CCS was calculated before surgery, and the incidence of sepsis was documented following surgery. We investigated whether age, malignancy, intraoperative allogeneic blood transfusion, length of surgery or gender were associated with sepsis following surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (27%) patients developed sepsis. Using multivariate logistic regression, the duration of surgery was associated with the development of sepsis after surgery (P = 0.054, odds ratio 1.2). The CCS was not associated with sepsis in this population of cancer and non-cancer patients undergoing elective major surgery, but was associated with longer length of stay in the intensive care unit (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Duration of surgery, but not patient co-morbidity as assessed by the CCS, may predict the postoperative incidence of sepsis. CCS could be used as a guide to predict consumption of critical care resources by elective surgical patients. A higher CCS was associated with a longer ICU stay. Resources, such as postoperative goal directed therapy, may be useful in reducing length of stay, hospital costs and risks of infective complications in this subgroup of patients with higher CCS.

A controlled trial of value-based insurance design - the MHealthy: Focus on Diabetes (FOD) trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes affects over 20 million Americans, resulting in substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. While medications are the cornerstone of secondary prevention, many evidence-based therapies are underutilized, and patients often cite out-of-pocket costs as the reason. Value-based insurance design (VBID) is a 'clinically sensitive' refinement to benefit design which links patient cost-sharing to therapy value; the more clinically beneficial (and valuable) a therapy is for a patient, the lower that patient's cost-sharing should be. We describe the design and implementation of MHealthy: Focus on Diabetes (FOD), a prospective, controlled trial of targeted co-payment reductions for high value, underutilized therapies for individuals with diabetes. METHODS: The FOD trial includes 2,507 employees and dependents with diabetes insured by one large employer. Approximately 81% are enrolled in a single independent-practice association model health maintenance organization. The control group includes 8,637 patients with diabetes covered by other employers and enrolled in the same managed care organization. Both groups received written materials about the importance of adherence to secondary prevention therapies, while only the intervention group received targeted co-payment reductions for glycemic agents, antihypertensives, lipid-lowering agents, antidepressants, and diabetic eye exams. Primary outcomes include medication uptake and adherence. Secondary outcomes include health care utilization and expenditures. An interrupted time series, control group design will allow rigorous assessment of the intervention's impact, while controlling for unrelated temporal trends. Individual patient-level baseline data are presented. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective controlled trial of co-payment reductions targeted to high-value services for high-risk patients. It will provide important information on feasibility of implementation and effectiveness of VBID in a real-world setting. This program has the potential for broad dissemination to other employers and insurers wishing to improve the value of their health care spending.

Moving from A to Z: successful implementation of a statin switch program by a large physician group.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and impact of a centralized statin switch program at a large academic medical center. METHODS: Patients on atorvastatin were identified from electronic medical records and pharmacy claims data. Relevant information was sent to physicians for approval of the proposed switches. Approved patients were then contacted via phone and offered the opportunity to switch to simvastatin; those who switched received a new prescription for simvastatin. To assess the independent impact of the active switch process, conversion rates within a single insurance plan were compared for patients who participated in this program versus those who were contacted only by mail. RESULTS: Physicians approved 3207 of the 3677 patients identified for this program. A total of 1710 approved patients accepted the switch, 704 declined, and 170 became ineligible. Information packets were mailed to 623 patients who could not be contacted. Within the single insurance plan, the generic dispensing rate for statins among the 1867 patients included in our program was significantly higher than that for the 2472 patients in the mail-only group (59.2% vs 35.8%, P <.001). Over 8 months, the direct cost of the program was $131,000 with projected annual cost savings of up to $1.14 million to payers and up to $250 for each patient who switched. CONCLUSION: A proactive and voluntary statin switch program to promote the use of a lower cost generic alternative can be successfully implemented in a fee-for-service health system setting with benefits to patients, providers, and payers.