Suppr超能文献

探究为何一些社区药剂师在没有事先授权的情况下,不向医疗补助计划患者提供72小时紧急处方药。

Examination of why some community pharmacists do not provide 72-hour emergency prescription drugs to Medicaid patients when prior authorization is not available.

作者信息

Shepherd Marvin D

机构信息

Center of Pharmacoeconomic Studies, College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

出版信息

J Manag Care Pharm. 2013 Sep;19(7):523-33. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2013.19.7.523.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Existing federal law requires that a 72-hour emergency supply of a prescription drug be dispensed to Medicaid patients when prior authorization (PA) is not available and the medication is needed without delay. The pharmacist's role is to contact prescribers and inform them that PA is needed. If the prescriber cannot be reached, the pharmacist can dispense a 72-hour emergency supply.

OBJECTIVES

To determine (a) the reasons why some community pharmacy owners/managers, staff pharmacists, and technicians are not compliant with the law; (b) how often the decision is made; and (c) estimate how often pharmacies do not dispense the 72-hour emergency supply when PA is not available.

METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire was mailed to selected Texas community pharmacies. The instrument was developed by the researcher and reviewed by the Texas Medicaid Vendor Drug Program staff. The University of Texas, Office of Survey Research collected the data in September and October of 2011 by mail and online. The data were forwarded to the researcher for analyses. A total of 788 identified community pharmacies were mailed a packet containing 3 questionnaires to be completed by the pharmacist-in-charge, a staff pharmacist, and a pharmacy technician. There were 2 mailings of the questionnaire packet and follow-up telephone calls to nonrespondents.

RESULTS

A total of 653 questionnaires were completed and returned from 288 community pharmacies (36.7%) out of 788 pharmacies that were mailed the questionnaire packets. A total of 368 (57.5%) completed questionnaires came from chain store pharmacy respondents and 272 (42.5%) questionnaires from independent pharmacy respondents. A total of 21.3% (n = 134) of the respondents indicated that they were not aware of the federal and state requirement to dispense a 72-hour emergency supply of a prescription drug to Medicaid patients when prior authorization (PA) is not available. A greater proportion of the chain store respondents (26.6%) were unaware of the requirement compared with the independent pharmacy respondents (14.3%). A total of 77.7% of the respondents estimated that they make the decision of providing or not providing a 72-hour emergency supply of medication 6 or fewer times a month. A total of 14.6% indicated that they make the decision 6 to 11 times a month, and 7.7% make the decision more than 11 times a month. When asked how often respondents had seen a 72-hour emergency prescription not being dispensed for Texas Medicaid recipients when PA was not available, 49.1% answered "never"; however, 30.0% indicated once or twice a month, 16.5% indicated from 1 to 5 times a week, and another 4.5% indicated more than 5 times a week. The top 2 reasons for not dispensing a 72 hour-emergency drug supply were: "Reluctant to open a new 'unit-of-use' container (especially 30-day supply bottles)" and "The Rx will most likely be changed with the PA call, so why dispense a 72-hour supply of the originally prescribed drug?" The top categories of 72-hour emergency prescription drug products that respondents would "likely" dispense were antibiotics; inhaler canisters; products for nausea/vomiting, cough, and cold; antiseizure agents; and diabetic treatment products.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that there are many factors why pharmacists do not provide 72-hour emergency medications when PA is unavailable. The lack of awareness of the federal and state requirements was significantly related to the frequency of 72-hour medications not being dispensed. In addition, other factors inhibiting the process were the pharmacists' inability to reach physicians or the lack of cooperation with physicians, prescriptions for controlled substances, drug-packing limitations, and the financial risk involved with dispensing a 72-hour supply.

摘要

背景

现行联邦法律规定,在无法获得事先授权(PA)且药物急需的情况下,必须为医疗补助计划患者配发72小时的处方药应急供应量。药剂师的职责是联系开处方的医生并告知其需要PA。如果无法联系到开处方的医生,药剂师可以配发72小时的应急供应量。

目的

确定(a)一些社区药房所有者/经理、药剂师和技术人员不遵守该法律的原因;(b)做出该决定的频率;(c)估计在无法获得PA时药房不配发72小时应急供应量的频率。

方法

向选定的得克萨斯州社区药房邮寄了一份调查问卷。该问卷由研究人员编制,并经得克萨斯州医疗补助供应商药品计划工作人员审核。得克萨斯大学调查研究办公室于2011年9月和10月通过邮寄和在线方式收集数据。数据被转发给研究人员进行分析。总共向788家已识别的社区药房邮寄了一个装有3份问卷的包裹,由主管药师、一名药剂师和一名药房技术人员填写。问卷包裹共进行了2次邮寄,并对未回复者进行了跟进电话。

结果

在邮寄问卷包裹的788家药房中,共有288家社区药房(36.7%)完成并返回了653份问卷。总共368份(57.5%)完成的问卷来自连锁药店受访者,272份(42.5%)问卷来自独立药店受访者。共有21.3%(n = 134)的受访者表示,他们不知道联邦和州关于在无法获得事先授权(PA)时为医疗补助计划患者配发72小时处方药应急供应量的要求。与独立药店受访者(14.3%)相比,连锁药店受访者中不知道该要求的比例更高(26.6%)。共有77.7%的受访者估计,他们每月做出提供或不提供药物72小时应急供应量的决定6次或更少。共有14.6%的受访者表示他们每月做出该决定6至11次,7.7%的受访者表示每月做出该决定超过11次。当被问及在无法获得PA时,他们多久会看到一次得克萨斯州医疗补助接受者的72小时紧急处方未被配发时,49.1%的人回答“从未见过”;然而,30.0%的人表示每月一两次,16.5%的人表示每周1至5次,另有4.5%的人表示每周超过5次。不配发72小时紧急药品供应的前两大原因是:“不愿打开新的‘使用单位’容器(尤其是30天供应量的瓶子)”以及“通过PA电话联系后处方很可能会更改,那么为什么要配发72小时供应量的原处方药物呢?”受访者“可能”配发的72小时紧急处方药品的主要类别是抗生素;吸入器药罐;用于恶心/呕吐、咳嗽和感冒的产品;抗癫痫药物;以及糖尿病治疗产品。

结论

结果表明,在无法获得PA时,药剂师不提供72小时应急药物有多种因素。对联邦和州要求的缺乏了解与不配发72小时药物的频率显著相关。此外,阻碍这一过程的其他因素包括药剂师无法联系到医生或与医生缺乏合作、管制药品处方、药品包装限制以及配发72小时供应量所涉及的财务风险。

相似文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验