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

Pharmacy "Discount Cards" = Point Shaving

Point shaving - A type of match fixing where the performers try to prevent a team from covering a published point spread. Unlike other forms of match fixing, sports betting invariably motivates point shaving. A point shaving scheme generally involves a sports gambler and one or more players of the sports team favored to win the game. In exchange for a bribe, the player or players agree to ensure that their team will not "cover the spread". The Gamler then wagers against the team.

- Wikipedia (to keep it sinmple)

Point shaving is illegal and it looked at as a form of corruption. It is usually collusion between sports players and bookies to make a great deal of money at the expense of others who are gambling on the game.

This is exactly how pharmacy "discount cards" work!

Think about it for a minute. A person can usually sign up for a pharmacy "discount card" for free or a very small fee. The user then brings the "discount card" to the pharmacy where it is input into the computer as insurance (on the billing end they are treated the same). The "discount card" will usually reduce the price of your medication based on what the pharmacy markup is. Since brand name prescriptions have a lower markup than generics they have a smaller discount. In most cases I have seen it reduces the out of pocket expense of the prescription to the pharmacy cost plus a few dollars as our dispensing fee.

So how is a pharmacy "discount card" like point shaving?

Simple...

The people who make the pharmacy "discount card" charges the pharmacy (in a few cases the patient) a fee for using their discount services. In many cases this fee ranges from $2 - $5, depending largely on which card is used. On average this fee is ~$3 per prescription. This may sound like a nominal fee for such a discount however; many times these cards make more on the medication the pharmacy dispenses than the pharmacy itself!

These "discount card" makers also give distributors (aka the guy who mails the pharmacy the card or is passing them out) a cut of what they make. His profit is usually somewhere around $1 per prescription. Check out this website and tell me this isn't some sort of crazy pyramid scheme! Here is a pic from the website...

That's right, the guy who made this "discount card" makes more money than I do, despite the fact that I have the product that will improve a patient's health, have a doctorate in the field of pharmacy, assume every single aspect of risk and liability in filling your prescription and even offer consultation on how to properly and best use the medication!

Over the long haul these "discount cards” cut into the overall profitability of the pharmacy. This forces pharmacies to have less tech and pharmacist hours which increases the chance of having errors occur due to increased demands on the workers. Also, by cutting into the pharmacies overhead on the prescriptions, it forces the pharmacy to raise its prices on medications to try to recoup the loss of income associated with filling these prescriptions. Eventually this price trickles over to everyone else as well. Granted most insurance companies are protected due to negotiated prices. The person who really gets hammered is the cash paying patient who has no insurance or "discount card". I promote being your own advocate as much as anyone, but this is really a case of punishing the wrong people: The pharmacy workers and the innocent cash paying patient!

So here is the direct comparison:

Player who shaves points = Patient with discount card

Bookie who makes a lot of money = Pharmacy "discount card" supplier and distributor

People who are scammed by betting = Pharmacy staff and other patients.

The main difference here is that the patient with the "discount card" usually does not know how these cards truly work. Therefore, I must say they are not at fault and I am not blaming them. It's just a shame that the person who gives out these discount cards can make so much money! I must say, I have seen some cards that are handed out by a local county that they either don't take that much of a fee or any at all. I have less of an issue with these cards as they appear to be more altruistic.

All of this points at a big issue in the retail pharmacy industry (and healthcare in general), the need for clearer pricing and compensation guidelines. There will be a post to follow on that at some point, however if we had clearer standards the industry would benefit as a whole. Unfortunately, businesses prefer to do whatever it takes to draw patients in so they can sell them items with higher markups than prescriptions such as soda, OTC diet pills and candy bars. This results in many of them taking these discount cards and over working there associates in a cut throat fashion to make and extra dollar while not truly worrying about patient care.

I encourage everyone to do some research and see who is REALLY getting paid when they pick up their prescription...

Why Can't Pharmacists Prescribe?

I have long wondered to myself, "Why can't pharmacists prescribe?"

The immediate answer is usually "Well they dispense medication and the physician prescribes them. It's always that way, checks and balances!"

It is hard to argue with a system that has been in place for such a long time, but really ask yourself "Why can't the medical professional who is the most focused on medications not prescribe them?" Doesn't that make some sense? If nothing else at LEAST the pharmacists with PharmD degrees have enough education to prescribe, hence why it is a terminal degree in medicine.

