How I Think Medicaid Should Work

After dealing with Medicaid for years and seeing how misused and abused the system is. Here is my idea of how I would appropriate it. The goal of my plan is to reduce spending and abuse, while improving total care. Some of this does include using state run welfare as an incentive, but we'll get to that later on. At times this may sound like an oversimplification but I feel the loopholes need to be closed and simplifying Medicaid is a good thing. Here is the total cost of Medicaid by states

Here it is:

1. Start with the same qualifying guidelines based upon the current United States poverty thresholds. These would need to be adjusted on a per state basis as $10,000 in California doesn't spend the same way $10,000 does in Indiana. Link to chart 1. Link to calculator. Link to chart 2. Other guidelines in regards to disability, pregnancy and the elderly would remain unchanged.

2. Cut the age of children covered to only those under the age of 18. I am not sure if all, but I know that at least some states have set coverage to children up to age 19. This may only be a small savings but since childhood ends at 18 for everything else, why not Medicaid? Also at 18 someone can legally go get a job and can support themselves.

3. Limit the number of kids a family is allowed to have on Medicaid to 1. If a family has more than 1 child and is forced to go on Medicaid, the parents will not be covered and a max of 3 children will be covered. This may seem cold blooded at first but why should others be punished for the poor decisions of those who cannot support what they have created. If I were in this situation, I'd be sure to do what I could to keep ALL of my children covered first. This same theory could also be applied to food stamps and welfare benefits.

My own opinion is that Medicaid and related benefits should not be a benefit to having more kids. Unfortunately in my own experiences in retail pharmacy, many people are shown and told from a young age how to ensure the survival of themselves and their family by milking the government system for free entitlements. By the same token I do believe that every person should be given a fair chance against whatever circumstances they come into this world under. To steal a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "The test of morality of a society is what it does for it's children."

4. Limit the amount of time an adult can be on Medicaid. My personal suggestion would be 5 years consecutively and a maximum of 15 years between ages 18 and 65. This would help to eliminate people who are living on the system while providing coverage enough for them to get back on their feet through tough times. Thus it's a system set up to help people in case of catastrophe and great need, while cutting those who abuse.

5. Random and frequent drug tests as well as checks for misuse and abuse. Although the test itself would be an increase in expenditures, it would help to ensure that those who are on Medicaid are not dealing in illegal activities (whether it be illegal use or selling) and using the government as a free ride. This would also include tobacco as a substance of abuse. I think most people agree that if someone is found to have an illegal substance in their body (marijuana, heroin, not prescribed opiates, etc.) that they are misusing tax dollars and hence forth do not need the assistance they are receiving.

I have seen many patients who use their government provided healthcare to sell what prescriptions they are given to others. This doesn't only include drugs of abuse such as opiates and benzos, but also chronic disease medications (hypertension & dyslipidemia medications). If someone else can't afford a physician's visit or chooses not to have insurance but can treat their disease by buying medication secondhand from someone who gets them for free why not do that? The goal of this clause it to minimize drug abuse Here are a few decent reads: Abuse, Diversion, Fraud, The Costs of Tobacco.

6. Promote the use of contraception. This includes providing easy access to birth control, condoms, Plan B and any other methods a provider sees fit. This would also include allowing patients on Medicaid to bill condoms, contraceptive foams, etc. to their health care coverage without a prescription. The thought being that the increase in accessibility will help prevent the poor from having unwanted children and helps in aiding to reasoning for my #3 point in this article. Interesting article for those with PubMed. Another read everyone can access.

7. Patients with at least 2 chronic disease states must enroll in medication therapy management (MTM) programs and all patients make >75% of all regularly scheduled medical related visits. This is the MOST vital component in this article! This clause would ensure that patients are in contact with healthcare professionals in a manner that has been proven to decrease overall healthcare expenditures while improving the quality of their healthcare. For those of you who think this is unfair healthcare aimed at benefiting the poor you are right. It also benefits everyone else by spending less money and is thus good for everyone involved. Here are two viewpoints on a version of this: The Hot Spotters by the New Yorker and the actual study.

If you can improve care for those who are poor and those who are unhealthy while reducing costs, why wouldn't you do it? Therefore if a Medicaid patient who qualified did not participate their benefits would be cut. If over the course of 2 years they did not show efforts to help control their disease state while enrolled in this program, they would also be cut. Too cold blooded for you? Well, it's a way to help force patients to use these services with hopes that they will listen and improve their own health while saving money long term for everyone else. If they don't take advantage of what they are given, I, personally, do not feel sorry for them.

