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. 33, No. 5, pp. 541-547. DOI 10.1345/aph.18266
© 1999 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow PDF
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 Culbertson, V.
Right arrow Articles by Force, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Culbertson, V.
Right arrow Articles by Force, W.


Research Articles

Positive impact of a follow-up phone call to community pharmacies in a medicaid drug utilization program

VL Culbertson, RW Force, PS Cady, and WS Force

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of including community pharmacists in strategies to alter excessive prescribing of antiulcer medications (AUMs) in a statewide drug utilization review (DUR) program. Mailing educational materials to physicians is a common intervention strategy of retrospective DUR programs. However, pharmacists are typically left out of this process, ignoring a possibly influential healthcare provider. METHODOLOGY: Patients without gastroesophageal reflux disease who received > or = 1.0 normalized therapeutic equivalents (e.g., 1.0 NTE = ranitidine 300 mg/d or omeprazole 20 mg/d) for five of six prior months were included. The pharmacists and physicians of these patients were divided into one of three geographically distinct groups: group 1 physicians received mailed materials only (pharmacists were not contacted); group 2 physicians and pharmacists received mailed materials only; and group 3 physicians and pharmacists received mailed materials, and the pharmacists were contacted by phone. Mean NTE and AUM costs were analyzed six months before and six months following the intervention. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight, 329, and 248 patients were included in G1, G2, and G3, respectively. There was a 12.4%, 8.0%, and 14.0% reduction in NTE for G1, G2, and G3, respectively. G1 AUM cost decreased 7.7% ($7710); G2 decreased 6.8% ($14 037); G3 decreased 20.5% ($26722). The total decrease in AUM cost for the entire cohort from before to after the intervention was $48469 (p < 0.05) in the six months following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A follow-up phone call to pharmacists in a statewide DUR intervention enhances the effectiveness of DUR interventions under the conditions studied. Enlisting the support of community pharmacists may improve the cost savings of these interventions.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1999 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.