J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2021 Jan-Feb;61(1):27-32. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.09.009. Epub 2020 Oct 15.
OBJECTIVE(S): To better understand individual state approaches to reimbursement for pharmacist-provided health care services, we sought to (1) review existing statutes and regulations on pharmacist reimbursement from select states (Alaska, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington) and (2) suggest approaches to changing state statutes and regulations to allow for reimbursement.
We reviewed approaches taken by 4 states that currently allow for direct reimbursement of pharmacist-provided health services and 2 states that are in process. Washington requires commercial health plans to credential and privilege pharmacists as health care providers deeming reimbursement and coverage disparities among providers as compensation discrimination.
Oregon does not require insurers to provide payment but requires pharmacists to contract and credential with each individual insurer, without the mandate for payment. In California, pharmacists receive 85% of the established fee schedule that physicians receive for equivalent services, and payment is issued to the pharmacy, not the individual pharmacist. California and New Mexico both only allow specified pharmacies or pharmacists to bill (advanced credentials or a tiered licensing model). In Alaska, scope and payor regulations align to allow compensation for covered services; however, insurance credentialing portals are not configured to enroll pharmacists as billing providers. In May 2020, pharmacists were added as nonphysician ordering, referring, and prescribing providers in the Idaho Medicaid basic plan regulations, and licensed pharmacists with national provider identification numbers were auto-enrolled.
The states we reviewed took different approaches on the basis of their established statutes and regulations (pharmacy, public and private insurance), resulting in variability in compensated services and reimbursement. An intentional alignment of statutes, regulations, and scope of practice is required to support reimbursement and sustainability of services.
为了更好地了解各州在药品服务补偿方面的做法,我们试图(1)审查来自选定州(阿拉斯加、加利福尼亚、爱达荷、新墨西哥、俄勒冈和华盛顿)的药师医疗服务补偿的现有法规和条例,并(2)提出修改州法规和条例以实现补偿的方法。
我们审查了 4 个目前允许药师直接报销健康服务的州和 2 个正在进行中的州所采取的方法。华盛顿要求商业健康计划对药师进行认证和授权,将其视为医疗保健提供者,认为提供者之间的报销和覆盖范围差异是薪酬歧视。
俄勒冈州不要求保险公司提供支付,但要求药剂师与每个个别保险公司签订合同并进行认证,而不要求支付。在加利福尼亚,药剂师获得与医生提供同等服务的 85%的既定费用表,但付款是发给药房,而不是个人药剂师。加利福尼亚和新墨西哥州都只允许指定的药房或药剂师进行计费(高级凭证或分层许可模式)。在阿拉斯加,范围和支付者法规相协调,允许对涵盖的服务进行补偿;然而,保险认证门户没有配置为将药剂师注册为计费提供者。2020 年 5 月,药师被添加到爱达荷州医疗补助基本计划法规中的非医师开处方、转介和处方提供者中,并且拥有国家提供者识别号码的持照药剂师被自动注册。
我们审查的各州根据其既定法规和条例(药房、公共和私人保险)采取了不同的方法,导致补偿服务和报销的差异。需要对法规、条例和实践范围进行有意的调整,以支持报销和服务的可持续性。