WSJ: Now pharmacists want to play doctor too

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

vancouvergeorge

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
How to Care for 30 Million More Patients

Pharmacists can help fill the gap and save money, too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264584120959328.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Many worry there won't be enough physicians to care for the estimated 30 million more patients who will be insured under the health law passed earlier this year. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates a shortage that could reach 150,000 doctors by 2025.

Pharmacists, who number almost 300,000 today, could help fill the gap. The men and women who complete a four-year graduate professional program are trained to master complex medications—including more than 10,000 prescription drugs and dozens of new, more sophisticated ones approved annually by the Food and Drug Administration.

For patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma who typically must take multiple drugs, pharmacists' knowledge of drug interactions can be life-saving. Yet pharmacists typically do little to help these patients. If they were allowed to take on some oversight duties, they could help alleviate the burden on physicians.

Pharmacists could review test results such as the blood glucose levels of patients with diabetes. They could adjust the dosage of prescribed drugs to achieve the goals for these patients set by physicians. They could keep an eye on patient use of other medications to avoid complications. And they could teach patients how to conduct self-administered tests, order lab tests when indicated, and monitor compliance with medication, diet and exercise regimens.

Considering that 40% of Americans have at least one chronic disease during their lifetime that requires regular oversight, the time savings for physicians could be substantial. And so might the costs of care.

This is not an untested theory. Pharmacists already manage some patients with chronic diseases. In 1996, the city of Asheville, N.C., a self-insured employer, began paying pharmacists to work with its diabetic employees. Known as the Asheville Project, the goal was to improve worker health and lower treatment costs for both employee and employer.

The results exceeded expectations. From 1997 to 2001, the city of Asheville reported that annual direct medical costs per worker dropped, on average, by $1,200 to $1,872—even as 15% more enrollees came within reach of their therapeutic goal.

The project has since been expanded to cover other chronic diseases, and Asheville estimates it has saved $4 for every $1 invested. Some 80 employers nationwide have adopted the treatment model, including Mohawk Industries, the national carpet manufacturer in Dublin, Ga.
At safety-net clinics in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh, pharmacists have teamed with physicians to care for patients with chronic diseases while saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment costs. This is remarkable because many of these patients struggle with homelessness, low literacy and unemployment. Now the federal Health Resources and Services Administration's Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Collaborative is pushing for the presence of pharmacists at every community clinic in the nation.

Still, these projects are limited in scope because pharmacists are not considered health-care providers by Medicare and Medicaid. Private foundations or grants underwrite services at some safety-net clinics, while other clinics pick up the tab.

The next, critical step is to change the reimbursement codes of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services to allow pharmacists to play a larger role in patient care. Doing so may initially increase overall medical costs. But in the long run, as the Asheville Project demonstrates, it will save money and improve patient health.

Pharmacists are not spoiling for a turf war with physicians. The two professions already team up under "collaborative practice" agreements as in Asheville and Los Angeles that clearly define what the pharmacist can and cannot do.

The traditional medical model—in which a single physician provides all recommended care to patients—has run its course. With an aging population and millions of expected new patients, chronic disease rates are expected to rise. What we need is a new health-care delivery model in which the primary-care physician is complemented by a team of professionals and providers. Congress should enable pharmacists to become part of that team.

Mr. Vanderveen is the dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I would trust a pharmacist more than an NP.

But, on the whole, this seems to be a proposal for pharmacists to perform the role of a midlevel, and I am not sure why they would want to do this???
 
They have more training and scientific knowledge than NPs. Of course, the NPs would howl and rage and probably get their way.

It continues to amaze me that the solution to "get more primary providers" is not treat physicians better, but find anyone and everyone else who could possibly do the job.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
this is scary because imagine if a pt goes to a pharmacist to have his insulin manage, a NP to a walk in clinic for a cold/etc for which an antibiotic was wrongly prescribed and then that same pt comes to you as her/his PCP every 4-6 months and tells you about ALL the places and changes to med they have been doing to his/her meds?

This is going to be pretty freaking scary for PCP's in a couple of years. And for me, a hospitalist, wont be easy too. Imagine a pt been admitted to the hospital and you call the PCP for a med list but then the family member of the pt tells you " I think she had some of her meds change by the pharmacist or a NP/RN at one of those clinics".
 
They have more training and scientific knowledge than NPs. Of course, the NPs would howl and rage and probably get their way.

It continues to amaze me that the solution to "get more primary providers" is not treat physicians better, but find anyone and everyone else who could possibly do the job.

They don't treat physicians better because they're too focused on finding a lower cost alternative to physicians, despite the fact that physicians make up like 10% or less of overall health care expenditures. Physicians are the weak link though, you can break them down all you want because the insurance lobbies and business interests of hospitals will ensure that they get paid.