To me it just makes sense that an MD or prescriber would write a diagnosis on a prescription and a pharmacist would then select the correct medication for the patient based upon the prescribers diagnosis. Just include all patient labs with the prescription and I can easily come up with a good solution. That is the whole point of earning a PharmD degree (yes the D stands for doctorate!). Many times a day I have to call a prescriber's office to get a medication switched to something else for a variety of reasons. Never mind the amount of times I have to call due to drug interactions or another circumstance in which I give the prescriber my personal opinion on which medication would work for the patient. Doesn't this mean I am basically prescribing for the patient anyways?

Most MD's will admit that even though they know medication they do, to some degree, rely on pharmacists to a good extent. Personally, I catch, on average, 4 significant drug interactions and 8-10 people who are abusing, in some fashion, a controlled substance. On a daily basis I also see upwards of 25-40 patients a day who are not taking their medication correctly or run out of medication while waiting to hear from the physician, nurse practitioner or whoever else prescribes their medications. Many times this is because of cost issues, insurance prior authorizations or wait times to see the prescriber.

With so many patients who are not taking the medications or not taking them correctly, why can't pharmacists use their professional judgement to prescribe a similar medication that is less expensive, is easier to use or cover the period until the patient can see their prescriber? This is a minimal level of prescribing that can save an untold amount of money to the health care system, save the professionals the cost of time dealing with these issues, improve patient adherence and improve overall health care?

Recently there was an article published by the New England Health Institute (NEHI) that reported how non-adherence to medication costs $290 billion to the United States. (Link)

$290,000,000,000!

That's almost equivalent to what the United States spends on medication, which is $307 billion. (Link) That's a lot of wasted money! Money that could be saved by simple adherence to a drug regimen. Even if measures to improve drug adherence cost $100 billion that still saves $190 billion AND improve the overall healthcare provided.

I feel that pharmacists should be able to prescribe if nothing else in a limited role that could help improve healthcare and save money. A pharmacist can note if a patient is not getting their refills on time and counsel the patient as to why. Taking this into consideration the pharmacist could prescribe something that might work better for that patient. Even if a medication costs a little bit more but improves compliance (such as metoprolol ER versus metoprolol) the cost would improve the patient compliance and improve outcomes down the road, thus saving money overall.

This limited prescribing could also lead to changes in some brand name medications to alternative generics or switching a medication entirely if a patient complains of side effects that are limiting the daily activities or causing them other issues that warrant attention. In many cases, does a patient really need to see a prescriber just to get a medicine like naproxen 500mg or to get a prenatal vitamin? These simple medications could be addressed by a pharmacist very easily. All we need is the ability to bill for our services. This charge would be less that MD's and on par with most nurse practitioners, while increasing access to care from an equally qualified practitioner.

The major issue here is communication with the prescriber, which would require some sort of notification sent from the pharmacy to the physician.

Some people may say that medication therapy management (MTM's) is the same thing, yet many physicians who I have either talked to or worked with feel that MTM's are a way to micromanage their practice. MTM's also don't address the urgency that some patients may need or the waiting time to see the prescriber. Personally, I like the idea of MTM's but really feel there needs a prescribing aspect to them to make them excel.

A point that people may point at is the potential for a conflict on interest by the pharmacist to prescribe medications they make a higher profit from. This is a legitimate concern, however, most insurances have prior authorizations in place to stop the use of more expensive medications. If a pharmacist couldn't get these medications covered, they would defeat the purpose of their prescribing role, which is to save money. Also, most generic medications result in higher profits for pharmacies due to the lower cost, hence this is another incentive for pharmacists to prescribe generics. The system already has measures in place that would help pharmacists focus on providing optimal care while keeping the cost of medications low.

Another thing that I find ironic to my point is the hospital system. Many pharmacists will switch medications to similar ones in a hospital because the medication the prescriber wrote for is not on formulary. Wait, isn't that similar to limited prescribing? Why can't all pharmacists do this? Isn't this just further validation of the point that pharmacists should be able to prescribe, especially since it saves money?

Let me also clarify that I am not advocating for pharmacists to replace physicians, especially specialists. They clearly have an important role in providing healthcare. I am advocating for expanding the practice of pharmacy as a way to decrease total healthcare expenditures while improving care. Isn't that one of the major focuses by EVERY political party right now?

I am extremely interested in feedback on this and look forward to hearing from others on it.