FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2160315512> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2160315512 endingPage "911" @default.
• W2160315512 startingPage "909" @default.
• W2160315512 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article ColumnsFull AccessState Mental Health Policy: Pharmacy Costs: Finding a Role for QualityAutumn Ning, M.D., William R. Dubin, M.D., and Joseph J. Parks, M.D.Autumn NingSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., William R. DubinSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., and Joseph J. ParksSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:1 Aug 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.56.8.909AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Many strategies have been proposed to control pharmacy expenses, and, until recently, these have prevailed over quality concerns (1,2). Because there are many more strategies for prescription cost containment than can be detailed in this space, this column focuses on some innovative programs for managing pharmaceutical expenses that institutions and states have implemented, most of which have incorporated quality management strategies as part of their initiatives. Innovative strategies for quality improvement within the framework of cost control have been implemented in Pennsylvania, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri and in the health care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (3-6, personal communication, Fiorello SJ, 2003; personal communication, Parks JJ, 2003). Although these strategies are reported in the literature, many other states and institutions are also implementing strategies to improve quality of care and contain costs. These published strategies may serve as templates for other institutions and states.ProgramsThe Pennsylvania Medication Algorithm Project (PennMAP) was implemented at one of Pennsylvania's state hospitals (personal communication, Fiorello SJ, 2003) after reports of the increased use of combination antipsychotic therapy in the Pennsylvania state mental health system with little documented justification or rationale. This finding led to the implementation of PennMAP, which was based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project, a best-practice consensus guideline. The goals of PennMAP included a guideline for clinical decision making, consistent treatment, improved patient outcomes, accurate documentation of care, implementation of new technologies, and management of patient costs. After the implementation of PennMAP, the percentage of patients taking two second-generation medications decreased from approximately 48 percent in September 2002 to 28 percent by August 2003 without any adverse clinical sequelae (personal communication, Fiorello SJ, 2003).In Philadelphia, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Regional Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee was established to safeguard patients from potentially adverse pharmacy practices and ensure quality-driven prescribing practices (3). The committee is composed of representatives from local and state offices of mental health and substance abuse, medical directors of the three behavioral health managed care organizations, medical directors and pharmacy directors of the three physical health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and six psychiatrists from the practicing community. The committee reviews formulary changes and acts as a forum to discuss HMO initiatives related to the authorization process for psychotropic medications. Thus far the committee has been able to address the problems of removing sertraline from one HMO's formulary, the occurrence of therapeutic duplication of second-generation antipsychotics, the uses and authorization of generic versus brand-name clozapine, the establishment of a policy for authorizing prescriptions for gabapentin by psychiatrists, and the development of a single preauthorization policy and form for the HMOs. These discussions foster the development of a best-practices model for the region, enabling the system to provide high-quality clinical care while containing costs.In California, Kaiser-Permanente's approach to addressing the place of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in its formulary (4) was to conduct an internal study of medication substitution of SSRIs. The four SSRIs most commonly prescribed at the time—citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine, and paroxetine—were found to have an equal rate of substitution for another SSRI. Given this information and evidence showing that these four were comparable in efficacy, it was decided that it was appropriate for the cost of an SSRI to be a determinant in establishing a preferred medication list. When a study comparing fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline did not show any significant difference in effectiveness, Kaiser implemented its fluoxetine first program, in which patients would be prescribed fluoxetine before other SSRIs. If fluoxetine was not effective, patients would be given a prescription for another SSRI. In one year, first-time SSRI prescriptions for fluoxetine rose from 30 to 80 percent. A thoughtful and systematic review of the literature and the development of an internal study to preserve the quality of care for patients make this a notable effort.Massachusetts approached its Medicaid pharmacy benefits by using a psychopharmacology work group composed of psychiatrists and pharmacists to establish policy (5). If physicians were prescribing more than one SSRI or second-generation antipsychotic for 60 days or if