Characterization of an embedded clinical oncology pharmacy model across the State of Michigan.

Abstract

58 Background: The oncology pharmacist role has evolved to address implications of newer cancer therapies by increased integration in direct patient care and management of cancer therapy side effects and adherence. Despite the ability of oncology pharmacists to provide high-value, high-quality care to patients with cancer, it remains difficult for community oncology practices to justify the cost of the pharmacist. The purpose of this study is to characterize a model, Pharmacists Optimizing Oncology Care Excellence in Michigan (POEM), that supports the integration of clinical oncology pharmacists into community practices via financial support to the practices, clinical support to the pharmacist team, and outcomes assessment. The results will provide insight into how pharmacists support patient care and how to substantiate a pharmacist in practices. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective analysis was conducted between October 2020 – March 2022. POEM pharmacists received support in the development of collaborative practice agreements, billing guidance, and ongoing oncology continuing education. Practices received support via a percentage of salary support for the pharmacist the first 3 years and value-based reimbursement for participation. A standardized method for collecting patient demographics, pharmacist encounter characteristics, and intervention information was created via RedCap. Patients receiving care by the pharmacist were provided a 4-item survey to rate their experience. Results: As of March 2022, POEM has 6 clinical oncology pharmacists representing 8 physician organizations, 24 oncology clinics, and 72 physicians. 1944 patients have been seen via 4296 encounters and 4380 interventions. 49% of patients were female, 93% white, and 74% > 60 years. The primary reasons for pharmacist care were treatment with oral anticancer agents (OAA) (52%), non-immunotherapy IV (22%), and immunotherapy (20%). Pharmacists recorded an average of 77 patient encounters/week over the last year and 108/week over the past quarter. 47% of these encounters were billed using care management codes. Additionally, pharmacists recorded an average of 82 interventions/week over the past year and 101/week over the last quarter. Interventions were Education and Referrals (49%), Medication Modification (24%), and Comprehensive Medication Review or Medication Reconciliation (20%). Patients were satisfied with the pharmacists’ care and felt it was important to meet with a pharmacist before beginning their cancer treatment. Conclusions: Early results indicate positive patient experiences from education sessions and medication interventions to improve patient symptoms. Future outcome analyses will quantify the return on investment of clinical pharmacist integration into oncology community practices by measuring pre- and post-intervention healthcare utilization and patient clinical outcomes.