首页> 外文期刊>Journal of managed care pharmacy : >Examination of why some community pharmacists do not provide 72-hour emergency prescription drugs to medicaid patients when prior authorization is not available
【24h】

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

机译:在没有事先授权的情况下检查为什么一些社区药师不向受助医学患者提供72小时紧急处方药

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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 pharmacistin-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 RESEARCH 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.
机译:背景:现有的联邦法律要求在没有事先授权(PA)且需要立即用药的情况下,向Medicaid患者分配72小时的紧急处方药。药剂师的作用是联系处方者,并告知他们需要PA。如果无法联系到开处方者,则药剂师可以分配72小时的紧急补给。目的:确定(a)一些社区药房所有人/经理,药剂师和技术人员不遵守法律的原因; (b)多久作出一次决定; (c)估算没有PA时药房不分配72小时紧急供应的频率。方法:将调查表邮寄到德克萨斯州的某些社区药房。该仪器由研究人员开发,并经过德克萨斯医疗补助供应商药物计划人员的审查。德克萨斯大学调查研究办公室通过邮件和在线方式在2011年9月和10月收集了这些数据。数据已转发给研究人员进行分析。总共向788个已确定的社区药房邮寄了一个小包,其中包含3个问卷,由药师负责人,药房药剂师和药房技术人员填写。有2封邮件邮寄了调查表数据包,并给未答复者打了后续电话。结果:从邮寄问卷数据包的788家药房中,总共653份问卷已完成填写并从288家社区药房中退回(占36.7%)。来自连锁店药房受访者的问卷共368(57.5%)张,来自独立药房受访者的问卷272(42.5%)。总计21.3%(n = 134)的受访者表示,他们不了解联邦和州在没有事先授权(PA)的情况下向医疗补助患者分配72小时紧急处方药的要求。与独立药房受访者(14.3%)相比,更大比例的连锁店受访者(26.6%)不知道需求。总计77.7%的受访者估计他们决定每月提供6次或更少次数的72小时紧急药物供应。总共14.6%的人表示他们每月做出6至11次决定,而7.7%的人每月做出11次以上决定。当被问及在没有PA的情况下,被访者多久发现德克萨斯州医疗补助对象没有分配72小时紧急处方时,有49.1%的回答是“从不”。但是,有30.0%的人表示每月一次或两次,有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。 Research无法分配72小时紧急药品供应的2大原因是:“不愿打开新的“使用单位”容器(尤其是30天的供应瓶)”和“ Rx很有可能会随着在PA电话中,为什么要分配72个小时的原始处方药供应量?“受访者会“分配” 72个小时的紧急处方药的头等大类是抗生素;吸入罐用于恶心/呕吐,咳嗽和感冒的产品;抗癫痫药;结论:结果表明,有很多因素导致无法使用PA时药剂师不提供72小时急诊药物。缺乏对联邦和州要求的了解与未分配72小时药物的频率密切相关。此外,其他阻碍该过程的因素还包括:药剂师无法联系医生或与医生缺乏合作,管制药物的处方,药品包装的限制以及分配72小时药品的财务风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号