five or more psychotropic medications were prescribed, an educational intervention was made, which included informing physicians of their practice and offering physicians a conference to educate them on issues relating to polypharmacy. The authors of the study projected substantial savings six months from initiation; however, no financial data were provided. Prior authorization procedures were streamlined, and an overall atmosphere of cooperative change was encouraged. It was noted that stakeholder participation has improved the state's limit-setting policies and has thus far resulted in a relatively cooperative, litigation-free implementation process. It was the composition of the work group through which policy was implemented that was significant in this process.In 2001 the VA treated 200,000 veterans with psychoses and filled 1.5 million prescriptions for antipsychotic medication valued at $158 million, 80 percent of which were for second-generation antipsychotics. This finding prompted the VA to initiate a utilization strategy for these medications (6). A task force of two VA psychiatrists and two VA pharmacists developed a guideline on the basis of a review of the literature. The VA task force decided to recommend a utilization strategy that used education to influence prescribing practices, allowing recommendations to be made that were both clinically appropriate and cost-effective. The General Accounting Office supported this approach, stating that the evidence base suggesting one second-generation antipsychotic might be more efficacious than another was equivocal; therefore, all second-generation antipsychotics may be regarded as clinically equivalent. It recommends that less expensive medications be tried first, unless there is a specific reason that a patient might need one of the more costly medications. Finally, the General Accounting Office emphasized that excessive pressure to contain cost is not an acceptable way to prescribe.Missouri's plan to control pharmacy costs began in 2002, in partnership with Comprehensive NeuroScience, Inc., a company that promotes best clinical practices in the use of psychotropic medications in the public sector with special focus on Medicaid (personal communication, Parks JJ, 2003). The plan involves a quality management strategy in which pharmacy claims for behavioral medications are analyzed monthly and compared with quality indicators that are based on best-practice guidelines. These indicators include prescription of two or more second-generation antipsychotics to a patient concurrently; prescription of dosages of medication above or below recognized therapeutic dosages; prescription of three or more psychotropic drugs to a child concurrently; receipt of antipsychotic, sedative, or anxiolytic prescriptions from multiple prescribers concurrently; failure of patients to fill antipsychotic drug prescriptions in a timely fashion; and use of two or more psychotropic drugs from the same therapeutic class.Prescribers of multiple psychotropic medications were made aware of their deviation from best-practice standards and given a packet of information that included the patient's pharmacy history, a Medication Best Practice Briefing monograph, and a report that compared their prescribing practices with those of their peers. If necessary, peer-to-peer calls to outlier prescribers within the community were made. Initial outcomes of the project from the first three quarters of 2003 (January to September) showed substantial changes in prescriber behavior after this intervention. Of the 391 physicians who prescribed outside the practice guidelines, more than half changed their prescribing patterns in the subsequent quarter. The study found that fiscal savings have exceeded the cost of the project; a detailed report describing the projected cost savings is in preparation.Discussion and conclusionsRestricting formularies may not be a useful strategy for controlling the costs of psychotropic medication (7). Biological heterogeneity within mental disorders, the use of restrictive formularies to exclude patients with chronic mental illness, reduced pharmaceutical incentives to develop new drugs, and the characteristics of specific mental health institutions can affect how useful a restrictive formulary will be (7). The implementation of Medicare Part D of the Medicare Modernization Act is certain to test the effectiveness of restricted formularies in controlling costs, as dually eligible clients (those covered by both Medicaid and Medicare) who have previously had their pharmacy benefits covered by Medicaid are shifted to Medicare coverage. This shift has caused some Medicaid directors to wonder whether these individuals will actually lose some of their medication coverage (8).Among the innovative strategies discussed, approaches differ in objective and locus of control. The initiatives of the Pennsylvania state system, Missouri, and the VA have as their primary goal improving or maintaining the quality of care, with cost saving as an anticipated secondary outcome. In contrast, Kaiser-Permanente's primary goal is to manage cost without decreasing quality of care. Philadelphia and Massachusetts negotiate pharmacy benefits and cost and patient care through a multidisciplinary work group or committee. Although these programs have not yet documented the actual cost savings, it is encouraging that states and health care organizations can promote thoughtful and quality driven prescribing practices.Dr. Ning is affiliated with the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Temple University Hospital-Episcopal Campus, 100 East Lehigh Avenue, Medical Arts Building, Suite 305, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125 (e-mail, [email protected]). Dr. Dubin is with the Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia. Dr. Parks is with the Missouri Department of Mental Health in Jefferson City. Fred C. Osher, M.D., is editor of this column.References1. Schreter RK: Managed pharmacy: a new direction in cost containment. Psychiatric Practice and Managed Care 6:4,2000Google Scholar2. Hoadley J: Cost Containment Strategies for Prescription: Assessing the Evidence in the Literature. Washington, DC, Kaiser Family Foundation, Mar 2005Google Scholar3. Gottlieb D, Dubin WR, A, et al: Improving psychiatric drug benefit management: IV. experiences of a pharmacy advisory committee. Psychiatric Services 55:1210–1212,2004Link, Google Scholar4. Sabin JE, Daniels N: Improving psychiatric drug benefit management: II. Kaiser Permanente's approach to SSRIs. Psychiatric Services 54:1343–1349,2003Link, Google Scholar5. Sabin JE, Daniels N: Improving psychiatric drug benefit management: I. lessons from Massachusetts. Psychiatric Services 54:949–951,2003Link, Google Scholar6. Sabin JE, Daniels N: Improving psychiatric drug benefit management: III. the VA's approach to atypical antipsychotics. Psychiatric Services 55:22–25,2004Link, Google Scholar7. Huskamp H: Managing psychotropic drug costs: will formularies work? Health Affairs 22(5):84–96,2003Google Scholar8. Smith V, Gifford K, Kramer S, et al: Implications of the Medicare Modernization Act for States: Observations From a Focus Group Discussion With Medicaid Directors. Washington, DC, Kaiser Family Foundation, Jan 2005Google Scholar FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited byCommunity Mental Health Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1When Is Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Supported by Research Evidence? Implications for QIThe Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 34, No. 10Implementation Science, Vol. 3, No. 1Psychotropic Medication Patterns Among Youth in Foster Care1 January 2008 | Pediatrics, Vol. 121, No. 1Psychiatric Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 4 Volume 56Issue 8 August 2005Pages 909-911 Metrics PDF download History Published online 1 August 2005 Published in print 1 August 2005" @default.
• W2160315512 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2160315512 creator A5003290872 @default.
• W2160315512 creator A5024033524 @default.
• W2160315512 creator A5057458347 @default.
• W2160315512 date "2005-08-01" @default.
• W2160315512 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2160315512 title "State Mental Health Policy: Pharmacy Costs: Finding a Role for Quality" @default.
• W2160315512 cites W1966753563 @default.
• W2160315512 cites W2066540630 @default.
• W2160315512 cites W2099212285 @default.
• W2160315512 cites W2124115963 @default.
• W2160315512 cites W2149391533 @default.
• W2160315512 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.56.8.909" @default.
• W2160315512 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16088006" @default.
• W2160315512 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2160315512 type Work @default.
• W2160315512 sameAs 2160315512 @default.
• W2160315512 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2160315512 countsByYear W21603155122012 @default.
• W2160315512 countsByYear W21603155122015 @default.
• W2160315512 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2160315512 hasAuthorship W2160315512A5003290872 @default.
• W2160315512 hasAuthorship W2160315512A5024033524 @default.
• W2160315512 hasAuthorship W2160315512A5057458347 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C104863432 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C134362201 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C104863432 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C111472728 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C11413529 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C118552586 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C134362201 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C138885662 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C144133560 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C15744967 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C159110408 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C2779530757 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C41008148 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C48103436 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C71924100 @default.
• W2160315512 hasConceptScore W2160315512C99454951 @default.
• W2160315512 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2160315512 hasLocation W21603155121 @default.
• W2160315512 hasLocation W21603155122 @default.
• W2160315512 hasOpenAccess W2160315512 @default.
• W2160315512 hasPrimaryLocation W21603155121 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W136575862 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W1679520301 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2184085383 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2280850722 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2468209686 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2569401834 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W2983582011 @default.
• W2160315512 hasRelatedWork W592034735 @default.
• W2160315512 hasVolume "56" @default.
• W2160315512 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2160315512 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2160315512 magId "2160315512" @default.
• W2160315512 workType "article" @default.