Implementation and Utilization of Real-time Prescription Benefit Tools Across Three Large Academic Health Systems
Ali, M.; Schwartz, J. I.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Potu, N.; Rottier, W.; Dziedzic, P.; Smith, E.; Mehta, T.; Kashyap, N.; Fliotsos, M. J.; Luo, J.; Epstein, J.; Segal, J. B.; Lehmann, H.; Crotty, B. H.; Woreta, F. A.
Show abstract
BackgroundReal-time prescription benefit (RTPB) tools provide clinicians an out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) estimate at the time of prescribing and may help them select medications with lower OOPC for their patients. ObjectiveTo evaluate how RTPB tools altered medication orders during clinical encounters and assess patient and clinician characteristics associated with the display of RTPB tool and alternative selection. DesignRetrospective cohort study SettingOutpatient encounters at three academic medical centers ParticipantsPatients and clinicians MeasurementsPatient characteristics, clinician characteristics and medication alternatives suggested by RTPB tool were compared across the three sites. ResultsFrom April 2019 to October 2021, 6,562,442 patient encounters occurred between 3,624 clinicians and 1,261,551 unique patients. Medications were prescribed in 2,152,772 (32.8%) encounters, of which RTPB tool retrieved and displayed alternatives in 968,811 (45.0%) encounters. The clinician selected an alternative in 68,731/968,811 (7.1%) of the encounters during which 89,050 medications were prescribed. The unit cost of alternative medications remained the same for most orders (n=41,212; 58.4%), while 18,629 (26.4%) had lower cost and 10,728 (15.2%) alternate orders had higher cost. Clinicians selected a different pharmacy among 39,634 (44.5%) and a different pharmacy type (mail vs retail) among 7,508 (12.7%) of the alternate medication orders, of which most were to mail order 4,680 (62.3%). LimitationsWe could not assess the role of pharmacy benefit manager coverage, cash-based alternative pricing, and impact of prior authorizations which may be assessed during future investigations. ConclusionAlternate prescribing after implementation of RTPB tools was low across the three institutions. Unit cost of the medication did not often change. Most changes reflected pharmacy choice. Further studies are needed to assess the barriers in adoption of RTPB tools.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Implementation Of Preemptive Pharmacogenomics Testing For Personalized Medicine At An Academic Medical Center 91%
- Clinical Utility of Automatable Prediction Models for Improving Palliative and End-Of-Life Care Outcomes: Towards Routine Decision Analysis Before Implementation 91%
- Empowering Personalized Pharmacogenomics with Generative AI Solutions 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Enhancing Research Data Infrastructure to Address the Opioid Epidemic: The Opioid Overdose Network (02-Net) 93%
- Development and Application of Pharmacological Statin-Associated Muscle Symptoms Phenotyping Algorithms Using Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records Data 92%
- Determining prescriptions in electronic health care (EHR) data: methods for development of standardised, reproducible drug codelists 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A qualitative exploration of barriers to efficient and effective Structured Medication Reviews in Primary Care: Findings from the DynAIRx study 93%
- What matters to patients?: a timely question for Value Based Care 93%
- Assessment of knowledge and perception of prescribers towards rational medicine use in the Ashanti Region of Ghana 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accuracy of preferred language data in a multi-hospital electronic health record in Toronto, Canada 94%
- The High Price of Equity in Pulse Oximetry: A cost evaluation and need for interim solutions 92%
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.