Sam Kosari1, Louise S Deeks2, Mark Naunton2, Paresh Dawda3, Marteen J Postma4, Guan Han Tay2, Gregory M Peterson5. 1. Discipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, 2617, Australia. Electronic address: sam.kosari@canberra.edu.au. 2. Discipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, 2617, Australia. 3. Centre for Research & Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, 2617, Australia. 4. Department of Health Sciences, Pharmacy, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre, Groningen, Netherlands. 5. Discipline of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, Canberra, ACT, 2617, Australia; Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Funding is a significant barrier to employing general practice pharmacists. OBJECTIVE(S): To explore the feasibility of determining the cost-benefit of pharmacists in Australian general practice. METHODS: Two part-time pharmacists were employed by general practices in Canberra, Australia. Diaries of the pharmacists were analysed to determine time worked and participation in income-generating activities, including Government-funded programs: Asthma Cycle of Care, Home Medicine Reviews, and Health Care Assessments. Scenarios using different practice and business models were entered into value-cost models to determine the income generated by the pharmacists relative to their salary. RESULTS: Over 19 weeks, pharmacists A and B supported 47 and 23 Asthma Cycle of Care activities, generating income to the general practice of AU$4,700 and AU$2,300, respectively. The pharmacists spent 36.4 and 24.1 hours on activities usually conducted by general practitioners (GPs), allowing additional time for GP-patient consultations. Value-cost models determined AU$0.61 - AU$1.20 income generation by pharmacists per AU$1 salary. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to determine the value-cost ratios of employing pharmacists in general practice using these methods. Future work should focus on developing a robust business model that includes health care system savings resulting from practice pharmacist interventions, determined from randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND: Funding is a significant barrier to employing general practice pharmacists. OBJECTIVE(S): To explore the feasibility of determining the cost-benefit of pharmacists in Australian general practice. METHODS: Two part-time pharmacists were employed by general practices in Canberra, Australia. Diaries of the pharmacists were analysed to determine time worked and participation in income-generating activities, including Government-funded programs: Asthma Cycle of Care, Home Medicine Reviews, and Health Care Assessments. Scenarios using different practice and business models were entered into value-cost models to determine the income generated by the pharmacists relative to their salary. RESULTS: Over 19 weeks, pharmacists A and B supported 47 and 23 Asthma Cycle of Care activities, generating income to the general practice of AU$4,700 and AU$2,300, respectively. The pharmacists spent 36.4 and 24.1 hours on activities usually conducted by general practitioners (GPs), allowing additional time for GP-patient consultations. Value-cost models determined AU$0.61 - AU$1.20 income generation by pharmacists per AU$1 salary. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to determine the value-cost ratios of employing pharmacists in general practice using these methods. Future work should focus on developing a robust business model that includes health care system savings resulting from practice pharmacist interventions, determined from randomised controlled trials.