Specialty Pharmacy Program Research Articles

Making pharmacists’ patient care services consistent, predictable, measurable

Making pharmacists’ patient care services consistent, predictable, measurable

Evaluation of a transplantation specialty pharmacy program

The value of a transplantation specialty pharmacy (TSP) program, including its impact on patient and health care provider satisfaction, selected clinical outcomes, and the institution's financial margin, was evaluated. Patient and health care provider surveys were distributed to evaluate satisfaction with the TSP program. Medication adherence (using continuous measures of medication adherence), hospital readmissions within 90 days of transplantation, and length of hospitalization were examined. Patients enrolled in the TSP program who received kidney transplants between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, were included. Patients who received kidney transplants at the institution between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, served as the control group. Of the 838 patient surveys distributed, 290 (34.6%) were returned. Most patients (84%) reported being satisfied with the program, and 98% would recommend it to others. Ninety-six percent of providers believed the pharmacy improved continuity of care, and 91% reported spending less time on pharmacy-related problems after the program's initiation. Medication adherence appeared to be higher in patients enrolled in the TSP program compared with historical controls. Hospital readmissions and length of stay did not significantly differ between groups. The TSP program generated $7.5 million in revenue during its first fiscal year. Roughly $5.5 million was spent on incremental operating expenses, resulting in over $2 million in margin. A TSP program provided a high level of satisfaction to patients and health care providers, may have influenced some clinical outcomes, and served as a source of positive margin for its institution.

Managing specialty medication services through a network of specialty pharmacies: A case of oral oncology medications.

6132 Background: Specialty pharmacy programs are increasingly used to improve the quality of outpatient therapy with oral medications for cancer. We evaluated whether use of specialty pharmacy serv...

29 gauge needles improve patient satisfaction over 27 gauge needles for daily glatiramer acetate injections

Using three surveys, a comparative assessment of needle performance and patient preference for 27-gauge (G) and 29G needles for glatiramer acetate administration for multiple sclerosis therapy was performed. Eligible patients participated in a specialty pharmacy program and administered glatiramer acetate for ≥1 month. In Survey 1 on the 27G needle, 545 (82.70%) patients reported no needle problems, 106 (16.09%) cited one type (dull, bent, or broken), five (0.76%) cited two types, and three (0.46%) cited all three types. In Survey 2 on the 29G needle, 553 (98.05%) indicated no problems, two (0.35%) cited dull needles, and nine (1.60%) cited bent needles. On the 29G needles versus 27G needles pain comparison, 219 (38.83%) reported the 29G needle was a little better, and 155 (27.48%) reported it was a lot better than the 27G. For injection-site experiences, 515 patients (91.31%) reported no, very slight, or mild reactions with the 29G needle. In Survey 3, over 76% of patients preferred the 29G to the 27G needle and significantly fewer patients reported one or more problems with the 29G needle compared to patients reporting problems with the 27G needle (P < 0.00001). In conclusion, significantly fewer patients reported problems after 30 days of use of the 29G than the 27G needle. Fewer injection-site experiences occurred with the 29G needle and the 29G needle was preferred overall.

Managing Biotechnology In A Network-Model Health Plan: A U.S. Private Payer Perspective

Emerging biotechnology poses challenges to payers, including access, coverage, reimbursement, patient selection, and affordability. Premera Blue Cross, a private regional health plan, developed an integrated cross-functional approach to managing biologics, built around a robust formulary process that is fast, flexible, fair, and transparent to stakeholders. Results are monitored by cost and use reporting from merged pharmacy and medical claims. Utilization management and case management strategies will integrate with specialty pharmacy programs to improve outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Creative approaches to provider reimbursement can align providers' incentives with those of the plan. Redesign of member benefits can also encourage appropriate use of biotechnology.

Is oncology compatible with specialty pharmacy?

Beneath the Medicare upheaval there is a flood of change emerging at the private payer level. Insurers and employers are seeking greater control over the billions of dollars spent for cancer care. The easiest target: drugs. For years, managed care organizations (MCOs) have used specialty pharmacies to manage high-cost specialized drugs used for diseases other than cancer in the outpatient setting. Both MCOs and specialty pharmacies look at the high amount now spent on oncology drugs and see this as a golden opportunity.1 However, oncology care is different from the past situations where specialty pharmacy has moved in. Those of us in oncology practices understand these differences and must work as hard now to educate MCOs and specialty pharmacies as we have worked to educate Congress and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In this article, we will look at what is specialty pharmacy, why managed care is looking to these programs as an alternative for cost management, what issues may affect the potential compatibility (or lack thereof) between quality community oncology practice and specialty pharmacy programs, and what opportunities lie ahead. Controversies in Patient Management