Think of it this way. You pay to get your lawn mowed. The guy who mows your lawn gets paid minimum wage on a per hour basis. You don't wanna pay that much anymore, so you find some illegal alien who will take half as much money to do "the same thing". You don't stop and consider treating your minimum wage worker better...you're looking for a lower cost alternative. That's what they're doing to docs. The only problem is, there is a huge difference in quality of work between midlevels and physicians compared to your illegal alien vs your minimum wage lawnmower. Plus, if your lawn mower man messes up...no sweat. If your health care provider messes up, someone could die. However, they continue to push because the people making the decisions don't really care whether you live or die. They just wanna give as much free stuff away to stay in power as long as possible and collect that paycheck in the process.
 
Anyone notice it's written by the dean of a pharmacy school? Money makes the world go round folks.

Good observation.

Some pharmacists, like the author of this article, simply want to jump on the "acting like a PCP" bandwagon, just like the NPs are doing now. The mind-set behind this article is that the healthcare reform has made the criteria for providing primary care pretty lenient, so if NPs can work as PCPs, why not the pharmacists as well? Why do you think that the research in Asheville is mentioned here? It was conducted about 10 years ago, so its results were known for a while. Why mention it now? IMO, they want to get their share from Obama's reforms too.
 
Good observation.

Some pharmacists, like the author of this article, simply want to jump on the "acting like a PCP" bandwagon, just like the NPs are doing now. The mind-set behind this article is that the healthcare reform has made the criteria for providing primary care pretty lenient, so if NPs can work as PCPs, why not the pharmacists as well? Why do you think that the research in Asheville is mentioned here? It was conducted about 10 years ago, so its results were known for a while. Why mention it now? IMO, they want to get their share from Obama's reforms too.


Have you read the article? If so, please show me where it stated that a pharmacist wanted to act as a PCP.

PS. The Asheville project is definitely one of the most popular ones done in the past decade, so it is still pretty much relevant. Plus there are many other projects of this nature out there.
 
Have you read the article? If so, please show me where it stated that a pharmacist wanted to act as a PCP.

"The traditional medical model—in which a single physician provides all recommended care to patients—has run its course. With an aging population and millions of expected new patients, chronic disease rates are expected to rise. What we need is a new health-care delivery model in which the primary-care physician is complemented by a team of professionals and providers. Congress should enable pharmacists to become part of that team."

But sure, they want to be a part of the "team", not actually act as docs. Isn't that what NPs kept saying for a while? And look what's become of them now.
 
"The traditional medical model—in which a single physician provides all recommended care to patients—has run its course. With an aging population and millions of expected new patients, chronic disease rates are expected to rise. What we need is a new health-care delivery model in which the primary-care physician is complemented by a team of professionals and providers. Congress should enable pharmacists to become part of that team."

But sure, they want to be a part of the "team", not actually act as docs. Isn't that what NPs kept saying for a while? And look what's become of them now.

Actually, medication management has been something pharmacists have been doing on a smaller scale for years now. The added involvement of pharmacists have reduced costs and improved outcomes. In WV, there is a program called "Face-to-Face" where pharmacists have monthly 30 minute meetings with patients where the discuss their diabetes management. The cost savings and improvement in outcomes were so dramatic that PEIA, the insurer who pays for the program, require ALL T2DM patients to enroll and attend the program.

Here's what you should understand - all of this is as an adjunct to a practitioner performing an accurate physical diagnosis. Pharmacists aren't "trying to play physician", nor steal from your perceived honeypot. If anything, the pharmacist might detect something in between physician office visits that would warrant a referral for a visit, thus bringing more business to the primary practitioner.
 
Physicians, remember that as more "providers" get paid by Medicare/Medicaid, we all get paid less. The pool of money is fixed by the federal government. You start allowing pharmacists and every other ******* under the sun to bill for "services" then that money is coming out of your paycheck. The SGR formula is a zero sum game. You pay pharmacists to manage medications, you get paid less for clinic visits. Its that simple.

BTW when is the media going to stop talking about "doctor reimbursement" from Medicare when this money is really one giant pool that is split among ALL "providers" including NPs, PAs, pharmacists, psychologist PhDs, MSWs, diabetes educators, and scores of other people?
 
Here's what you should understand - all of this is as an adjunct to a practitioner performing an accurate physical diagnosis. Pharmacists aren't "trying to play physician", nor steal from your perceived honeypot. If anything, the pharmacist might detect something in between physician office visits that would warrant a referral for a visit, thus bringing more business to the primary practitioner.


Thats garbage, dont piss on my back and tell me its raining. The NPs and PAs said EXACTLY the same thing, and now look where we are at. The pharmacy profession has an agenda to "play doctor" just like the rest of them. This MTM thing is just the foot in the door. In 10, 15, 25 years they will start lobbying for independent practice rights to open up their own clinics with no MD oversight. I'll bet you my entire lifetime earnings on it, because thats what EVERY SINGLE HEALTHCARE "PROVIDER" has sought to do. They didnt start out that way, but thats where they all ended up.
 