This is also a major area where pharmacists can intervene and really help further healthcare in the United States. I feel strongly about this as I see and deal with people on a daily basis and can get a good understanding about them with my own interactions with them. This can vary from MTMs to simple medication reconciliation at hospitals and exit counseling. Here are some examples: NACDS, Cost of medication adherence, A Critical Review of MTMs, Do's and Don't's, Cost Avoidance.

8. Charge copayments for every service. This may spark a little controversy but if you include what their expected copays are in a monthly check it will cover them. Why include it in a check then? Why not just waive the copays? This logic is simple; people only respect what they pay for. If they do not feel an out of pocket burden because something is free they will take it for granted. If they know a prescription costs $15 and an office visit costs $25, they will respect it more and will thus be more apt to listen and adhere to what is prescribed.

One of my pet peeves is when people who are on Medicaid complain that their medication is free. Nothing is free. NOTHING! Someone somewhere is paying for it, hence it should be valued at least partially.


9. A stricter formulary.  Every pharmacist and prescriber hates dealing with prior authorizations of insurance companies.  However, in government run systems, as well as privately, they are a great cost savings measure.  Medicaid does have this in place however, a more stringent guideline system could further cost savings.  For example, if every patient was who needed a statin for dyslipidemia where to first try pravastatin for 6 months over atorvastatin, there could be a great savings.  This savings could be even higher if patients were found to be successful on pravastatin, thus eliminating the need to have ever prescribed atorvastatin.  The same rings true for many drug classes and disease states.  This could also apply to even specific OTC versus prescription products such as fish oil (compared to Lovaza) and niacin (compared to Niaspan) as long as they had proper regulations.  This is relatively in place already but an even further belt tightening could save millions.  Just please make a relevant list available to providers with an easy to use interface.

That's about all I can think to modify most current Medicaid systems. Personally, I think any time government expenditures can be reduced and care can be improved it should be done. Since I have now put my views out there, what do you think? I am sure there is plenty to debate here and I look forward to any and all comments.

-The Pharmer

Should Counseling Be Billable?

Lawyers charge for talking with them in any sort of legal matter.

Physicians usually refer patients to come in before giving medical advice or any sort if they have not seen the patient recently or haven't addressed the issue in question before.

Most public speakers have an honorarium that they are given for showing up in support of a cause or set fee for their speech.

Nurse advice lines usually have a fee of some sort associated with them. If a problem is beyond their level of expertise they refer you to see a physician or nurse practitioner.

Think about it for a minute. Pharmacists provide essential information on how to take and best use a medication, as well as what to watch for and how to best control the problem being treated. Yet they have no real way of billing for this. Whether it takes one minute or an hour shouldn't there be a way to bill for this? This is a professional service, right? It does take my time away from others who need/desire it, that deserves some compensation right?

Now before anyone says I am being greedy, let me explain my reasoning for this. With ever declining reimbursements from insurance companies and PBM's (I'm looking at you Express Scripts!), a pharmacist has to dispense more and more medications to make a pharmacy financially stable. When the point is reached when a pharmacy can not be financially stable nobody wins, except those that created the scenario such as the PBM's. The reason nobody wins is because no patient safety and the quality of care is compromised to dispense a greater volume in less time. If the quality of care declines, so does the overall health of the nation and what is left is a vicious cycle that defeats the original intent. If patient safety declines then you could end up with more side effects, serious drug interactions and possible harm to patients.

Do you see the issue now?

I think it is despicable that reimbursements have gotten so bad (that's a post for another day) but the fact that pharmacists don't get paid for counseling is down right insulting! I know there are MTM services that we can get compensated for but all patients are not eligible for those. Every patient is eligible for consulting the pharmacist about there medication! I think it's actually mandated they must be at LEAST offered consultation in every state.

So if we must give our professional advice and opinions, why aren't we paid for it? The old argument that this "is our

duty" does not hold any water with me anymore seeing how much reimbursements for dispensing have fallen. How can I do "my duty" if it costs me time that forces me to lose money? I can't give professional advice for $0.40 as some insurance companies have proposed!

The solution could be very simple. Have a simple sheet to sign (or credit card like device) that the patient must sign saying the received consultation from the pharmacist. Include in it a simple time spent slot where the pharmacist and/or patient can fill in before they sign. You have complete documentation of how long the pharmacist spent and can be billed appopriately. I doon't think this will produce the positive results seen in full blown MTM programs however, I do think it would produce some significant difference from those who did not receive counseling. This would only apply to patients who were not eligible for MTM programs (i.e. a patient getting a new antibiotic, a methylprednisolone dose pack, etc.). In many cases, the proper use of these medications is vital to reduce rehospitalizations or follow ups, which in turn saves money while improving care.

