Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec;24(12):1278-1283.
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.12.1278.

Lessons Learned from Using Global Outcome Measures to Assess Community Pharmacy Performance

Affiliations

Lessons Learned from Using Global Outcome Measures to Assess Community Pharmacy Performance

Benjamin Y Urick et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: As value-based and alternative payment models proliferate, there is growing interest in measuring pharmacy performance. However, little research has explored the development and implementation of systems to measure pharmacy performance. Additionally, systems that currently exist rely on process and surrogate outcome measures that are not always relevant to patients and payers.

Program description: This article describes the process used to design and implement a performance measurement program for a group of enhanced services pharmacies in North Carolina. This program was successful in measuring quality based on medication adherence, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and total cost of medical care for nearly all North Carolina pharmacies. Measures were scored and combined into a single 11-point composite pharmacy performance score. To demonstrate the measures, we compared performance scores for enhanced services pharmacies (n = 119) to other North Carolina pharmacies (n = 1,616) during the baseline measurement period (March 1, 2015-May 31, 2015). Adherence measure scores for enhanced services pharmacies exceeded those of other pharmacies (P values < 0.0001-0.003), but total scores were not significantly different, with enhanced services pharmacy mean total scores of 6.54 vs. 6.29 for all other pharmacies (P = 0.115).

Observations: The program described provides an example of a composite performance measurement system that can be used to support alternative pharmacy payment models and shows that case-mix adjustment is possible for broad outcomes such as those used in this program. The measures used for the program depend on timely feeds of medical claims. Payers and pharmacy networks implementing a similar program may need to explore alternative structure or process measures.

Implications: As pharmacy payment models evolve, there may be value in collaboration between academics, pharmacists, and payers to bring different areas of expertise and perspectives into the performance measurement process. This program demonstrates that global outcome measurement is possible over a broad set of pharmacies and invites additional research to explore the validity of this and other methods to measure pharmacy quality and performance.

Disclosures: The program described in this article was supported by Funding Opportunity Number 1C12013003897 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies. Community Care of North Carolina received the grant and subcontracted with the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy to carry out this project. Shasky, Pfeiffenberger, and Trygstad are employed by Community Care of North Carolina. Urick and Ferreri are employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Farley was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy during data collection for this project and reports consulting fees from UCB Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to this project. Pfeiffenberger reports membership on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) task force on pharmacy level measures; Trygstad is a PQA board member; Urick is a member of a scientific advisory committee for PQA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The program described in this article was supported by Funding Opportunity Number 1C12013003897 from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The contents provided are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HHS or any of its agencies. Community Care of North Carolina received the grant and subcontracted with the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy to carry out this project. Shasky, Pfeiffenberger, and Trygstad are employed by Community Care of North Carolina. Urick and Ferreri are employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Farley was employed by the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy during data collection for this project and reports consulting fees from UCB Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to this project. Pfeiffenberger reports membership on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) task force on pharmacy level measures; Trygstad is a PQA board member; Urick is a member of a scientific advisory committee for PQA.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Steps for Designing a Performance Measure Set

References

    1. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):897-99. - PubMed
    1. Kessell E, Pegany V, Keolanui B, Fulton BD, Scheffler RM, Shortell SM. Review of Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial quality of care measures: considerations for assessing accountable care organizations. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2015;40(4):761-96. - PubMed
    1. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-48. - PubMed
    1. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-81. - PubMed
    1. Deninger M. The rewards of performance. The Thriving Pharmacist. May 7, 2015. Available at: http://www.thethrivingpharmacist.com/2015/05/07/the-rewards-of-performance/. Accessed September 18, 2018.

MeSH terms