The Annals New | Pharmaco Epidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 1088-1091.
© 1996 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, E.
Right arrow Articles by Proteau, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, E.
Right arrow Articles by Proteau, D


Research Articles

Retrospective drug utilization review software systems: perspectives of state Medicaid DUR directors

EP Armstrong and D Proteau

OBJECTIVE: To determine the desirability or perceived need of retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) software system characteristics. DESIGN: A 32-item questionnaire. SETTING: Ambulatory DUR directors covering more than 33 million patients. PARTICIPANTS: Medicaid DUR directors from 49 states and the District of Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five-point Likert scale measures of importance of system and vendor characteristics. RESULTS: A 100% response rate was achieved. Respondents rated the ability to change or modify criteria as very important and thought it was important to receive criteria sets from software vendors. Respondents believed cost-savings methodologies should be clearly defined and false positive DUR criteria should be minimized. CONCLUSIONS: Through the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, considerable experience in ambulatory DUR programs has been achieved. Respondents believed the ability to change DUR criteria was very important and they thought it was important to have a set of criteria supplied from software vendors. Critical issues of criteria development, cost-savings methodologies, minimizing false positive criteria, and outcomes assessment from DUR programs were important issues to DUR directors.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1996 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.