This isn't a cure all solution BUT I do feel it is a step in the right direction to improve our healthcare.

-The Pharmer

The Scary Future of MTMs

If you have been listening to the recent news and trends in the pharmacy industry any time in the past few years the chances are that you have heard of medications therapy management programs (MTMs or also called MTMPs).

"Medication therapy management, also referred to as MTM, is a term used to describe a broad range of health care services provided by pharmacists, the medication experts on the health care team." - APhA

MTMs were first mentioned in the Medicare reform under President George Bush and have shown to decrease healthcare costs significantly as well as show increased patient compliance and overall improvements in healthcare quality. MTMs have a big role in the future of pharmacy and could really develop a new face for the profession.

There is one key thing to all of this, however. MTMs must be performed in the right way, with physicians and patients who are open to the concept. This way the programs can have optimal results and show other professional and members of the public the benefits of having a pharmacist perform such activities.

I recently found out, through a source not to be named, that a major chain pharmacy is rolling out an "MTM" program. This program however is being done in a very poor manner. The chain is trying to force all of their pharmacists to participate, even those who are older and not fully up to date with current practice guidelines. This chain is also having pharmacists call physicians office and recommend adding/changing medications, which may sound like a good idea however, these pharmacists are doing so with no lab work, no practice agreements with physicians or with patients and nor formal training in how to run or operate and MTM program!

The practicality of this chain's "MTM" setup is just atrocious. How many physicians are open to a pharmacist (or anyone) calling them and recommending they put their patients on more medicine or changes in dosages, outside of the normal calls that occur already? How many patients really want to be on more medications? From my own experience both of these issues provide serious obstacles that I do not see going over very well for the pharmacists involved.

The main problem here is greed. This chain is not reimbursing their pharmacists any more for their time spent performing MTM services. They are forcing them to do all of this on top of giving flu shots, filling the same number of prescriptions (if not more caused by the calls they will be making), answering phone calls, counseling patients and any other duties that need to be performed. This chain has held stagnant is sales while others have increased over the same time period, thus they are trying to increase business by forcing pharmacists to make more phone calls. I am curious to see if the chain will also try to bill insurance companies, particularly Medicare, for these MTM services and how successful they will be in doing so. Let us not forget that all of this is also occurring after this chain cut both pharmacist and technician hours. YIKES!

Another thing that worries me here is the lack of cohesion that this may cause in the pharmacy industry. Accrediting bodies have fought long and hard to get these type of programs set in place and reimbursement for these services, which is great! They have also established residency programs with the specific focus of MTMs and have recently established a board certified program for these types for these types of positions. This chain is single-handedly degrading everything these bodies have worked for by having under qualified professionals perform these duties.

Now, before everybody thinks I am demeaning MTMs I must say that I am in full support of MTM programs and really believe that they are a great thing for pharmacists to be involved in. The provide a great benefit to both the patient, the payer and the healthcare system. That being said, they should be done correctly and rolled out in a manner where all participants are accepting of it. It should not be forced on pharmacists, physicians and patients like this chain is essentially doing.

The problem here is a simple one to me. Too many under qualified pharmacist will be forced to execute MTM services in a poor manner. This could potentially lead to resistance to it's acceptance and eventual adoption into the healthcare system. This would be greatly disappointing because of the potential delay in improved healthcare, education and substantial money saved. I would love to see these types of programs rolled out over the whole U.S.A., I believe the way to do it is start in a manner that will be better accepted by all participants. A suggestion of mine would be to start in smaller areas where pharmacists, physicians and patients all, generally speaking, know each other a little better. This much has already happened to some degree, seeing as how many independent pharmacies currently provide these services. The chains need to start in a similar fashion and be sure to include such services in a manner that takes pressure off of the pharmacist so they are performing these services while prescriptions and other duties are piling up on them. This may mean that one pharmacist has to cover a few different stores until the program is more widely accepted but at least a properly trained professional will be focused and undistracted from what they are to do. This is an idea the previously stated chain is clearly not concerned about.

The biggest thing here is that pharmacists need to step up and show what they can do, but stop trying to be Superman and do everything all at once, which sadly is what we are known for doing. I would love to see MTM services rolled out in a greater scale but I am afraid if not done correctly it could cause years of delays in acceptance and costing this country a lot of money in several different ways. I hope this chain realizes their soon to be potential misstep and really thinks about what they are doing. The problem is stock prices and greed may win out.

(Note: I have left out several citations for fear of fully divulging which chain this is. Any comments left after this are not mine and that of individuals who do not speak on my behalf.)