Medication therapy management programs: promises and pitfalls.

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management (MTM) is one form of a medication benefit program offered by public and private health providers and insurers. Although the term was first coined in 2003, MTM in its earlier forms has been used since the 1990s as a mechanism to improve health metrics for medically complex patients. Its role expanded with the passage of Medicare Part D, as a mandated component to help patients with multiple chronic conditions, high drug costs, and high utilization to improve the effectiveness and safety of their medication treatments.
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on MTM effectiveness in order to (a) provide information on its establishment and goals and (b) summarize research findings under 3 outcomes: economic, clinical, and humanistic.
METHODS: PubMed, a search engine service of the National Center for Biotechnology Information was utilized by trained research assistants to search for articles with the following key words: MTM, randomized controlled trials on MTM, evaluation of MTM, comprehensive medication review, medication action plan, special needs population, special needs plans, Medicaid, disease management, adherence, non-adherence, compliance, chronic conditions, disabling chronic conditions, and disability. Additional searches were conducted for key articles in references listed in the most recent review articles. The initial search identified nearly 300 articles.
RESULTS: When evaluated, most studies found economic benefits, but the quality of research design and end point measures varied considerably across evaluations. Clinical outcomes encompassed a wide range of potential metrics, from service utilization, to individual patient and population outcomes, and quality of care. Quality measures such as provider-prescribing habits and medication adherence were frequently found to improve. As noted with the economic outcomes studies, overall rigor of study design was suboptimal, and often underpowered.  Few studies have focused on humanistic outcomes such as improved patient quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that MTM services are a promising way to manage complex patients, but there are gaps in the literature largely because of the limited number of studies with strong designs. Stronger evaluation of MTM programs is warranted.