Thats garbage, dont piss on my back and tell me its raining. The NPs and PAs said EXACTLY the same thing, and now look where we are at. The pharmacy profession has an agenda to "play doctor" just like the rest of them. This MTM thing is just the foot in the door. In 10, 15, 25 years they will start lobbying for independent practice rights to open up their own clinics with no MD oversight. I'll bet you my entire lifetime earnings on it, because thats what EVERY SINGLE HEALTHCARE "PROVIDER" has sought to do. They didnt start out that way, but thats where they all ended up.

I respectfully disagree.

NPs and PAs are largely diagnostic professions. They have the training to attempt to break into primary care. Pharmacists have no (in depth) training in the art of physical diagnosis. The idea that a pharmacist would even attempt to become a diagnostician is ridiculous.

Pharmacists don't want to be physicians. I don't know why physicians think everyone wants the hassle. Obviously PAs and NPs do, but that's because their job is to be physician-lite. That's not us. Not to mention the fact that the added malpractice insurance rates would be astronomical compared to what we pay now. For pharmacists that currently practice MTM, the malpractice is still very cheap. And as a clinical pharmacist in a hospital, I pay like $150 a year. And I really don't even need it because the hospital pays for $2 million in coverage, anyway.

So take my $120k/yr salary, which WOULD NOT increase with the added roles of being some sort of PCP, and subtract like $60k a year for malpractice. Now I make half of what I used to make! Why in God's name would I want to do that? I suppose they could pay us more, but then a PharmD would be as expensive as a true PCP. And even if it was feasible, to do such a thing would take at least 2 years of postgraduate residency to learn the art of physical diagnosis as well as the other midlevels. That's 8 or 9 years of school...and in about 5 years, everyone in pharmacy will require a BS for admission, so make that 10 or 11 years. I mean, come on...to hell with that, just become a physician at that point.

Nah, eff that. Not to mention the fact that I went into pharmacy because of an obsession with receptor pharmacology and a desire to not have to touch people...ever. But at least try to see how ridiculous it is. I know you people like to argue and proclaim to yourselves how right and intellectually superior you are to everyone else on the planet...but, come on...it just makes no sense at all.

That said, I would gladly accept your wager of the entirety of your lifetime earning that pharmacists will attempt to and somehow succeed in getting independent primary care practicing rights (not including the IHS, where they already pretty much do that, but that's an oddity). Draw that up and send it off to Vegas. I'm sure an oddsmaker would arrange it for a small cut.

And for the record, I don't really give a crap about this personally because I've got more important roles to fulfill elsewhere...I just think some of your arguments are faulty.
 
Last edited:
That said, I would gladly accept your wager of the entirety of your lifetime earning that pharmacists will attempt to and somehow succeed in getting independent primary care practicing rights (not including the IHS, where they already pretty much do that, but that's an oddity). Draw that up and send it off to Vegas. I'm sure an oddsmaker would arrange it for a small cut.


I would also like to get on this side of the bet.

If I wanted to be a doctor I would have gone to medical school.
 
Again, I don't see why pharmacists would want to perform the role of midlevel, which seems to be what this author is proposing...

Unlike these NP programs, pharmacy programs are actually legit, and I am certain that I will never have a problem asking a pharmacist a drug related question--which I can't say that I see myself ever asking a NP any question that is not directly patient-status related that is just to get me up to speed with something I might have missed when I wasn't there.

So... If pharmacists are just wanting to get more involved with drug counseling, I don't see a problem. But, I do see where the whole payment-pie thing gets sticky. Its not like there are unlimited funds floating out there. If insurance companies get on board it could be a good thing, though. My two cents.
 
Here's a hint: $$$$$$$$$$$

Whaaaa??? No dude, it's about filling the shortage in primary care. Just like the nursing dermatology residency at USF. People are just trying to chip in!
:smuggrin:
 
Here's a hint: $$$$$$$$$$$

Not really. The pharmacists that do MTM counseling, if anything, make a tad less than the retail pill jockeys. They just want more of a patient-focused "desk job". Of which I can see the appeal versus retail pharmacy.

If you want to see a successful program that has both decreased total costs per patient and improved patient outcomes, look at WVPEIA Face to Face. This is the type of thing they are talking about. Physicians and patients have been receptive to it. It has truly been a synergistic program that benefits everyone.
 
Not really. The pharmacists that do MTM counseling, if anything, make a tad less than the retail pill jockeys. They just want more of a patient-focused "desk job". Of which I can see the appeal versus retail pharmacy.

If you want to see a successful program that has both decreased total costs per patient and improved patient outcomes, look at WVPEIA Face to Face. This is the type of thing they are talking about. Physicians and patients have been receptive to it. It has truly been a synergistic program that benefits everyone.

funny how one of his main points is to get payments from medicare/aid. Cost more in the beginning but less in the long run...where have I heard that before.
 
I stand by my bet. In the next 15-20 years I GUARANTEE you that some of the national leaders in pharmacy will start calling for pharmacists to be PCPs and run their own clinics with no MD oversight.
 
Top