OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary of community and ambulatory pharmacy practice and billing patterns for medication therapy management services before implementation of Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ambulatory care and community pharmacy practice settings in the United States in January 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Ambulatory Practice and Research Network, preceptors of the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Community Pharmacy Residency Programs, and participants in the APhA Immunizing Pharmacist listserv. INTERVENTIONS: E-mail invitations to participate in a Web-based survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice setting; pharmacy services performed; whether pharmacists were billing for pharmacy services; if billing, the billing technique used; if not billing, the reason for not billing. RESULTS: Of 349 respondents, 127 (36.4%) were practicing within a physician office, while 121 (34.7%) were practicing in community pharmacies. Diabetes, anticoagulation, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking cessation management services were performed significantly more often in physician offices. Immunization delivery and diabetes, dyslipidemia, and osteoporosis screenings were performed significantly more often in community settings. A total of 190 (54.5%) pharmacists stated that they were billing for pharmacy services. More community pharmacists were billing for services compared with other combined practice settings (69.2% versus 46.7%, P < .001). Top reasons identified for not billing for services were salaried position, indigent population, and discomfort with the billing process. CONCLUSION: Valuable baseline data are provided regarding pharmacy services that have been successfully implemented in ambulatory and community practice settings and which billing techniques were used to receive reimbursement before the implementation of MMA.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary of community and ambulatory pharmacy practice and billing patterns for medication therapy management services before implementation of Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ambulatory care and community pharmacy practice settings in the United States in January 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Ambulatory Practice and Research Network, preceptors of the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Community Pharmacy Residency Programs, and participants in the APhA Immunizing Pharmacist listserv. INTERVENTIONS: E-mail invitations to participate in a Web-based survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice setting; pharmacy services performed; whether pharmacists were billing for pharmacy services; if billing, the billing technique used; if not billing, the reason for not billing. RESULTS: Of 349 respondents, 127 (36.4%) were practicing within a physician office, while 121 (34.7%) were practicing in community pharmacies. Diabetes, anticoagulation, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking cessation management services were performed significantly more often in physician offices. Immunization delivery and diabetes, dyslipidemia, and osteoporosis screenings were performed significantly more often in community settings. A total of 190 (54.5%) pharmacists stated that they were billing for pharmacy services. More community pharmacists were billing for services compared with other combined practice settings (69.2% versus 46.7%, P < .001). Top reasons identified for not billing for services were salaried position, indigent population, and discomfort with the billing process. CONCLUSION: Valuable baseline data are provided regarding pharmacy services that have been successfully implemented in ambulatory and community practice settings and which billing techniques were used to receive reimbursement before the implementation of MMA.
Authors: Michael D Hogue; Heather B Hogue; Roger D Lander; Kirk Avent; Michael Fleenor Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792